User talk:Digwuren

This user has a zero tolerance policy towards trolls on Wikipedia.

Archive

1. User talk:Digwuren/Archive 1
2. User talk:Digwuren/Archive 2

Vormsi enn probably needs your attention

FYI - DGG nominated the article for deletion [1] - I don't understand his reasoning yet, but he has earned my respect for his intelectual integrity. This could well be the first occasion, where I will disagree with him. Power.corrupts (talk) 18:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Jaikism

Here we go. Sort of funny. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I figure KL has great future ahead as a snake oil salesman. Or perhaps, snake oil derivative salesman. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the Great Debate in LHV forum has ended after everybody realised that there's nothing that can beat umpteenth repetition of the same nonsense in a fair debate. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

A pity ScienceApologist doesn't read Estonian [2]. --Miacek (t) 20:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

There's always Google Translate. It's not always perfect, but the Immortal Quote by one Kalev Rigid comes thus out of its bowels:

“ This theory and the formula is, after all, bullshit. I can not very well understand the meaning of the symbols in the formula, but suppose, however, that the formula is wrong in principle. ”

Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Digwuren/Talk:Soviet occupation denialism

I have commented away the project transclusions as it caused a lot of problems for categories, especially for Article alerts. I can elaborate if you don't understand what I'm talking about.Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL

I for one think you are a very mature seven year old. Ostap 18:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It took me a whole year to learn it, but it was well worth it. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

AE

There was some egregious personal attack on you by Russavia in January. Well, there have been many since then, but I mean that one which was really unforgettable. It alone outweights everything in his AE by far. Any chance you remember where it was? Colchicum (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I know what you have in mind, but it'll take some time to actually find it. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 23:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is it: [3]. Wow, it is even worse than I thought. Colchicum (talk) 00:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Attacks resumed: [4]. His case is lost. Colchicum (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sure Russavia will never submit this case to ArbCom. First of all, it is he who was incivil. Second, he called ArbCom proceedings "Stalinist trials". How can he trust them? His "AE" is just another disruption.Biophys (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

There's an old Estonian saying which could be translated as it's best to plan for contingencies before they happen. Of course, being a chronic procrastinator, I hope you're right. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

His AE indeed goes against one of the Arbcom's rulings (from the Irpen-Piotrus case or something like this), but his dislike of the Arbcom will hardly stop him. He can nominate the Kosovo-some obscure Pacific island relations substubs for deletion and then passionately oppose proposed deletion of Russia-some obsure Pacific island relations substubs, oppose Putinland and then create the eSStonia or Georgia for Georgians rubbish, advocate removal of unofficial, yet serious explanations of the 1999 bombings and strive to include fringe Russian theories of the Litvinenko assasination, remove some sources he doesn't like as unreliable and then refer to blogs, accuse others of stalking and stalk Muscovite99 across several different Wikipedias, defend some of the worst POV-pushers against well-deserved sanctions and accuse others of POV-pushing. And he doesn't see anything wrong with what he did in September. It is quite possible that he doesn't realize this himself, but why should we care? Maybe he will submit his case and even get some people here blocked, including himself, of course. Just behave calmly and keep in mind that most Russian editors here, except for the bunch of edit-warriors on the Russia-Georgia war article and some banned trolls, don't really share his viewpoint, they are just too polite to discuss this with him. I am curious where is Moreschi with his banhammer? HW, for example, would certainly fit the anvil profile. Colchicum (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree with everything, except you are missing his non-stop 24 hour editing without any interruptions for sleep. This can only be explain by editing by several users, no matter what checkuser tells. This also explains his productivity. He downloaded 5,000+ of Putin's images in Commons, after getting this authorization letter he placed in Commons. Please read it. I am not going to comment anything further.Biophys (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that particular achievement is somewhat helpful, though I hate when he change every decent portrait to a picture taken at a meeting with Pootie-Poot or Medved (even if the subject is known to dislike the couple) and I don't really think we need that much pictures of them and categories like commons:Category:Vladimir Putin in Saint Petersburg. As to his sleep habits, I won't comment. I am able to do similar things, I just wouldn't devote much of my time to Russian politicians, who are nobody to me and who will ignominiously perish in ten years or so anyway. But such is passion, nothing can be done about it. Colchicum (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you like this personality cult? Crap of monumental proportions. Colchicum (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You should look here (I especially like Patrushev and Budanov in the list) or Koni (dog). Passion? This is hard to swallow. I agree that Hanzo had passion.Biophys (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, this sort of thing is likely to create a Figaro here, Figaro there effect. A bad case of that could make the readers think Putin and Medvedev are trying to be the groom in every Wikipedia wedding picture. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:41, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I also noticed this thing (and my name mentioned, too :-)) I hope he'll calm down: being such an active user, he probably shouldn't pay too much attention to the minor skirmishes he encounters. Anyway, even if the case is accepted, I won't take part in it, as I'm busy in real life and even here in wiki, I have way better things to do.--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Could I entice you with a shiny toy? Unfortunately, experience shows that in order to prevail on any sort of ARBCOM, a lot of common sense is needed -- and I'm in a rather short supply. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what the toy really looks like, of course (omfg!lol!) ;-) If it's gonna be e.g. Lembit Valt or Estonian diaspora in Russia, we'll see! --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ignorance in misinterpreting the image of Russia

The Russian embassy in Stockholm has launched a scathing critique of Sveriges Television (SVT) for what it sees as a disgusting portrayal of Russia during the weekends Melodifestivalen finals. If Russians could see what happened on the stage of Globen on Saturday, Im fairly certain it will reduce the number of votes they give to the Swedish singer [Malena Ernman]. The Russian embassy in Stockholm did issue an official statement condemning the piece: "We do not react to eccentricity by some lunatics whose Russophobia should place them in an asylum rather than on Globens stage." --Hapsala (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't particularly care for the clip, but if they managed to make the embassy say that it wouldn't say anything, they must have managed to hit a proverbial nerve. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Some newcomers...

Hi, I think you might want to check this. Here's some fellow who has been doing in et.wiki tricks somewhat similar to those played by Bloomfield. Now the guy has set his foot in English Wikipedia, too. Evidently, it's gonna take a shitload of effort to wikify, verify or even just clean up his concoctions. (Being no fan of A.Rüütel myself, I'd say his comments on that topic make me rather skeptical as to VanemTao's possible contributions to the free encyclopedia ...). --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's probably not Bloomfield. Bloomfield was obsessed with anarchism. This one has other obsessions. But it's worrying. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, just similar tactics. That's the person. I was never fond of ERSP politicians. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not sure I'm capable of going through all the material myself. But let me know if there's anything specific I can help with. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This fellow created the article Karl Tõnisson, but seems notable enough given the reference I found. Martintg (talk) 20:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Some of his creations are notable and legitimate, but the content is invariably of terrible quality. It seems quite a number of his bundles have been deleted in et.wiki, which made him run into rage.--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

... which is ironic, considering that the rulers of et.wiki are strong inclusionists. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think Karl Tõnisson is legitimate and notable. He was a weird fellow, but he existed, and he did some notable stuff. Ironically, a lot of what he did when he was alive resembles the things Bloomfield has been doing on Wikipedia. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The spelling of Tennison would make for a fascinating DYK. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Check your mail. Martintg (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I've responded.

I've heard his name in some other context. Probably something having to do with Christianity. Any idea what that might have been? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

et:Mall:kas

Excellent idea. Why don't we have something like this on English Wikipedia? Perhaps, it might be named {{?}}. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:40, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

{{?}} was taken, {{orly}} was taken, so I picked the next best thing: {{sure?}}. It works like this:

The moon is made out of Template:Sure?. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I've seen such a gadget in French wiki, too.--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 22:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

A comment

I do not think you should be very active right now in this AE. Although it concerns you personally, please to not take it too close to the heart. One short comment should be enough. Sorry for the intervention.Biophys (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I should be doing some friday night hacking, anyway. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. Do not worry that he will file a case. He has no case.Biophys (talk) 13:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Jehochman has displayed profound antipathy towards me before. Think that might be a problem? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 14:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you indeed behaved recklessly, which resulted in your ban, even though your ban was unfair. We should behave reasonably and calmly, and do not bother administrators too much, excluding cases when their intervention is unavoidable.Biophys (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I like to think I understand the underground attitude. But as somebody who was born in the Soviet Union, somebody who remembers the profound fear of random KGB action, and subsequently grew up in the freedom granted by perestroika and the Fall of the Soviet Union, I find this attitude unsuitable for me. I like to think I'm a free person, and I do my best to refrain from systemic fear of a class of randomly acting powerful people. Consequently, I won't cower from administrators.

As you may remember, I lost my innocence regarding Wikipedia long ago, and this sort of thing figured heavilly into this. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand your feelings with regard to the Soviet Union. However, there is something very strange. We both left this country long time ago (one way or another), but we returned back to wikipedia - only to find precisely the same Soviet-like mentality here - expressed by some other users. Why are we doing this? Probably we should not. This reminds me the stories about former prisoners of Gulag who willingly lived near their former labor camp, being unable to adjust to normal life. I became a worse person after editing here. Seriously.Biophys (talk) 18:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You make an interesting point. I shall ponder over it. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

GA review

If you disagree, you can bring the article to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe you can also ask there to reevaluate a review. However, you're right, the normal way would be renomination. I left an additional comment on the review page. Hekerui (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Try Template:Infobox Person. Hekerui (talk) 16:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you able to help with this?

Hey Digwuren, I am working on User:Russavia/DipMis at the moment, and I have a photo of the embassy in Tallinn, but I don't have photos of the Consulate in Narva (Kiriku t. 8), and the Consular Department in Tartu (Ülikooli 1). As you are in Tartu, is there any possibility you may be able to get a photo of the Russian consular department building in Tartu? Also, do you know anyone in Narva whom I may be able to approach in order to get a photo of the Consulate there? Cheers --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I can take a photo of the Tartu consulate in the weekend. I probably can't help with the Narva one, though. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that, when you upload it to Commons, can you include it in Commons:Category:Consulates of Russia, and you can insert on the article itself, or let me know where it is, and I can do it. Might you be able to post a message on et.wiki with a request for the Narva consulate? I can't find the et equivalent of Wikipedia:Requested_pictures, so am etwiki doesn't have a similar request page? Any help appreciated. Cheers --Russavia ^Dialogue 20:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I stronly suggest you not collaborate with Ruavia. Probably decent people shouldn't communicate with such dishonest outcasts at all [5]. Mature people should assume responsibility for what they are doing. From now on, let's let him absolutely alone. Something like Я не еду в разговариваю с Ruavia. He will get banned eventually anyway. Petri Krohn may be well worth reconciliation, this one is not. Colchicum (talk) 20:46, 28 March 2009 (UTC) P.S. Russavia or his pals, would you be so kind to report me for this? It's like a badge of honor.

Colchicum, it's simply inpolite. Judging from your logics, you do not show yourself as a decent person either, so what — nobody should deal with you? As the classic said, "I wonder who the judges are!" ellol (talk) 20:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

It is up to you to decide for yourself, up to Digwuren to decide for himself, and so on. I would be more than happy if you don't deal with me. Colchicum (talk) 21:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Colchicum, don't be so touchy. I'm the normal guy, like you or Russavia. All are involved in the mutual task -- improving the Wikipedia. The differences in our views do not deny the idea that overall we are doing the Wikipedia better. Otherwise, who would ever need us here? ellol (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Ellol, unfortunately, I do not see that some of your actions serve to improve WP content, even though you tell the opposite.Biophys (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There's the little matter of Wikipedia being rather picky -- or shall we say, exclusive -- about betterment. If three people have three different ideas and each one is better standing alone, this principle of exclusion leads their coöperation to work like that of swan, pike and crayfish in a fable by Krylov. That's why it matters how people treat each other on Wikipedia. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting development. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Colchicum, may I ask now for the umpteenth time that you stop trolling my username. If Digwuren wants to help he can; regardless of disagreements we may have, if he were to ask me for assistance for something from my town, and I was in the position of helping, I would do it. If he wants to, that is up to him, and I leave it up to him if he is able to help; if not, I will find someone else to help do this. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:02, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll need to think about the situation. Consider your request frozen for the time being. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, don't bother with it Digwuren, I'll find someone else to do it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 21:26, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It'll make my life a bit simpler. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

While I'm still trying to piece together all the details about Muscovite, I've learnt that the conflict between Russavia and Muscovite is primarily one of opinion. Russavia is using (and abusing) his superior knowledge of Wikipedia procedures and traditions to permanently get rid of Muscovite -- who in some other context would easily be considered "content opponent". Ironically, eliminationism of this kind is one of the defining characteristics of Nazism, and one of the most important precursors to the notorious Nazi crime of Holocaust. Naturally, I can not approve of Russavia's actions in furthering eliminationist goals. Accordingly, I must deny the request mentioned above, and all further requests by Russavia for indefinite time.

Thank you, Colchicum, for bringing this matter to my attention. I've been too busy lately to keep track of AN/I, and I would likely have missed it otherwise. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

P. S. The saga of User:Bonaparte, the famous Wikipedia outlaw, should be mandatory reading for every Wikipedia administrator. It's a great example of why Wikipedia should *not* apply blocks in a random and whimsical manner. Nobody wins when proficient editors are turned into outlaw editors, which is exactly what block cascades do. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

More of the same: [6]. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 06:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Chile–Estonia relations

An article that you have been involved in editing, Chile–Estonia relations, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chile–Estonia relations. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

for that essay I never get around to write

• [7]

How do you like this?

Colchicum (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Suva would appreciate this a lot!

But considering what we've learnt of history, the humourless people who deleted {{notpropaganda}} are likely to go after this one, too. :-/ Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I think all the heroes of Russia combined are rather pathetic compared to this. And he is not even at DYK. Has HS put a link to Wikipedia on one of its articles as usual? Colchicum (talk) 03:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy!. Hystorian, as I call such personalities. Colchicum (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Even better. Colchicum (talk) 14:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Bäckman?! Colchicum (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Or Hietanen. Very likely, I'd say. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've previously compared Bäckman to Kalev Jaik, the man who claims that commercial bankers and Estonian government embezzled the capital that had been invested in Estonia by Soviet Union, and who recently published his fourth book about the proper design of perpetuum mobiles. But the lovesick puppy comparison in the first article seems rather interesting, too. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the institute is indeed named Johan Beckman Institute, don't ask me why. Beware, however, Бякман is sensitive: "За это тоже полагается тюрьма, поскольку подобные утверждения вредят моей работе и подрывают научную репутацию." Now I see why it is so difficult to find reviews of his work: Have fun. Colchicum (talk) 17:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Finnish 'ä' pronounces exactly like Estonian 'ä', and Estonian 'ä' is routinely transliterated to Russian as 'я'. Hence, for example, Lasnamäe becomes Ласнамяе. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I know, but probably it doesn't matter for them. Here is the official, uhm, website: [8]. Colchicum (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

And it looks like Swedish ä is normally rendered as е. Colchicum (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Is the institute itself notable? If it's just a blog, maybe we shouldn't even mention it. How many employees it has, for example? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No, we have to mention it, it's funny, and could potentially discredit Baryshnikov's pamphlet even more. A separate article about the institute is not needed, but a mention there is ok. Colchicum (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Mrs. Hietanen is at work again. Colchicum (talk) 19:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, the sections were a bad idea. The IP have incredibly messed them up. Colchicum (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

How would it have helped if we hadn't sectioned the article? S/he knows what s/he likes and what not, and can navigate in the article well even without any sections, I'm afraid. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If the information is arranged chronologically, it is much easier to fix. And now we have his book in one section, the open letter in another, the reaction of the university in yet another. Stupidity. Well, he has got the international publicity he has strived for. What's wrong with him now? I don't understand. Colchicum (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a detailed look at his/her edits, and most are problematic. Let the current spree end, and deal with them then, together.

By the way, did you notice how s/he attempted to misattribute the EE article to a single policeman? This kind of scholarship wouldn't be tolerated from freshmen at most universities. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a thorough look on this. Some of my software tools are likely to help with this.

But today is the Tax Declaration Day, and I'll have to make sure my tax forms are in ordnung. So, as the orcs say, nar udautas. :-( Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It can speak! Colchicum (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Now this is what I like most on Wikipedia. Yeah, that was Bäckman himself. Nothing new here. Colchicum (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this might be some evidence that the address belongs to Bäckman himself and not Hietanen. If I recall correctly, Bäckman's Estonian skills are poor, and Hietanen is fluent in Estonian. Hietanen would easily understand what the article really says. Of course, this evidence alone is not conclusive, as Hietanen's track record in scholarly analysis isn't exactly stellar. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Russian Wikipedia says: "Йохан Бякман является участником Википедии." Colchicum (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The IP might be Bäckman himself since he lives in Espoo.

Regarding his Swedish name it can as well be spelled Beckman since the pronunciation would be the same. So Бекман is correct if he is speaking Swedish. Närking (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't the most fascinating encounter anyway. I felt rather uneasy when I had created Behgjet Pacolli and run into an IP there. Colchicum (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, he is either Юхан Бекман or Йохан Бякман. Colchicum (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like this crackpot used to say similar things about Finland in 2002. Colchicum (talk) 03:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this appropriate? I've just reported him. Colchicum (talk) 12:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Rīga-Herson-Astrakhan

An article that you have been involved in editing, Rīga-Herson-Astrakhan, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rīga-Herson-Astrakhan. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. (please excuse me for not adding this notice soone). ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 17:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Neo-Stalinist movements

I notice that this category you created is unpopulated (empty). In other words, no Wikipedia pages belong to it. If it remains unpopulated for four days, it may be deleted, without discussion, in accordance with Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#C1. I'm notifying you in case you wish to (re-)populate it by adding [[Category:Neo-Stalinist movements]] to articles/subcategories that belong in it.

I blanked the category page. This will not, in itself, cause the category to be deleted. It serves to document (in the page history) that the category was empty at the time of blanking and also to alert other watchers that the category is in jeopardy. You are welcome to revert the blanking if you wish. However, doing so will not prevent deletion if the category remains empty.

If you created the category in error, or it is no longer needed, you can speed up the deletion process by tagging it with {{db-author}}.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

In that case, it would best for the {{db-author}} to come from you. The category hasn't been around long enough for C1. Cheers, --Stepheng3 (talk) 18:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Cookies

		Cookies!
		I hope you enjoy Oreos! has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Best regards, Jehochman ^Talk 11:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Curious

Well, it is pretty obvious from Finnish Wikipedia that the said IP is merely fi:Käyttäjä:Johan Bäckman who doesn't bother to log in anymore. Also watch the style. :) BTW, our friends are now trying to smuggle irrelevant stuff into Soviet deportations from Estonia. 120 y.o. Nazi criminals? Who have lived through 40 years of the Soviet rule? Sure. Now I think we should let them disgrace themselves. Colchicum (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll take a look. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I know what the Georgian Daily article says. I'll be spending some of my Air Swine frequent flier's miles. Let's hope the scenery will be beautiful. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now, you know, shunning is the most appropriate course of action here, let it start, and it will soon take on global dimensions :)) Colchicum (talk) 20:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

[9] Colchicum (talk) 12:16, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't even know of this blog of his. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, [10]. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Our vexatious litigators keep adding that the neo-Nazi scout is "a Finnish lawyer and Order of the Cross of Terra Mariana recipient". Colchicum (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Truly weird. The first time, might have been accident, not realising what the blog is. To edit war over it -- no accident any more. And now that.

If not neo-Nazis then what? A caricature of a wikiwarrior? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 06:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks like I have just contracted eliminationism. However, please, don't engage in battles with them. It can wait. I find it very curious (and disruptive) that the persons who obviously know nothing about this region suddenly stepped in just to make a point. Colchicum (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it curious that suddenly, the locus of the conflict has shifted from the neo-Nazi quote to moving the article around, don't you? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

(after ec) I wouldn't like to 'valada õli tulle' ('add oil to the fire'?) as the Estonians say, but this time Digwuren and Martintg have been absolutely correct in reverting the additions, only reason of which was to create artificial controversy and cater for battlefield. There seem to be some users here who, having once had a conflict with you, immediately concentrate their energy to stalk your previous contributions with the aim of making you feel miserable by wikilawyering (haha ;-)). Anyway, I don't think there's any reason to start an edit war over the article's name right now. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed the history, and maybe there's a 3RR here. Do move-reverts count together with content reverts? I know of only a single precedent -- [11]. Quite a disillusionment for Alexia, if memory serves. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

That's probably because very few people are dumb enough to try. In my textbooks a revert is a revert. Colchicum (talk) 13:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd submit that move-reverts are more disruptive, not less disruptive. Particularly disruptive if done against consensus. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 13:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, don't clutter the report. It is clear enough as it stands. Colchicum (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously somebody wants to hijack the report. Let's not feed the trolls. Colchicum (talk) 13:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

And I couldn't resist the temptation :( Colchicum (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Ohoho, look who is back! Don't react. You may wish to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_European_disputes#Amnesty and feel secure. Colchicum (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Clearer illustrations of eliminationism are seldom seen. I wonder what might have triggered this event? Will there be other old acquaintances around? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 14:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Why should I? Anyway, yes, I am lagging behind our friends, both in this and in eliminationism. In fact, the only thing I have ever eliminated was infamous Miyokan and his socks. Colchicum (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC) And even there mostly he must be credited with this himself. Colchicum (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I notice your sig is in Greek. Do you speak Greek, are you Greek, or is it just for fun? If this question is too personal and you choose not to reply I will understand. NikoSilver 16:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It's just for fun. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I figured. You know, they're calling you "Greek" in that talkpage because of your vote and the script... (sh** I'm giving excuses, like as if "Greek" is supposed to be some kind of an insult!) NikoSilver 16:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Where? I couldn't find it -- even after my explicit clarification that I just like Greek letters. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:30, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a collective reference by Horologium in the end of the talkpage, that all opposers are Greek. Not that it should matter, but I thought you should know. Best. NikoSilver 19:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Ru...avia is stalking you now too

Notice how he has never edited this article before, yet finds it in order to "rvv". If this is not WP:TEDIOUS by Russavia, I really don't know what is. "Reverted 1 edit by Digwuren" is not a reason for blind reverting other's edits, and he only does so to piss you off. If this stalking becomes a problem for you, let me know, and I will file RFAR straight away in regards to it. His accusation that "you are an Estonian editor who hates Russia and are here to help advocate your hate-filled POV on those subjects" almost got him block the other day, and I know that Arbcom will not look upon such things kindly, and even moreso so as the warrior is only recently back from a block for outing. The sooner POV-pushing Russavia is gone, the better off the project will be. Of course, it would be better if he changed his ways -- one would have thought that a two weeks long ban would have helped with that, but it obviously hasn't changed his way one iota. -- Colchicum (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't rush. Giving up control of timing for a little gain in time goes against every teaching of 孫武. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Also note how they call you Digwarrior and stalk you across Estonia-related articles. With the next ArbCom the couple will be gone. Colchicum (talk) 15:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom is a lot of work, and I'm pretty lazy. Miyokan went much, much easier -- exactly because he was so open about the ... shall we say, characteristic stuff he did. And so did Roobit. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I mean with the ArbCom they'll initiate they will be gone. Colchicum (talk) 15:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep. That's a good reason for waiting. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I've noticed stalking long time ago. It would be a problem if I was more active, but as I mainly work on other stuff these days, I can show a bit of patience. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I get it now. Thanks, I needed it. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow, he feels insecure and is on defense [12]. Relax, Russavia. As of now this is merely a deterrent. Colchicum (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There is such a thing as fundamentalist mindset. One of its many characteristics is that it believes everything (or almost everything) can only be classified in a single way, either in a particular context, or altogether. For example, a fundamentalist might believe that since blogs are nonreliable, the personal video blog of a Chicago lawyer can't be quoted. And the fundamentalist might believe that since ukazes are reliable, they make every article better.

The idea that an ukaz might be reliable about the orders of a president, and unreliable about the colour of the sky, or the idea that the very concept of a blog might not be the absolute evil, are not just unthinkable for a true fundamentalist; instead, they're manifestation of evildoing by the Great Confuser -- because they bedazzle people and make them think, they lead the flock away from the One True Teaching. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Did I mention the idea that BBC might occasionally make mistakes? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

While referring to this nice shortcut, Russavia should know that he can be found in the "Log of blocks and bans" at the bottom himself and that the other party was banned for a year as well. Colchicum (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Your new template is not exactly helpful, though. Colchicum (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

What are your considerations?

I thought a navibox would be somewhat more wieldy than a category, as a navibox allows to further classify the members. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that open lists are not good as templates at all, and this particular list is unfortunately open. And right now it gives undue weight to those half-dead organizations. Does anybody need to navigate through shit of questionable notability? Colchicum (talk) 16:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I think so. Apparently, there's a whole chain of these organisations, and they keep referring to each other as "See, that foreign committee supports us!" It serves our reader best if he can navigate through the whole chain easily via the navibox.

I realise the difficulties of boxing an open list, but this list grows reasonably slowly. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The last entry is from January. What happened? Why is the list no longer updated? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 16:49, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Moreschi's banhammer hasn't been active lately, otherwise some of our friends would have long been banned. Colchicum (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

And nobody else can wield it? I thought the loud river ran dry many moons ago. There should be no reason why EE should be different from other regions of Wikipedia, anymore. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I should instead edit something peaceful. Perhaps something about the long-ended war in Georgia. Perhaps something about Tiraspol. Perhaps something about the Alaska governor's backyard.

The part about Lithuania demanding occupation compensation from Russia is clearly too prone for editorial conflicts. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 17:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Neo-Stalinism in 21st century

Template:Neo-Stalinism in 21st century has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Óðinn (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Soviet-era elections

They might have been shams, but they were still elections that happened on the historical record, regardless of the outcome - in fact you could argue that elections since the USSR split up have hardly been free & fair in several of the countries. If we take these off the template because they are shams, where do we stop - do half the African ones go? пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, please don't blind revert the changes - you (a) broke a link to the election year in the Ukrainian template, and (b) reverted to a format that is being replaced on the Russian one. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:00, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the elections weren't even shams considering the results were published (OOPS!) before the elections. There was no actual "election" of anyone, no "votes" of historical record. Therefore you cannot make a historical comparison to present-day elections where voters are subject to intimidation and violence to affect an outcome. There was nothing to be affected--of course, that didn't prevent people being shot for not exhibiting their Soviet patriotism by casting a vote which was for show only. PetersV       TALK 20:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Russia Award!

		Russian Barnstar of National Merit
		Your Russia related contributions are excellent!

Thank you! Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Stalinism

I have seen your categories that are now nominated for deletion. I think you might create Category:Stalinist to include all self-proclaimed Stalinists there. The only question: would such category be helpful for navigating WP? I am not quite sure. Almost all Soviet public figures who lived under Stalin declared themselves "stalinsy" at some point, and a lot of them condemned Stalin later.Biophys (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Category for deletion: Category:People born on February 29

I have nominated Category:People born on February 29 for deletion. I am notifying you because you created this category. You can find the discussion here. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 03:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

re: CSD tag on Tartu University Clinic

Remember that contributors are not supposed to remove CSD tags on articles they authored (place {{hangon}} underneath the speedy tag and write your rationale on the talk page). Also, you stated in your edit summary that Tartu University Clinic doesn't qualify for speedy as it isn't a corporation. CSD A7 specifies that an "article about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject" can be speedily deleted (except for schools, which are category of organizations that are specifically excluded.) Non-top level government organizations also fall under this criteria, unless they have non-trivial, third party sources proving notablity, I was unable to find anything in English or Estonian on this clinic. - 2 ... says you, says me 03:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am not a contributor to the article, but I do not think it is an A7 material. It is a big (by Estonian scale anyway) organization and an integral part of the University that is unquestionably notable. If you want to continue the discussion please start and AfD Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware it had the first psychiatric department for a hospital anywhere in the world, thanks for unearthing that source. I proposed a merge with University of Tartu, the article, though definitely long enough for a stub, might make more sense as part of the University's article since there is really no mention of the clinic on the main article. - 2 ... says you, says me 05:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

My map

Thanks for your advise, but the map is just my proposal for peace and stability in the Western Balkan region. If you noticed, Croatia gets added territory, and the Bosniaks have a fairly decent sized country remaining for themselves. I did the map based on what ethnic groups populate the region, with the exception of Kosovo, where I refuse to award KLA terrorists any ground. --Tocino 17:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In other words, ethnic Serbia is Serbia, even if not within the 20 century borders, 20 century Serbia is also Serbia, even if not ethnic, and the others may get the remaining ghettos, fairly decently sized. I am afraid that would be a piece too large for Serbia to swallow, and it would soon shrink to the intersection of the above in the worst wars of the century instead. Fortunately this has nothing to do with reality and Tocino is not in a position to refuse to award anything like this to anybody. Principles work only if they are applied consitently, rather than when "what's ours is ours, what's yours is negotiable". Colchicum (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've got a lot of funny ideas about how the principle of flexible principles works. I'm afraid they don't fit Wikipedia, but by way of a hint, it involves massive redundancy. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It is also fun to see how quick such people are to award everything to Abkhazian and South Ossetian terrorists. Colchicum (talk) 17:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren, this is a map of "Greater Serbia": [13]
Take a look at the latest demographic count of BiH: [14] All I did was give the red to Serbia and the blue to Croatia. I don't understand why the people who were so eager to split up Yugoslavia, are so eager to hold onto the modern, disfunctioning BiH (other than Serbophobia of course).
Also, I added the parts of Montenegro which voted against independence. These people consider themselves Serbs. [15] --Tocino 18:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The history of Balkanization is fairly interesting, although a bit too complicated to be fairly treated on Wikipedia. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Just as a comment, have you noticed it's never "Lesser (e.g.) Serbia"? And it's far to easy to blame Serbophobia for Serbia's problems. PetersV       TALK 21:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The Category of Anti-(Nationality) in this case Anti-Turkism, Anti-Armenianism etc...

The Category Anti-Turkism page is relevant as the "organizations" (some of whom are listed as terrorits organizations by the U.S. and the E.U.) and people who fought, fought the Turkish state and/or individuals for ideological/nationalistic/political purposes as the Turkish state was an obstacle for their goals. In case of nationalism Anti-Turkism is totally relevant and applicable as their nationalisms and actions clashed or still clashes with Turkish nationalism and the Turkish state, and vice versa. The same applies for the Category Anti-Armenianism. So for the sake of partiality either these two categories should be erased or should stay. The same applies for the other Anti-(Nationality) Categories as well. But not one or the other.

P.S. I am neither Turkish, Kurdish, Armenian or Greek; I am Iranian if anybody was curious about me. But I don't think that is relevant either.

Saguamundi —Preceding undated comment added 09:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC).

Alas, I have no idea what you're talking about. :-( Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Locations related to Tartu University

For every category you create, you should specify parent categories to which it belongs. You can do this by listing the parents near the bottom of the page, each enclosed in double brackets like so:

[[Category:University of Tartu]]
[[Category:Hypothetical second category]]

I've added at least one parent to the category. I invite you to check my work for accuracy and completeness.

I am a human being, not a bot, so you can contact me if you have questions about this. Best regards, --Stepheng3 (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Polish symbol ban

Hello, and nice to meet you. I moved and expanded your information about the potential ban of Che's image in Poland to his Popular Culture article (under the Political Imagery section). I hope that you recognize the more effective placement, and the way in which I summarize the situation, if you do not, please feel free to amend the description. Thanks   Redthoreau (talk)RT 00:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 01:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Pifou

Our differences aside, I have to say I find it amazing that there's another person in the world who knows and remembers Pifou. Cheers, Dahn (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

"Concern troll"?

Just letting you know that this phrase, which you seem so fond of, qualifies as a personal attack as per WP:NPA. Please refrain from any such other attempts to belittle others, and consider this a formal warning to cease doing so from an administrator. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

You have my sympathies if you see yourself as a troll, then. Certainly, I couldn't possibly say your recent comments are or aren't one way or another, because that would be indicating my point of view. However, I very definitely can see how you might see yourself as one. John Carter (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Victims of political repression

This is to notify you that Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_21#Victims_of_political_repression, which you participated in, reached no consensus to delete, but has been relisted to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_30#Victims_of_political_repression in order to determine if consensus can be reached on other alternatives. Your further input would be appreciated.--Aervanath (talk) 06:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rõmuuta

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Rõmuuta, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

I don't believe that this fictional place qualifies as notable under Wikipedia's guidelines.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Matt (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Tädi Tsirpa

A tag has been placed on Tädi Tsirpa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Tim Ross (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

My apologies, Digwuren. I placed the wrong tag on the article you wrote. It is still my intention to propose the article for deletion, but, clearly, the article is about a fictional character, and not a real person. In any case, though, there needs to be a greater showing of notability than a statement that the character occurs in two books. You will need to have references which refer to the character, and which are not connected to the author. Tim Ross (talk) 11:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not showing that the character occurs, actually. These sources are publications of these libraries, discussing the intercharacter relations. One of them is a test of understanding read text for children. Robert Vaidlo's books are somewhat of children's classic; even forty years later, they're still widely read, and considered a standard part of a well-read child's experience. This is what these sources are supposed to demonstrate. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a case could be made that the full cast is best described in a single article, perhaps Characters from Kukeleegua. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to write such an article in the near future, so I started with a single, most prominent one. (Well, at least she's the weightiest, if you catch my drift.) Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I now understand. Yes, publications discussing the books' characters are appropriate showings of notability. Perhaps the information about these two publications can be slightly expanded in the article. In any case, I'm sorry to have troubled you by acting in haste. Tim Ross (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I've elaborated on the nature of these sources in the article. Hopefully, the intent is clearer now. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		In recognition of the excellent Falsification of history template, for which you are largely responsible. Very nice work, keep it up. WilliamH (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• I was thinking of making one along those lines, but I'm not complaining you got there before I did - you did a great job. WilliamH (talk) 13:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm doing what I can. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 11:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

for the barnstar. Sorry for the delay in responding. Vandalism has been going fairly heavy at my talk page recently and it's been kinda hard to keep track of what gets added and deleted. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)

The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Truce term

Thats interesting. Someone came and removed chur from the article saying it means "dibs", and then went and put it in the Dibs article. Obviously a word with even more meanings than was thought! I've invited him to contribute to the discussion on the Project talkpage. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Yevgeny Dzhugashvili

A tag has been placed on Yevgeny Dzhugashvili requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Ironholds (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ref request

Could you provide a ref for this? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, if I googled. But check out Third Rome#Russian claims first. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

sock

Take a close look at the contributions. Are you sure you are not dealing with the latest M.V.E.i? I think I see some similarities, and he really is overdue for another sockpuppet... Ostap 21:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems unlikely. M.V.E.i. was not banned for his political views, after all -- he was banned for a mixture of naïveté, aggression, and chronic inability to understand NPOV. Unless he has managed to buy a miracle, he wouldn't have attained the sophistication level displayed by this one within a few short years. JP seems more plausible, but I can't prove it myself, and Moreschi is on a wikibreak. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

One of his socks was named User:Log in, log out which reminds me of this one (MVEi seems to have a hard time coming up with sock names). I still have a feeling it is him. Would you like to make a wager? How about 50 euros? Ostap 21:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll consider it, and will let you know. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I just checked this possibility, and I'd say it's very unlikely. M.V.E.i.'s English was so poor and full of typos, like the illustrious 'fool-scale discussion' (yep, I love that :P), that it's almost certainly not P., who seems to have good writing skills. Miacek (t) 11:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

100 euros that this user is a sockpuppet. Ostap 01:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: DonaldDuck

Ask blocking admin... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 12:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Just talking to myself

Language law à la Kyrgyzstan: [16]. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Historical Truth Commission

WikiThanks

Thank you for starting the article on the Historical Truth Commission. When the time comes for someone to write a Wikipedia article on you, they may find that you have played a small but historic role in the events that led to the creation of the Commission. God forbid, they may even point out your heroic battle against the commission. Que Sera, Sera. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm neither a voter of Russia nor a dissident there, so I'm not in a position to "heroically battle" against the weird things done by Kremlin. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 05:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pigcam

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Pigcam, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

I don't see this passing WP:NOTE. I just see the self-reference source, and nothing else.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Vicenarian ^{(U · T · C)} 18:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Digwuren. You have new messages at Vicenarian's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vicenarian ^{(U · T · C)} 19:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

page on organ harvesting of Falun Gong practitioners

Hi, I see this dif and can appreciate the sentiments behind it. Would you mind sharing your thoughts about your impressions of the page, and how it treats the subject? Do any good improvements jump out, or points where it is strong? --Asdfg12345 03:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit complicated subject, so it'll take several days. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Yah, very complex, also really ignored. I wrote a lot of the article, and while I'm not protective of it or anything, always looking for different opinions and ways to improve.--Asdfg12345 12:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow!

"if you deny the holocaust (sic) in the United States, you may get persecuted by the authorities and jailed" Those anti-American guys might at least try to learn something about what they hate so much. Colchicum (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I once read a paper by a politologist who claimed that Russia's political goals are built around the concept of simulacrum. Accordingly, Russian authorities routinely justify their ideas du jour by drawing (often strange) parallels with what they're doing and what is done in the West. I guess it can cut both ways; in this case, he may have thought that since Russian authorities have been pushing this talking point, there must be something to it. And, obviously, the West here is a mythological, homogenous place -- the one that forced Peter I to popularise smoking and tax beards so his court would resemble the West a bit more. So, if Holocaust denial is verboten in Germany, it must be forbidden in USA, too. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 09:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I've just found a nice (or embarrassing?) comparison: Historical Truth Commission (defending Russia against falsifiers of history and those who would deny Soviet contribution to the victory in World War II) vs. Truth and reconciliation commission (a commission tasked with discovering and revealing past wrongdoing by a government). As the latter is also routinely named Historical Truth Commission, this has to be disambiguated in a very prominent place. Colchicum (talk) 19:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I googled, and I think I can support this. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What was his previous incarnation? I cannot figure out. Colchicum (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I should discuss it on Wikipedia. Can I send you a mail, or perhaps arrange a chat through some IM? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you could figure out an email or facebook id or whatever of mine..., but as you probably cannot (sometimes I have a hard time doing so myself), frankly I prefer not to get mixed up in this too directly as yet. Not that it is a very pleasant topic. I think WP:SPI is a more appropriate venue, no? Well, otherwise I am afraid it is not practical. Colchicum (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Classic

Got a chuckle out of that one. Very Superman. :D Thanks for the laugh, and back to the drudgery. :/ --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Always glad to light up your day. :) Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Historical truth commission

I'm sorry, but you seem to have written the article in a very biased way. Here is a task for you: can you identify the bias in the article and correct it? Or at least abstain from reverting me when I'm trying to do it. The same goes for your friends as well. I think doing this could ease tensions and restore other people's faith on you, including mine, leading to fewer problems between us. Of course, I'm open to similar tension-reducing suggestions too, especially if this one works out well. Offliner (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the fact that there is no Baltic nation... gee, I didn't know that! *sarcasm*

I assume you are Estonian? I like Estonia. I lived there for a while. And I like Estonians. Estonia does have a genuine historical grevience against the Soviet Union (whose leaders included many Estonians, Latvians, Georgians, Ukrainians, etc, not just Russians). And if anyone says the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact didn't happen, or that Estonia was not occupied, they are just being stupid. But you do not need to write ridiculously biased Wikipedia articles to protect this part of history.

I accept the case for removing my comments about the EU genocide denial directive although I don't agree with it. But I think the NPOV tag is warranted on the article and I think you are over-hyping your case when you say the law will forbid any criticism of the Soviet Union.

I'm trying to engage with you in a helpful manner on this. Please reciprocate and let's not trade insults!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shotlandiya (talk • contribs) 19:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know of anybody who would deny MRP out of stupidity. A few people have denied it out of ignorance, but most people deny it for political reasons. Consider Joseph Stalin, a notorious denier of MRP, for example. He was clearly motivated by politics, not ignorance nor even stupidity. That the law will forbid criticism of Soviet Union is not my doing; it comes from an applicable source (and I wasn't even the one to include it to Wikipedia.) The fact that you might find the Commission somewhat unpleasant doesn't make candid discussion of it -- and encyclopædic discussion should always be candid -- "biased". Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientology and English Wikipedia

I think that this addition would be more suitable on English Wikipedia; or, are you aware of COFS issues on other Wikipedia projects? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, really. My source just says "Wikipedia", without specifying a particular-language version. And I can't read the primary source, arbcomdramu always makes my head ache. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see your point. 150+ sources, and I can't find one of them that distinguishes between English Wikipedia and the other projects.

See also Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard#Press_reporting_on_Scientology_case.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:35, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Mark Siryk

This is English language Wikipedia, not Estonian language Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shotlandiya (talk • contribs) 14:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not about language, it is about proper spelling of a young man with a Hungarian name. It's a Latin letter, it's not like I'm asking you to spell it in Greek or something. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, sorry for my incompetence if he really has an Hungarian name. Could you perhaps give some reference to it. he is however an Estonian citizen and it is no surprise his name is commonly spelled with an (Estonian) Õ. H2ppyme (talk) 09:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonian citizens can normally have any Latin letters in their names, although, naturally, more unusual letters such as those found in Czech or Vietnamese can sometimes mean problems. This particular letter, normally only used in Hungarian, is not easily typed in most Estonian computer keyboards, and journalists have thus sometimes been "creative".

I recall the issue has been raised before, probably in relation with the Bronze Night. I'm trying to find a reference, but alas, search engines tend to ignore diacriticals, so it's not easy. I was hoping to find the official spelling in the court ruling concerning him, but since it's still being appealed, it's not on the court rulings' database yet. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

dab page formatting

Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page IRIS . However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation page style guide, you should:

• Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
• Use short sentence fragment descriptions, which should not end with punctuation
• Use only one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry, and avoid red links
• Not pipe links—keep the full title of the article visible

Thank you. » Swpb^{τ • ¢} 21:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Chile–Estonia relations

This page has been nominated for deletion (again). I'm notifying you per WP:CIVIL since you contributed significantly to the article.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 17:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:46, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Armenian infrastructure

Where is the discussion??? The only thing I saw was the reverting of my edits. First, when the infrastructure and the educational level of the population are totally absent, any improvement in this area is extremely important. Second, with the revert the proper formatting of {{cite book}} has been lost and the book is credited to the wrong authors. Many many compliments and great great job. ~ lol ~ Third, the source of that info is the Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress (not a body of the USSR). Fourth, the source does not speak about the repression perpetrated by Stalin, but by the CPA and Lavrenti Beria. However I'm not interested in this topic. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

---

User:Radeksz wrote in the edit summary of that article (I know you are not that user, but the following is just an example of what I do not want to do on Wikipedia):

reverting - as inserted the text is a copy vio (and at the same time manages to misrepresent the source - I'm impressed!

First, copying a line from a book is not a copy vio, second, how can it be a copyright violation (and it also was not "strictly" a copy) and, at the same time, a misrepresentation of the sources? One or the other!
I really enjoy working on Wikipedia and sister projects on articles about "The Arts" (Music, Literature, Painting,...), Science and Technology, and many other subjects. Also, I use Wikipedia (and related sister projects) as the starting point of my research. You know, here you can find a lot of very useful information and very cool links. But, about history, "Wikipedia or not Wikipedia", today's truths will become tomorrow's lies and vice versa. It depends on the "regime" that is in place at that time.
Just as an example, the Maoist Internationalist Movement did a campaign (or are doing, I don't know because I am not into that movement nor in others) to correct anti-communist propaganda, and then the "Black Book of Communism" editor admitted mistakes. The following is one of the letters that the director of the Harvard Project on Cold War Studies wrote:

Harvard University Press sent me your e-mail correspondence about The Black Book of Communism. The points you raise in No. 1 and No. 2 are certainly correct. My original translation of these passages used the European symbol for "per thousand" (as the French edition did), but evidently the typesetter wasn't accustomed to the symbol and read it as "percent" rather than "per thousand." I should have noticed the erroneous switch when I looked over the galley proofs. I appreciate your drawing the misprint to our attention. It will be fixed in the next printing of the book.

Best regards,

Mark Kramer
Director, Harvard Project on Cold War Studies
Senior Associate, Davis Center for Russian Studies
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA 02138

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so serious and sad.
A couple of days ago the New York State Route 311 article has been selected for the featured article of the day, today's (2009-06-11) featured article is the Cherry Springs State Park. I do not think they are comparable to the Eiffel tower in Paris, the Colosseum in Rome or the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor. So (IMHO) improving social and economic engineering, literacy and education, and etcetera, all things that never existed before, is truly relevant information. Also, reading pages 17 and 18 of that book (Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia: country studies) it seems to be more moderate than the actual version on Wikipedia ... and you know that it ain't no good.
History causes only headaches, in and out of Wikipedia, so I must repeat myself that I'm not interested in those types of articles. Anyway, thank you so much for your message and understanding. Best regards. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Advice on wimmins

Is she surely alive these days, or can [[Category:Possibly living people]] be used?

I don't know. I have never dealt with anything like it before, so my intuition is bound to mislead me. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. Tan | 39 19:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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 block is misapplied over commotion at Baar (reality TV), which User:Vicenarian has been repeatedly and disruptively tagging for speedy deletion despite my requests to give it some time to be developed; his tagging caused repeated edit conflicts and lost sources which I was adding to the article. I lack first-hand knowledge of reality TV since I don't watch any, accordingly it is to be expected that I can not keep up by automated rapid-fire deletion requests. But this does not make my edits disruptive.
See [17] for details.

Decline reason:

The speedy deletion template says that you should not remove that template from articles you've created yourself, but instead, you should use the {hangon} template with it to request more time, and explain why on the talk page. That was all you needed to do. Edit-warring to remove the deletion template was not necessary, and it was disruptive. I note that you were warned several times of this, but since you ignored the warnings, a block was the only way to get you to stop. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:07, 11 June 2009 (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.

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:

Note that a simple Google search can ascertain that the topics is legitimate and notable, and the CSD has already accordingly been reverted by administrator Hiberniantears. There was no need to "get me to stop"; I was working on a legitimate article in its early infancy. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Repeated removal of a speedy deletion tag from an article you created yourself is disruptive to Wikipedia's processes and edit-warring. You were banned for a year in an ArbCom decision; in that decision, ArbCom found that you had repeatedly been involved in edit warring, including disruption to Wikipedia processes. I would support about a 24 hour block even with no previous history, the ArbCom case should serve as a permanent and strong warning to change your behavior. In principle, I might support an unblock if you could at least acknowledge you should have used {{hangon}} like everyone is saying and will try to do so in the future. But as you won't even go that far, I don't think I can support an unblock. Mangojuice^talk 20:36, 11 June 2009 (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.

Can you explain why you chose to keep edit-warring over the tag, rather than just using the {hangon} template and explaining yourself more clearly? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I didn't "keep edit-warring"; I kept adding material and sources to the article, over edit conflicts caused by disruptive tagging. I was working as fast as I could. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you had just used the {{hangon}} tag, the tagging would've stopped and you would've been free to edit more and state your case. You did not do so. It's really that simple. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Didn't I explain it in your talkpage already? [18] Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I did look over the article and note that a basic Google search revealed this to be a notable article. However, I took no action on Digwuren's block because of his long standing habit of refusing to acknowledge warnings or accept feedback. The article is there for him to improve when he returns, but taking 30 seconds to step back and engage in some dialog, or even take the suggestion to build the article in your user space would have avoided the issue. My preservation of the article is not an endorsement of Digwuren's behavior. Hiberniantears (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess you're referring to the saga of Pigcam, another misplaced commotion started by the same hit-and-run deletionist. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Good comment. I agreed with the decline of the speedy; I would have done it myself but - ironically - I wasn't alerted to it as the tag kept being removed. Also, this block was not made in the vacuum of this issue - the editor's previous disruptive edits and blocks were taken into consideration. Two weeks is lenient, IMO. Tan | 39 20:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Now what? Are you seriously arguing that I should be blocked for working on a legitimate article over two-year-old blocks? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Your remarks here are doing nothing but cementing the notion that you are a belligerent, disruptive editor, who I probably would have indef-blocked except you happen to contribute content. This is important and should not be overlooked. However, scoff-lawing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines is detrimental to the idea of collaborative editing, into which you have demonstrated time and time again you have a hard time fitting in. Had you acknowledged wrongdoing, you'd probably be unblocked by now. As it is, there is no evidence at all that you will start abiding by current policy and guidelines. Tan | 39 20:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit-conflict) I agree. The article itself doesn't need to be deleted. There was no need, in fact, for any conflict at all. That he ignored the instructions on how to appeal the deletion, which were given to him in four different places, and that he still doesn't appear to recognize that this was any kind of problem, indicates that he's likely to do the same thing again in a similar situation. It's impossible to say that the blocking administrator was wrong to block, since Digwuren was not making any effort to stop removing the template or to communicate. And since the blocking administrator was not wrong, how can anyone else undo the block? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I have never seen someone get blocked for creating a legitimate article before. Ostap 20:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

He didn't get blocked for creating a legitimate article. Tan | 39 20:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ostap, I suggest you read the whole thread before posting what could be seen as an inflammatory comment. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess you could say I got blocked over daring to question disruptive deletion-tagging by a person who has disruptively deletion-tagged my articles before. And without success, if I might add. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

No, that isn't why you are blocked. Do you understand why you are blocked? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I understand the formality. I do not believe it constitutes appropriate basis for blocking, given that our purpose is to build an encyclopædia rather than fill out bureaucratic formulars. It's very unfortunate that my edits adding sources to the article -- which by all rights would legitimately supersede the CSD tag -- were misunderstood. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As the one who tagged and repeatedly retaged and repeatedly warned, I now agree that the article is legitimate meets the notability criteria. It did not appear to be so at first, when I initially tagged it. However, it was the refusal to follow the process that resulted in my repeated tagging. I have no grudge against you, Digwuren, or any user. It's such a simple procedural matter here that refusing to recognize why this block was issued smacks me as willful ignorance of the highest order. Vicenarian ^{(T · C)} 20:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(e.c.) No, you got blocked for questioning it in the way that you did. {{hangon}} was the proper way. It would have worked. If you remove a speedy deletion tag, there is no record for any of the speedy deletion-handling admins that the article was tagged in the centralized location. So unless they're watching your specific article (which is unlikely), they will not know about the request. That's why tags are only supposed to be removed by someone who is declining the deletion, not by the article creator. If you had just put {{hangon}}, it would have served as a sign to any admin that they should look for your statement on the matter before deleting, and would in fact have been the most efficient way to get the speedy deletion declined. Mangojuice^talk 20:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The {{hangon}} method might be handy for relatively static articles where the issue is over interpreting whether existing material makes speedy deletion appropriate. This article was not static; I was actively working on it and adding material in numerous small edits. Yet, as you can see in its history, the first CSD tag appeared 21 seconds after its initial creation. In such a context, the most obvious solution is just to add sources establishing notability. Which is what I did. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 20:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the {{hangon}} system is specifically designed to be effective as quickly as possible. All you have to do is place that template and admins will know that a statement from you is coming; you don't even have to make the statement immediately. Plus then no one has to revert you to keep their own request in place. Mangojuice^talk 04:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This must be the most strange block I've ever seen! He might have done wrong by removing the tag while he was expanding the article. But being blocked for two weeks is surely going too far. More normal would be to discus the problem and then maybe warn. Then this stupid argument wouldn't be here and everyone could write articles instead. Närking (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

He removed the tag six times, violating 3RR. Many people get blocked for that every day. Two weeks is approriate when the editor has a long block log such as this. Offliner (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I give up entirely. A two-week block is appropriate given this user's block log, which shows five previous blocks for the same kinds of problems. You have chosen to be blocked. You read the tag which informed you of how to appeal a block, ignored it, and chose to remove the tag. You got a warning, which informed you of how to appeal a block, ignored it, and chose to remove the tag again. You got another warning which clearly stated that, if you removed the tag again, you would be blocked. You chose to remove the tag again, which means you chose to be blocked. I respect your choice to be blocked. If you had wanted not to be blocked, you would not have made the choices you made. But you made your choices, fully understanding their consequences, and your discussion indicates that you didn't do that because you were confused or because you made an error- indeed, you seem to say that, in the same situation, you would make the same choices again. That's fine. You have the right to ignore warnings and take a block instead, if you choose. Since the blocking administrator didn't make a mistake, and you made your choices understanding their consequences, everything seems to be entirely correct here. No further discussion or action seems helpful. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The disruptive choice being choosing to add sources to an article wrongfully tagged instead of starting a completely unnecessary discussion? Even though the wrongfulness of the tag was quite obvious from the fact that, by the short time of its appearance, its placer could not have even understood the original stub, let alone run a Google query? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, even if you were certain that someone else was wrong, you had the choice to follow the rules. The rules work. The reviewing administrator would have seen your hangon tag, read your explanation, and removed the tag. It would have been simple, and easy, and you would not be blocked now. You were clearly told what the rules are, and how to follow them, and what would happen if you follow the rules, and what would happen if you didn't. You had all the information you needed, and you made your choice. You chose to be blocked. I respect your choice, and I respect your right to decide that you would rather be blocked than use the {hangon} tag. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can see most of those blocks are two years old. Närking (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

In interests of accuracy, I have one fresh block, from February. The blocking admin had not noticed my discussion on talkpage of an article I reverted once, but the mistake was promptly fixed and the administrator apologised the next morning. I have no grudges over that misunderstanding; everybody makes mistakes. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Narking! I would say some people are watching more digwuren's "past" than what happened in this case beyond the bureaucratic lines which don't fit this case IMO. A June-2009-Account was immediately beginning to interrupt permanently a just started article and serious work on it. If this block will be confirmed this case will be a good blue print how to provoke certain editiors by using proxy warriors in addition to venues til indef blocking - Elysander (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

{{[[Template:Ok, I admit that not using the {{hangon}} protocol is a violation of the strict reading of the policy. I was trying to concentrate on a subject I'm very unfamiliar with, and the unexpected series of edit conflicts irritated me further. I'll make a point of {{hangon}}ing all future speedy deletion tags in similar situations. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 22:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)|Ok, I admit that not using the {{hangon}} protocol is a violation of the strict reading of the policy. I was trying to concentrate on a subject I'm very unfamiliar with, and the unexpected series of edit conflicts irritated me further. I'll make a point of {{hangon}}ing all future speedy deletion tags in similar situations. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 22:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)]]}}

• A two week block is excessive. Obviously Digwuren made the mistake of not using the {tl|hangon}} tag and he acknowledges this. Most of his previous blocks are quite old, at most he should serve 24hr for 3RR. In any case another admin has removed the speedy tag anyway [19]. --Martintg (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you indicate where he acknowledged that he made a mistake? Tan | 39 21:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I presumed his unblock request above contained an acknowledgement, he should clarify. In any case, his last serious block was almost two years ago, two weeks is still excessive given the circumstances. --Martintg (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Good night. It's late; I won't be back until tomorrow afternoon. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support block–there is a new notice posted at [20]. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note that content opponents like PasswordUsername and Offliner above seem to be piling on to support this block. --Martintg (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note that content buddies like Martintg are beginning to come over to get a review of an unblock without any proper address to multiple issues. Evidence of further ill-will at WP:AN. 'Nuff said. PasswordUsername (talk) 22:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thankyou for not muddying the water further, the discussion here is specific to a speedy delete tag. Please confine discussion of your issue at WP:AN. --Martintg (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't know if this is appropriate in the context of User:Digwuren's tag war block, but I posted of another incident regarding Διγουρεν at the WP:AN just briefly before this.PasswordUsername (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC) NOTE: This was posted after Digwuren had mistakenly deleted the above. PasswordUsername (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just going to post this text below, when there was "edit conflict" and I realized he has just been unblocked. OK, be careful in the future and behave well! Dc76\^talk 22:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

- IMHO, in that case, it's a content dispute involving many parties (I recommended starting a comprehensive RfComment there).

- In this case, IMHO, I suggest warn Digwuren to be careful to avoid conflict at any cost (even as trivial non-sense conflict as this) and use {{hangon}} in the future. I suggest unblocking him, but so that he remembers, issue a 1-week ban to edit this particular article.

And BTW I still strongly recommend to cool off that article for a while. Just to be on the safe side. Dc76\^talk 22:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Szczecin

I know that "Recovered Territories" was a propaganda term. Yet, the respective article also describes pretty well the composition of the settlers, and Poles from the former Kresy were only a faction of them. In the Szczecin article, your revision reads like only Kresy Poles settled in the town, and this is not true. There were all other kind of Poles settling also, and the nowadays pretty active Ukrainian minority results from Operation Wisla. I guess your intention was just to remove the RT link and not to state that Kresy Poles were the only ones settled there - if that is true, could you change your edit accordingly? Thank you Skäpperöd (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I still think using "Recovered Territories" as this link's target is not a good idea. But perhaps a consensus for using it in a "(see Recovered Territories)" can be developed. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Got a twin?

• Diwurgen (talk · contribs), enjoy. NVO (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

As a note, I've blocked this account for having a misleading username (namely, very similar to yours). Questions or comments, please feel free to let me know. Best, TNXMan 19:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 19:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Is the name really that similar? Note that we have User:Kober and User:Kouber, for example. Or do we only block usernames that are permutations of another username? Offliner (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. I've seen people misspelling my name as "Diwurgen" on Wikipedia. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 19:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Offy, what do you want here? To get Diwurgen unblocked or to get Kouber (who is obviously not an impostor) blocked? Or rather both? Colchicum (talk) 19:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm just curious about the policy. Offliner (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy is fuzzy. Just like quantum mechanics, it can not be understood. At best, you can learn to tolerate it. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 11:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed this affair. It's likely Bloomfield, he would post long-long-long articles with one edit, most of them sort of cut-'n'-paste stuff from other articles. The present topic is worth preserving, though bold editing is necessary, too. --Miacek (t) 11:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What about Saidelson (talk · contribs)? Colchicum (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, looks like yours truly. I indulge in 20K+ edits [21] and I did live in Bloomfield, Connecticut. Go figure. NVO (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be wikified?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQYspZwN-YA Colchicum (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it sufficiently notable? Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 10:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

It is. Colchicum (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I googled, and the only written source I've found so far is [22], which looks suspiciously like a blog post. I'm not sure I could defend it based on a Youtube entry and a blog post. Is there anything else to back it up? Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 10:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's wait for a couple of days then. Colchicum (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

...or a couple of minutes: [23] Colchicum (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll take a look. Mind you, I'm not particularly current in current Russian internal politics, but Zhirinovsky's gang is Zhirinovsky's gang. I figure they haven't changed much since the 1990s. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 16:21, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully unrelated: the National Bolshevik Vladimir Linderman has shown up at the labour unions' demonstration in Latvia. He's not permitted to enter Estonia, by the way. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 11:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This could work

actually you are kind of an example for me: if after a year-long ban you could come back and rapidly reintegrate in the community, I should be able to do it too. I also hope we can have a civil collaboration, even if from different editorial positions.Anonimu (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Being a rôle model is a huge responsibility. I can only hope that I can do it justice. Дигвурен Дигвурович_Аллё? 19:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)