User talk:H2ppyme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, H2ppyme, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  - Darwinek 08:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

'Russian' mafia[edit]

For better or worse the term "Russian mafia", albiet innaccurate and misleading, is a blanket term used for criminal groups coming out of the former Soviet Union. The term 'Post-Soviet organised crime' might be more accurate, but is not nearly as widespread. In any case, these organisations operated and moved between the various states (for example, Caucasian criminals in Moscow), follow similiar criminal traditions (the thieves in law) and spoke (to some degree) the same language. Thus it is easier to group them together than say 'black' gangsters (which may be American, Jamaican, Nigerian, etc.) since between themselves these various groups have much in common. 80.229.27.35 (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Pleace give any sources that state that
  • 1) all Estonian mafia is connected to the mafia of other post-Soviet states.
  • 2) Estonian mafia follows similar criminal traditions to Russian mafia.
  • 3) the term "post-Soviet mafia" isn't used as much as "Russian mafia"

Also, are some other editors desperate to move Estonian mafia under Russian mafia?

I am completely against moving Estonian mafia under Russian mafia for

  • 1) Different states, it creates a sort of hierarchy of independent countries, when labeling it "Russian mafia"
  • 2) Estonian mafia mostly works within Estonia and other foreign states, but not so much in Russia, so the connections aren't so strong.

I will keep removing your edits that put Estonian mafia under Russian mafia. H2ppyme (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

http://rus.delfi.ee/daily/estonia/article.php?id=33006659 - article is from the Russian language section of the site but the source and website are both Estonian (perhaps you can find the original version?). The policeman mentions the presence of ethnic Russians in the Estonian underworld, attempts to implement the 'thieves law' in the country and the presence of former sportsmen in criminal gangs (another key characteristic of organized crime in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, etc). Estonia is also described in the article as a major smuggling point between Russia and the EU, and no doubt the fact many Estonians learnt Russian under Soviet oppression no doubt aids such illicit operations. As for the issue of national hierarchy (which if I understand correctly the issue is highlighting Russia at the expense of the 13 other nations), I for one don't see how national pride can be an issue when we are talking about a group of murderous scum, if anything it shifts the blame onto Russia. Finally, Google results for Post-Soviet mafia gives 502,000 results whereas Russian mafia gives 2,690,000. I'm refraining from editing to see your responce! 80.229.27.35 (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
My compromise would be to leave Estonia within that grouping, but rename it. If it is named "Russian mafia", Estonia doesn't belong there. It could be either post-Soviet mafia or mafia in Eastern Europe or something like that, since the terms are wider. Russian mafia implies mafia in Russia (and nowhere else). Your decision. H2ppyme (talk) 09:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Alright fair enough, although the page would still have to link to the page Russian mafia, but that page is so full of shit that taking issue with the naming should be the least of an editors concerns. Anyhow, to answer about other editors I am Nicknackrussian but usually am too lazy to login :) 17:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Linking is ok, there isn't much mention of Estonia anyway. And I don't mind Estonians taking part in Russia, I got bothered by Estonian mafia being a branch of Russian mafia per se. H2ppyme (talk) 19:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Estonians in the Soviet Army[edit]

These men died to impose Soviet rule on Estonia, they were not fighting for Estonia. --Woogie10w 18:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Say, do you have data on the Baltic partisans that were fighting against the Germans & the Soviets. They should be in the Baltic nations military box--Woogie10w 19:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that we have to be consistant. These men were in the Red Army, not the Estonian Army. The Americans had foriegners in its Army but they were US soldiers not Estonians Germans or Mexicans. I knew a German citizen who was a US in the B-17 crews of WW2 he was an American soldier not German--Woogie10w 20:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The Red Army was a single entity, its casualties should be with the USSR. The readers of the table will see total Red Army losses in the USSR total. When the readers bore down to the footnotes of Estonia and the USSR they will see that x number of Estonians were in the Red Army total. This makes sense because readers will be able compare the Red Army losses to other nations. The article as its stands now does the job of listing total Red Army losses and giving the readers the details by Soviet Republic in the footnotes.--Woogie10w 21:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion it would be an insult to include Red Army deaths with Estonia. The footnotes tell the readers that Estonians were in Red Army Casualties--Woogie10w 21:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you have any data on the Estonian, Lithunian and Latvaian partisan casualties? I do know many Estonians were deported after the war to the Gulags. Some fled to the west, my dentist as a child 45 years ago was one these Estonians. She escaped on a small boat to Sweden.--Woogie10w 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
The footnote for Estonia now has a link to the Wikipedia article on Estonia in World War II.--Woogie10w 22:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I added total deaths of the Baltic states from 1940-53 to the footnotes of WW2 casualties. I have many reference works with data on world conflicts. If you ever need data please don't hesitate to send me a request.--Woogie10w 02:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
The guy who did the chart is your neighbor from SwedenUser:Dna-webmaster--Woogie10w 12:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image: ww2 deaths by country[edit]

Hi, H2ppyme, and thanks for your post on my talk page regarding the Image:WorldWarII-DeathsByCountry-Barchart.png! I thought I might as well explain in more detail why the chart looks like it does. Regarding your concerns about Estonia being "left out", I'm sorry, but I think you are thinking about this in the wrong way: The issue is about pure statistics and layout considerations, not about which countries were what and why. If you study the chart you will see that it is designed so that the casualty numbers are sorted; the numbers (green/red) are ascending within the Allies from Latvia to the Soviet Union, and then descending within the Axis from Germany to Italy. Why? Well, the idea was to make the largest casualty numbers (Soviet Union and Germany) "meet" eachother in the chart. Due to the fact that a line has to drawn somewhere on how many countries to list, it just happens that when you sort according to total casualty numbers, the chart will include Latvia & Lithuania and not Estonia. If we decide to add more countries, the next one would be Ethiopia and then Netherlands, Philippines, Austria etc, and Estonia would be far down the list, in between Canada and Australia. To verify this, go to World War II casualties and sort the column "Total deaths" by clicking the arrow button in the heading. My regards, --Dna-Dennis (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation[edit]

Coat of arms of Germany.svg

Hello, H2ppyme! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be.


--Zeitgespenst (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Invite[edit]

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Jccort (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thule[edit]

It shouldn't be mentioned because none of your sources are verifiable or academic sources. Its some claim on your part for what reason I don't know. How do we what those books say. The claim seems to be very against the grain of the rest of the article. The one source that I read you give is a blog - not a good source. It also says off handedly 'some people say the isle of Thule'. I could just make up a blog saying Japan could be Thule - it doesn't make it right. Unless you provide a proper source with some historical merit I am going to continue to remove it. Wikipedia is all about verifiability. I am just doing my job as an editor. You do yours and give a proper source. Remove the other sources too. They mean nothing.WikipÉire 19:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Armoured trains[edit]

Hi H2ppyme - Could you please provide references for your edits on Armoured train? I am not doubting them as such, but this article is in dire need of better references, and so any new material certainly needs them. Ingolfson (talk) 02:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Place of birth and contemporary sovreign state[edit]

You have made many edits today to the place of birth of people born in what is now Estonia, but was at the time of their birth part of the Soviet Union. You should be aware of the relevant policy, lest you be accused of being pointy. Kevin McE (talk) 22:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The people in question were indeed born in Estonia, but at the time of their birth Estonia was not recognised by the international community as an independent state, or as a country as marked by the top level of governmental organisation. While I can well appreciate the strong opinions about the injustice of this, such opinions are not the determining factor in encyclopaedic publication. Your objections to my reasoning make no reference to the policy to which I referred you, and our publication should be lead by those agreed policies. As to your suggested parallel with France under Nazi occupation, I would point out that the country remained recognised as France by the international community, and so plainly those born in that territory during those years are not German: whether they are Nazis is a matter of their political affiliation, not nationality. Consensus across the project is that an appropriate lead sentence would be "Ivar Vsevolodovich Stukolkin (born August 13 1960 in Tallinn, USSR (now Estonia)) was a swimmer (or perhaps "an Estonian swimmer") who competed internationally for the Soviet Union" I believe that it would be generally acceptable to add Estonian SSR between Tallinn and Soviet Union if you wished to, but I do not think that policy supports ignoring the country contemporary to his birth, or the national team for which he competed at the highest level. Kevin McE (talk) 09:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, the nationality of somebody's name or their ethnic origin is not at issue here. I did not suggest that Stukolkin was a Soviet swimmer, but that he competed for the Sovit Union, which is plainly true. He did not compete for Estonia at top international level, because that was not the representative entity during his career. But that is also off the point. What is at issue is what is the correct description of what country Tallinn (or any other part of Estonia) was in from 1945 to 1991. It is a sad fact, but for encyclopaedic purposes, an inescapable fact, that, as you put it yourself, "of course we weren't independent". If references to places are to describe their geopolitical status at the time being talked about (the birth date of these individuals), then the historically accurate information must be given, and the inescapable fact is that during those years Estonia was, de facto, part of the Soviet Union, and was governed as such. To state this is not to take a point of view on whether the occupation was legal or moral, but merely to reflect the state at that time. Somebody born in Dili in 1998 would have to be described as having been born in Indonesia: their brother born in the same house in 2003 can be said to have been born in East Timor. Kevin McE (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Once again, your reply seems to be trying to tell me why the policy that I referred you to is at fault. You will have to take that up there. I can only reply that your edits are not in keeping with that policy, and as such should probably be reverted. Good luck if you wish to subsequently argue for a change in the policy. Kevin McE (talk) 15:36, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
RE:Kevin McE at the time of their birth Estonia was not recognised by the international community as an independent state is factually incorrect, unless you mean by the international community the Eastern block. Other than the communist countries, there were only Austria, Argentina, Bolivia, Japan and Sweden that didn't recognize the independence of Estonia. Please see Occupation of the Baltic states FFI. Not to mention that Estonia was among the 73 nations in the World that sent a goodwill message to the Moon on July 13, 1969. So where exactly was that international community that didn't recognize Estonia as an independent state at the time? Following your logic, people born in France during German occupation, the infobox would need to say that they were born in Nazi Germany?--Termer (talk) 07:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Martin Reim[edit]

Any further discussion belongs at Talk:Martin Reim. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


Estonian governments-in-exile[edit]

Dear H2ppyme!

I don't question the fact that there was an Estonian government-in-exile during the country's illegal occupation by the USSR. And since I'm Hungarian I come from a country which itself suffered the barbaric brutality of Soviet agression and we also had governments-in-exile during parts of our history. However the name of the pages where I deleted your governmnets-in-exile from are "List of state leaders in...". Setting up and maintaining a government-in-exile in merely a political act, since those people have no real, de facto control over the country which they want to represent. And the information on those Wikipedia pages need to answer the question: "Who were the heads of state and government of the countries in a given year?", regardless whether they gained their power by legal or illegal means. So while not bringing into question the existence of the Estonian governments-in-exile, they were not de facto leaders of Estonia at the time.

Best regards, ZBukov (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

As I see on your talk page you've already had a very similar argument with someone else. So let me just quote your previous respondent: "the historically accurate information must be given, and the inescapable fact is that during those years Estonia was, de facto, part of the Soviet Union, and was governed as such". And the fact that the present governments of Estonia acknowledge the past governments-in-exile doesn't retroactively change historical facts. You wrote about the governments-in-exile that "they were no less leaders as those, who served between 1918-1940 or 1991-present". That's not true for a fact, since they didn't exercise any control over the territory and population of Estonia at the time.
Concerning adding the dates to the "List of state leaders" pages: Thank you for your willingness to improve the articles, but such minute details as the exact dates of time in office should properly be included in the articles about each country's leaders (for example the "List of Presidents of Finland"). No-one would put in the exact dates to every leader in each year, and with only a few dates provided the article would just look inconsistent and untidy.

ZBukov (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do NOT add the governments-in-exile! They weren't actually leading their countries so they should NOT feature in the list!

ZBukov (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear H2ppyme! Yet again I have to take issue with some of your statements. You said that "they were the leaders of THEIR STATE". Since they weren't leading Estonia or any other country, they cannot be regarded as state leaders given the factual realities of the time. As I've already said the fact that Estonia's the current governments of Estonia regards them as the rightful leaders of the country is merely a symbolic and political act and doesn't change history retroactively.The fact that they should have been the leaders of Estonia doesn't mean that they actually were.
I personally have no issue with your additions to any article, since fact-based, constructive contributions are most welcome, actually that's what Wikipedia is built on. However your position on this issue seems to ignore the historical facts. The illeglal Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe created loads of governments-in-exile and including all of them would just clog up the "List of state leaders" articles.
It would be nice if you would omit such uncivil comments like "Can't you see that you are the idiot in this issue??"... ZBukov (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
"As we seem to take turns calling each other idiots"??? When have I called you any name?? You were "civilized" enough to call me "idiot" on my talkpage, but I make a point of not returning the compliment. So don't accuse me of what YOU were doing... And despite the fact that you never seem to provide an appropriate answer to this argument, let me repeat it: it makes no sense whatsoever to include people in the list of state leaders who was not in control of their country. Your country most unfortunately de facto lost its independence to the Soviet Union and we cannot overlook that fact. If everyone who claims to be the rightful leader of a country would be included, the list would be endless. Following your logic most of the deposed monarchs would still be included as they usually didn't abdicate but were overthrown. So in your opinion we should still include the Monarchs of Egypt, Bulgaria, Iran, Laos, etc. to this day... ZBukov (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Just one more thought about calling someone idiot on Wikipedia: please read Talk page guidelines/Behavior that is unacceptable...
You said "the rightful leaders, who headed their government, should be included". The members of the government-in-exile were NOT leading Estonia! They weren't even there!
Obviously I'm conducting no plot to omit useful information. But since the people you want to add were not leading any state and the country whose legitimate leadership they claimed wasn't independent, they definiately don't belong to the "state leaders" list. It properly belongs to the page Government in exile where your expert knowledge of Estonian history could make a valuable contribution.
I deleted your additions without any explanation? If you look into the history tab of the pages where I deleted the Estonian governments-in-exile from you will see that every time I gave the proper reason, namely that governments-in-exile shouldn't be included since they weren't in control of their country, which wasn't independent anyway. And as for the open discussion which you also claim to miss, you only need to look a few lines up to see my previous comments...
A country losing its independence and getting it back later isn't an unprecedented event. For example an independent Serbia existed until 1918 and then regained its independence in 2006. The same with Montenegro. East Timor declared its independence in 1975 and was forcibly annexed by Indonesia few days later, then in 2002 it regained its independence. And obviously it wasn't listed as independent between those two dates. Hawaii also lost its independence to the USA as a result of the illegal overthrow of its government yet people generally don't question the status quo and don't list it as an illegally occupied territory and recognize the former royal family as legitimate leaders. And you don't seem to be interested in them or any other such country either, only caring about including the Estonian governments-in-exile, while a consistent approach and principle should be applied across the page.
Also you have failed to respond to my argument that sticking only to legitimate transfer of leadership - which you insist should be the supreme principle - would mean that most political leaders of the Third World wouldn't appear on the lists. As I said in Africa for example peaceful, legitimate transfer of power is the expection, rather than the rule. So applying your principle would lead to a bizarre list of a handful of royal families, numerous countries omitted and the whole post-World War II Eastern European history erased since Communists only ever managed to grab power through revolutions, coups d'état and rigged elections. And you can easily see that such a list wouldn't be informative on who led the different countries in a given year. ZBukov (talk) 14:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


Your original question was why on earth did I dare to delete Estonia from the List of state leaders pages. During the course of our discussion you agreed that the government-in-exile "did not have any real power in Estonia" and that it was the case of "Estonia de facto losing its independence". So since we agreed on both points, I think we could regard this argument as settled. I don't think that there could be a strong case for including people in the list of state leaders who neither held real power in a country, nor was their country independent. But let me repeat, despite my position on who should be included in this list, I believe that Estonia's Soviet occupation was totally unacceptable, illegal, outrageous, and a grave historical sin against your nation! I've read a bit about how much Estonia suffered and what destruction the Soviet Union perpetrated in Estonian society and I find it totally appalling. But as these events unfortunately happened we cannot pretend otherwise. We have to take the facts into account, however immoral they may be.
Concerning how long I think Estonia should feature in the list of state leaders, I have to admit that in going through the pages year by year I haven't yet reached World War II. When I do, I'll have to look around to see what is the editorial consensus on whom to include and how. Looking at the matter now, I would think the most logical approach would be to include Estonia until 1940, when it was invaded, because unfortunately it wasn't liberated at the end of the war, so its loss of independence became the permanent status quo for the next 51 years.
You raised the question of international recognition as an important factor in differentiating between the status of occupied countries. Obviously recognition is a vital element of conducting foreign relations, but even international recognition or the lack of it doesn't change facts. Take Taiwan for example. Until 1971 it was accepted in the UN as the sole representative of the whole of China. Then this recognition switched to the People's Republic of China, and fewer and fewer countries recognize Taiwan since. But this (and the "one China policy") doesn't change the fact that there are two de facto independent countries which exercise control over their own territory and have their own leaders. Or take Israel for another example. Most Arab and Muslim countries don't recognize its existence, but again it doesn't change the facts. And, by the way, you didn't say anything about the example of Hawaii which I brought up. Do you 'legally' regard it as an independent state?
As I said we should apply consistent editing principles across the pages. So if you want to contribute to the list, please do so consistently, regarding the whole of the list. If you would manage to get a consensus to include governments-in-exile, then you should dig up all of them and put them into the list, not just Estonia. Now that there are close to 200 independent countries, it would bring chaos if people would only contribute to the entry about their own country forgetting about the consistency of the rest of the list.
You may have misunderstood what I had said about Africa. What I meant was that in Africa free and fair elections and peaceful transfers of power are the rare exception. Usually it's rather military dictators overthrowing each other or winners of civil wars grabbing the presidency. So if we would only include leaders who got their power legally, there would be hardly anyone left in Africa. By royal families I meant for example the King of Bulgaria, the Shah of Iran, the King of Egypt, the King of Laos, etc who were the rightful leaders of their countries but were later removed by revolution or coup d'état, so not by legal means.
"Saying that they shouldn't be included because they weren't de facto in control of their country is clearly POV". What is POV?
Concerning your last argument: yes, representation is an important function of a national leader, but representation only doesn't make one a leader. So people without any real power claiming to represent a non-independent country just don't fit a list of state leaders, however strong legal, moral and historical claims they had to the leadership of their countries.
Best regards, ZBukov (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


"Now I have a problem with only until 1940 too" - surprise, surprise... This whole chain of messages started with you disagreeing with what I did and almost everything I said subsequently, or if you accepted something than immediately you changed the subject slightly and turned to some other question.
As I've already said that difference between the cases of Norway and Estonia is that the latter remained occupied and annexed into another country (the Soviet Union), while Norway was liberated. So it's not quite the same situation.
Editorial consensus: if you actually read my comment, I said "I'll have to look around to see what is the editorial consensus" on the matter of WWII governments-in-exile. I didn't say you and I are at a consensus. Though actually so far you've taken up to topic of trying to treat Soviet Estonia as an independent country with three people (Kevin McE on your talkpage, Davewild on List of state leaders by year discussion page and myself on both pages), and none of us agreed with you...
I don't see why the existence of any international organization would influence (or justify?) the annexation of a country. And as I've said a few times, the illegality of Estonia's annexation doesn't change the hard fact that it lost its independence to the Soviet Union. Hawaii: obviously it hasn't regained its independence, but according to your POV it should still be treated and reported as an independent country because its annexation was illegal - that's what your approach inevitably leads to.
"All your examples about africa, kings of several states - they do not apply." On the List of state leaders by year discussion page you categorically stated that in your opinion in questions of who is the leader of a country "what is de jure, matters". But when I demonstrate what bizarre consequences your approach leads to, you just generally claim that the examples I bring up, "don't apply"?? As I said we should be editing based on consistent principles. So please make up your mind what principle you promote in this question - so far your only motivation seems to be to get the Estonian governments-in-exile into the list without any consideration of where that precedent would lead. You further claimed that applying your principle would only result in the addition of the Baltic states. I don't agree with that. Georgia was also independent in the beginning of the 20th century and then was incorporated into the Soviet Union - I imagine that it was against their will. So it certainly doesn't stop at the Baltics. "Someone with interest should add their respective leaders" - as I said: consistency is needed. If you would want to introduce and apply such editing principles, then you should collect and include all the other cases too, NOT just Estonia.
You still haven't answered my question on the List of state leaders by year discussion page: What definition of "state leader" includes absent or imprisoned people claiming to represent a non-independent country?
But anyway, since we agreed that the people we are talking about neither had any real power, nor was Estonia independent at the time, I don't think the question of whether they should be included needs more discussion. If there is no independent country to lead and they weren't exercising any power, then there isn't much to talk about. ZBukov (talk) 22:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


Regarding your last message on my talkpage:
ad 1) As I said even international recognition doesn't change facts. Arab countries' lack of recognition of Israel's existence doesn't undo it. And vice versa, international recognition of Estonia's independence didn't make Estonia independent. A government-in-exile and its recognition only means that the country in question SHOULD be independent - but in fact it isn't. By the way, a few countries did give de facto recognition to Georgia's government.
ad 2) According go my understanding the general rule is that only independent countries feature in these lists, but there is an exception made for countries that were occupied and liberated during WWII. Regarding Hawaii: you keep shifing your position. Previously your opinion was that in matters of leadership "what is de jure, matters". So according to this principe, you should still regard Hawaii's royal family as the rightful leaders of the country. They were removed illegally and consequently the country was taken over by the USA, obviously illegal, so according to your principle you don't recognize that either.
ad 4) You wrote: "It does not mean that everyone who feels they have de jure right for leadership, should be added - only the de jure leaders of current recognized states" and "this does not mean that every historical country needs to be added". By the way, its my pleasure to inform you that the examples I mentioned (Bulgaria, Iran, Egypt, Laos) ARE current and recognized states... The year when their last recognized monarch was deposed by revolution or coup d'état (so by illegal means): Bulgaria 1946, Egypt 1953, Laos 1975, Iran 1979.
ad 5) North Korea was and continues to be an independent country. By the way I don't necessarily agree with Kim Il-sung's inclusion in that list. However the people you want to include satisfy neither of the two: they were neither present/at large, nor was their country independent.
ad 5/1 The people you want to include properly belong to the Government in exile list.
ad 5/2 I believe I DO understand what de jure means. What I contest is how relevant it is in this case since the facts were contrary to the de jure situation that was recognized. You keep shifting your position in order to make Estonia appear as a different case from anything else that happened in history. As I said Georgia was partially recognized before being incorporated into the USSR. You argued for de jure succession of leadership as a principle, but you want to avoid facing the consequence of having to recognize Hawaii as independent and recognize its royal family.
Regarding pointless argument: feel free to seek other people's opinion whether a non-independent country's government-in-exile should be included in the state leaders list. ZBukov (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear ZBukov, you intentionally contradict facts and bring up totally different examples to not include Estonia. You said that they belong to the Governments in Exile list, but who said they must ONLY be included there? By that logic, every State leader should be included ONLY in their respective pages - list of kings, list of prime ministers of canada - BUT NOT HERE? De facto recognition of Georgia doesn't mean legal recognition. Also, as I see the Government of the Democratic Republic of Georgia in Exile existed until 1934, which makes it a difficult issue whether to add it or not. I would personally add some note of it, but the question here is Estonia - which had a government in exile until regaining independence. Estonia was occupied during world war II, but not liberated. Now please show me some decent FACTS or REFERENCES that only countries that WERE liberated can be added to this list. Otherwise, it will stay YOUR personal opinion, which most of your arguments are based on. And I don't keep shifting position. What is de jure does matter, but where have I questioned the legality of Hawaii being part of USA?? If the current government should recognise Hawaiian monarchs as current leaders - they should be added. In this case, they obviously don't - nor does any other country in the world... With your following argument, I was surprised you still don't understand my point: again with Bulgaria, Egypt etc....DO THEIR CURRENT GOVERNMENTS RECOGNISE HISTORICAL MONARCHS AS THEIR CURRENT DE JURE LEADERS?? I think not - so I don't want to add them, you don't want to add them, can't we stop bringing these examples up?? You mean de facto independence, but Estonia was de jure independent throughout the occupation - Estonia is still the very same state that it was prior to WWII. You say "non-independent country's government-in-exile", I say "government-in-exile of an occupied country". H2ppyme (talk) 07:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


"Otherwise, it will stay YOUR personal opinion, which most of your arguments are based on." We have both stated our opinions several times and I maintain that I don't think a country that practically lost its independence and leaders that weren't leading the country should be added to the list.
Let my try to explain again the inconsistency of your attitude concerning the examples I brought up. You said that only legal changes of leadership should be acknowledged (in questions of leadership "what is de jure, matters"). So according to this after a revolution or coup d'état we should continue to acknowledge the previous, deposed leader because he lost his power through illegal means. So if the abolition of the monarchy in Iran, Laos etc happened illegally, than the subsequent leadership has been illegal. So your question "DO THEIR CURRENT GOVERNMENTS RECOGNISE HISTORICAL MONARCHS AS THEIR CURRENT DE JURE LEADERS" is equivalent to asking "Did Soviet Estonia recognize the Estonian govenment-in-exile?" Which is clearly absurd. But according to the editing principle which you suggested - which would result in the inclusion of Estonia - the new regimes of Iran, Laos etc shouldn't be included. It's a fact that those regime changes happened and - in my opinion - it's therefore correct that they are included in these lists regardless of the legality of the regimes change and of regardless of the new regimes' international recognition.
Estonia's continued de jure independence was only a theoretical and moral matter since for 51 years it was practically part of another country and governed as such. Often the facts of life overwrite legal and theoretical considerations and official recognition. It was in illustration of this that I brought up the examples of Israel, Taiwan and deposed monarchs. But I believe that in order to reflect what the world's political leadership actually looked like in a given year, we have to stick to the facts when facts and de jure considerations come into conflict.
"I would personally add some note of it, but the question here is Estonia" - this is what I mentioned a few times. It's a rather disruptive attitude that you don't seem to be interested at all in editing these pages in a consistent, principled manner, but your sole aim seems to be that the one change you suggest should be made regardless of that happens to similar historical situations. ZBukov (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


As I see it, the question is quite easy. Was Estonia an independent nation? As you yourself admitted, Estonia de facto lost its indepenendence (for 51 years). Was the government-in-exile Estonia's "political leadership"? As you yourself admitted, they "did not have any real power in Estonia". So without an independent state and without holding any executive power how could they have been state leaders? Only morally and in constitutional theory but not in real life. And I stand by my view that when facts and de jure considerations come into conflict, we have to stick to the facts in order to represent the world as it really was, not how it should have been.
You do keep shifting your position! (Or maybe YOU don't understand what de jure means.) You did write that in your opinion in questions of leadership "what is de jure, matters". But when I bring up examples of illegal regime changes, your reply is that those governments are currently recognized... However de jure and recognized are two VERY different things! The de jure situation is a matter of law and legality, and recognition is a political act which doesn't change facts. So if something is recognized it doesn't make it legal and vice versa (e.g. Kosovo's independence and subsequent recognition despite UN Security Council Resolution 1244). So if you don't stand by your opinion ("what is de jure, matters") anymore, since it would clearly lead to absurd consequences, admit it!
You may not have noticed but the question about Soviet Estonia's recognition of the government-in-exile was a rhetorical one to illustrate how illogical your original question ("DO THEIR CURRENT GOVERNMENTS RECOGNISE HISTORICAL MONARCHS AS THEIR CURRENT DE JURE LEADERS") was...
And I continue to find it unhelpful and disruptive that you just push for the implementation of your personal view and assessment of Estonian history without any regard for consistent and principled editing of the pages in question. ZBukov (talk) 01:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

However much we dislike the fact that Estonia was occupied, the link to the Socialist Republic of Estonia needs to be added, so that people know what entitiy existed there before Estonia regained its independence! ZBukov (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonia's occupation and merger into the Soviet Union was illegal, there's no question about that. But during our endless discussion it became apparent that it's a question of principle and maybe national honour for you to refuse to recognize facts when they contradict the version of events which the government of Estonia officially recognizes. This is clearly unacceptable. Facts don't change because of recognition of the lack of it. And the claim that Estonia had a legitimate prime minister, but a president only in exile seems illogical. So do you recognize two parallel administrations for Estonia in 1991? One in Tallinn and one in exile? ZBukov (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

You may be Estonian and thus know more about Estonian history, but you seem to be pushing an ideological opinion which disregards and dismisses facts on the bases that they aren't officially recognized. ZBukov (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


"two PARALLEL governments are even listed on the government of Estonia website" "it still is the OFFICIAL viewpoint of the Republic" Rüütel is "not recognised as a "President" or "head of state" by our government" So what? Why is that relevant? Wikipedia shouldn't stick to governments' official opinions. If we did, than Taiwan wouldn't exist - according to Beijing's view, and the Communist leadership in Beijing wouldn't exist - according to Taiwan. We should try to concentrate on what actually happened independently of official viewpoints and ideological interpretations.
"The fact that Estonia lost its independence (your "fact") and the fact that the Republic of Estonia continued to exist on many levels (my "fact") are parallel facts, one doesn't refute the other." I agree. As I explanied my understanding on my talkpage in the discussion with Termer, the Republic of Estonia as a legal entity survived (evidenced by continuing international recognition and operating embassies), but Estonia the state practially lost its independence (the supreme authority over the territory and the people was exercised by another country).
Rüütel "was not democratically elect and basically representing moscow in Tallinn" Many state leaders weren't democratically elected either, and Communist leaders in many independent countries also practically represented Moscow back home.
"Estonia regained its independence between 1988 and 1991, it didn't happen overnight." Most historical events are the results of a longer process, but still they need to be tied to a point in time. So what's your problem with naming one particular day?
"I have shown you the evidence, you have shown me nothing." You have already demonstrated an ill-tempered and sometimes uncivilized style of argument during our earlier discussion, so I regard this one as just the latest example. As far as contribution to listing state leaders is concerned you should just look at every single List of state leaders page between 2009 and 1955. ZBukov (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Mart Laar's government really wasn't interim. I'll correct the link to Republic of Estonia, but I want to include a link so people can access info about what happened before independence. Rüütel was in office until 1992 by which time Estonia did regain its independence. Why do you think he wasn'the was representing an independent state? And I maintain that the Estonian government's official viewpoint is an opinion and should not be substituted for the facts. Why do you want to turn Wikipedia into the Estonia government's bulletin? ZBukov (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
I left your wording of "re-declaring independence". ZBukov (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


"would we include the heads of parliaments for ALL THE INDEPENDENT STATES?" No. As you may or may nor be aware some states (for example some Communist countries did in the past) decide to designate the head of their parliament as their head of state. It only depends on the constitutional setup the country has.
"He was not a president, please don't mix the two obviously difficult words for you." You have a point there, I will put in Head of State instead of President. However it would be nice if you could transcend your pathetic level of debating culture and stop insulting me only because I dare to disagree with you.
"Estonian SSR can not be in the same link with Estonian Republic, therefore this will be removed." Again considerations of government recognition supplanting facts. Despite the fact the Estonian SSR didn't come into existence legally and despite the fact that the current Estonian governments don't recognize it as such, the Estonian SSR was on the practical level predecessor of present day Estonia because that was the state formation that existed over that territory before. Are you really unable to make a distinction between your government's official opinion and the facts? You still haven't explanied why you demand so strongly that Wikipedia represents the official viewpoint of the Estonian government in interpreting historical facts. It's time you realized that it's the government spokesman's job, not Wikipedia's!
"If you think that his power was like those of the other communist Chairmen of Supreme Soviets, then no" I made no such comparison at any point. Neither would I need to. A head of state is whom the given state's constitution recognizes as such without reference to any other state's leader. One head of state's constitutional powers don't have to match that of another one. I really don't see where you got that connection from. ZBukov (talk) 21:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


I definiately don't like to be insulted just so that you "get the heat up or something". You should limit yourself to generally accepted ways of behaviour and seek excitement elsewhere. You should check Wikipedia:Etiquette (be civil, recognize your own biases and keep them in check, etc...)
Okay, so who do you think was the Estonian SSR's last head of state? The rulers website (http://www.rulers.org/sovrep.html#estonia) names Rüütel as such. If it turns out that in fact it was someone else, I'll remove Rüütel because heads of parliament per se (if they aren't also heads of state or government) are not to be included in these lists.
"You think you are smart, but this doesn't mean you should know more than I about Estonian political history" It's a bit pathetic how you seem to be treating this issue are a personal battle where you think you have to humiliate me in order to maintain your prestige in your own eyes...
Concerning Federal Republic of Germany and Nazi Germany. The Federal Republic's preceding entity was Allied-occupied Germany. But if the Federal Republic came straight after Nazi Germany, than I would definiately link them in the same way as I did with the Estonian SSR and Estonia. Just like Hungary is the successor of the People's Republic of Hungary however much we may have disliked it.
"Your continuous desire to show your intelligence pisses me off" So what? I'm not here to please you. By the way at least this way you "get the heat up or something"...
"even though official names, dates etc have been shown to you" I keep asking you the question which you haven't managed to answer so far: Why should be automatically take over the Estonian government's opinions?? And by the way what you keep referring to as "facts" are rather opinions and interpretations! I didn't question the fact that the members of the Estonian government-in-exile lived and even acted in such capacity. Where I disagreed with you is whether they can be regarded as state leaders - and that's a question of interpretation, no facts. And you are the one who kept denying that Estonia lost its independence while in fact it did!
"And don't you think that it would be OBVIOUS to check the local government list of leaders, when talking about leaders of an independent state" Checking, yes, but accepting uncritically, no.
"all your today's edits undone, Rüütel removed" Surprise, surprise. Waging your little battle... ZBukov (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Rulers does show Rüütel as independent Estonia's first head of state. (http://www.rulers.org/rule.html#estonia)
You still haven't answered my question: in your opinion who was the Estonian SSR's last head of state, and who was independent Estonia's head of state in office between 1991 and 1992?
You removed the Estonian SSR link from the comment regarding independence. It became apparent to me that your every argument, insistence and explanation serves only one purpose, to remove any reference to the Estonian SSR. However this is exactly what I wanted to put in there. Since I want it there and you want it removed, I don't think it makes sense to continue this argument anymore because there's no compromise between including a piece of information and omitting it. For me the Soviet Union won't do for preceding state, because it continued to exist after Estonia's independence plus there is a more particular political entity: the Estonian SSR, which seceded (re-gained its independence) from the USSR.
"ESSR was just a pupped state, not even independent." I made a point of including former colonies' colonial names too (e.g. Gold Coast for Ghana), for reference. So the fact that the Estonian SSR wasn't independent is not a problem. Puppet state? Yes, but most Eastern European Communist countries can more or less be regarded as puppet states too.
"What truly amazes me is that you keep pushing your own wording here. "Interim Prime Minister of Estonia"" It seems you are amazed by me for several reasons... I try to strike a balance between standard wording but correct titles. For reasons of consistency I tend to use "interim Prime Minister (or President of the Government or Chairman of the Council of Ministers)" for heads of government who only served in a caretaker capacity. Though I can make a compromise on this point.
Regarding the comment in the 1992 list: I added such a "silly note", that bothers you so much, to everyone who took office before their country attained independence, and I inserted such a note into every year's article until such a person was in office (except in the very year the country gained independence because then there is a note about that below the country name). This serves the purpose that when someone looks at it, they will know that for example the person may have been in office for 20 years, but only served as an independent country's leader for 5 years.
About using the Estonian government's data. As I said I don't question the basic data (e.g. person's names and dates of office), but to recognize the government-in-exile as the country's legitimate leaders is a matter of opinion and principle. And while it's legally correct, it doesn't reflect the real life facts. And I'm not willing to omit the real life facts (Estonian SSR, Rüütel, loss of independence, etc) for the sake of theoretical considerations.
"I just try to sarcastically insult everybody, that's what I do... " Well, you shouldn't.
"All you can do is be smarter or..." I have no intention to race and try to catch up with you in sarcasm or insults. Civilized, respectful behaviour will be just fine. ZBukov (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
After reading the first paragraph of your last comment I was surprised to find that you reverted my edit on the 1991 and 1992 pages yet again. Given that and the warning we both received, I had to refer this matter for Wikipedia:Third opinion.
Why are you "completely opposed" to mentioning the Estonian SSR as the predecessor of Estonia? That was the political entity (albeit not independent) existing over the same territory before the Republic of Estonia regained its independence.
"I don't think we need to be too consistent, rather correct." Internal consistency is a general editing principle on Wikipedia.
"I mean, we shouldn't call (for theoretical example) Rüütel a "president"" I agree. And after you drew my attention to this, I changed the heading in the 1992 article from "president" to "head of state" to accomodate the fact that while Meri was president, Rüütel was "Chairman of the Supreme Council".
"With a little extra work, there could be a note "served as president of the (preceding political enitity) 1972-1985"." I considered it but thought that it would create too long lines for one person and would make the list unnecessarily complicated and reduce transparency. In addition to changes in country names and political entities, often the title a leader bore also changed during their time in office (especially in politically unstable countries). The only exception I made to this rule are the last colonial governors of Commonwealth countries who upon independence became the countries' first governor-general or president (e.g. Sir Clement Arrindell of Saint Kitts and Nevis in 1983, Louis Cools-Lartigue of Dominica in 1978)
"there was no state of Estonia " I'm afraid I can't agree with this statement. It's also apparent in the name: Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic - of course I concede that the Soviet republics (which in Estonia's case was illegally created in the first place) had very little real autonomy, but the Soviet Union definiately wasn't a unitary state. ZBukov (talk) 21:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Both yourself and User:Zoltan Bukovszky are edit warring on List of state leaders in 1991 and List of state leaders in 1992. You should stop doing this and instead continue discussing the issue and I urge either of you to take this to Wikipedia:Third opinion and get an (or some) outside opinions on the dispute. As I commented on a closely related issue on Talk:List of state leaders by year I do not want to get involved myself but if the edit war continues I shall report you both to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Davewild (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

List of tautological place names[edit]

Please see my reply on my talk page. Pasquale (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

List of sovereign states in 1944 etc.[edit]

I realize that the Baltic states were occupied from 1940 on, but the "Occupied States" section on the list is not supposed to be a list of every single state which is occupied during a given year. It's only a place for states which don't fit anywhere else. If an occupied state exists in another form, it is listed there and not in the occupied states section. So occupied Czechoslovakia is listed as the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia and the Slovak Republic, occupied Belgium is listed as a part of Belgium and Northern France, and occupied Poland is listed as General Government. By the same logic, the German occupation of the Baltic states should probably be listed under Ostland.

The phrasing of the list as it stands might be a bit misleading, so I can put in some notes which makes all this clear to the reader. ("For this state see this section" or whatever) Orange Tuesday (talk) 17:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Student society Liivika[edit]

I reverted your cut-and-paste move of Student society Liivika. Had you been a new user, I would have templated you. However, since you have been here for a while, I draw your attention to {{subst:uw-c&pmove}}, which explains why a cut-and-paste move is undesirable. Further, the naming convention Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) indicates that English names should be used. Therefore, the title Student society Liivika is preferred over the title ÜS Liivika. Cunard (talk) 01:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you for revising the article title to reflect the new name instead of the old one. Should Student society Liivika be renamed to Student Society Liivika? I don't understand why the second "s" is not capitalized. Cunard (talk) 00:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Non-free files in your user space[edit]

Hey there H2ppyme, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:H2ppyme/Sandbox3. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

  • See a log of files removed today here.
  • Shut off the bot here.
  • Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Soviet births[edit]

Whatever agreement this refers to, it was clearly made by people living in la-la land. Like it or not, anyone born in what is now Estonia between 1940 and 1990 was born in the USSR. I can quite understand why people don't like the fact that the country was occupied, but the fact is that it was. Historical revisionism like this only serves to damage Wikipedia's reliability. I know you won't care, but one day I hope you are ashamed of your attempts to airbrush history. Number 57 19:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the de jure situation, Estonia was in reality part of the USSR - the USSR controlled it, it sent members to the Soviet parliament, its sportsmen represented Soviet national teams. We do not say that people born in Taipei since 1948 are born in the People's Republic of China, despite the fact that most countries recognise PR China and the One China policy, because it is not factually correct, regardless of the legal situation. However, given my past experience with dealing with nationalists on these kind of matters, I realise that reality has little basis for decision-making. Number 57 19:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
This strawman argument has already been used on user talk:Oleola by one of your fellow revisionists. As I noted there, wartime is different to peacetime situations (and that is a different argument to the USSR/Yugoslavia/Czechoslovakia), but if it was a recognisable entity, then I have no problem with using it. Number 57 19:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I think the fact that you are questioning my depth of knowledge suggests that this discussion is even more pointless than I had previously imagined. Number 57 20:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to inform you a report for WP:WAR against you is at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:H2ppyme_reported_by_User:FkpCascais_.28Result:_.29. FkpCascais (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

H2ppyme, you are making a huge number of reverts. Clearly this breaks the WP:3RR rule at Sergei Pareiko, no matter who is right about the country of birth. Consider replying at WP:AN3 and promising to stop this, to avoid a block. You may also be warned under WP:DIGWUREN if you continue. EdJohnston (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you please stop changing people birthplaces to "Estonia" even if they were born 1976. Gragox (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding consistency, what do you reckon how many Baltic people have birth places set to Estonia/Latvia/Lithuania? I'd say it could be around 25% - 90% of Estonians + a few Latvians/Lithuanians. Obviously, you gain sort of a ground for consistency when a couple of people change and regularly check those birthplaces to be "correct".
Also, one of your points was to have birth places set as "Estonia" for people who have anything to do with the country after the end of USSR. Well, I wouldn't list hockey players Valeri Bobkov, Sergei Varlamov and Leo Komarov among them. Gragox (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

October 2011[edit]

Your recent edits seem to have the appearance of edit warring after a review of the reverts you have made on Sergei Pareiko. Users are expected to collaborate and discuss with others and avoid editing disruptively.

Please be particularly aware, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. causa sui (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Warning about user Dilas25[edit]

Dilas25 is having a POV agenda against Estonia and everything Estonian. For example I reverted his POV "editions" (his/her own personal comments which are not the same with the sources he/she adds) about Russians in Estonia in the Nation State article. This user put it back it until finally a registered user reverted his POV editions for the time being. Could you check and if necessary warn this user, and that he/she does not add POV remarks that often contradict the sources he/she adds. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.254.133.114 (talk) 16:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Evgeny Varlamov POB[edit]

Your recent edits/"corrections" about the place of birth of Evgeny Varlamov on the Torpedo Nizhny Novgorod roster template are incorrect. Prior to 1990, the country of Estonia was known as the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, part of the Soviet Union. For that, please cease in changing the POB, as they did not become an independent nation until 14 years after the player was born. (saint0wen (talk) 04:10, 4 February 2012 (UTC))

Content from User:H2ppyme/Sandbox2[edit]

If you have moved it to mainspace, you may want to clear it out. Otherwise, you may want to move it - it looks quite useful! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 00:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Republic of China article[edit]

Since you mentioned about the Republic of China in your user page, I guess you are interested to share your insights at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012). Thanks for your attention. 16:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Moving Burma to Myanmar - ongoing poll[edit]

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:03, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Place of Birth for people born in Estonia[edit]

Hello, I fought my way through the arguments and links you provided.

  • "According to international law, Estonia was an occupied country and its independent status was widely supported in the free world."
  • While I have no problem with "Estonia was an occupied country" I doubt that "its independent status was widely supported in the free world". But at this is an argument that I could at least accept (in contrary to the following ones).
  • "Supporting your logic, we would add "Paris, German occupied France" for someone born in Paris in 1942."
  • Yes, what's wrong with that? Either all biographies should list the the place as it was named at the time of birth or as it called now. Consensus is to use the historical name, so "Paris, German occupied France" is correct.
  • "Estonia is also a distinct geographical term, while the SSR is a political regime, which is totally unnecessary in the infobox." And please do not imply that I'm 'trying to push the "Estonian SSR"' when it is clearly wrong.
  • And your point is ...? I haven't put SSR in the infobox, see here and here. Please have a look my edits before you raise unrelated points.

For the links you provided: I don't see any consensus, it's mostly you (and a few other editors) against a few other editors. Each side repeats its arguments with no consensus at all. I'm not really sure what I should think about the about the timestamp of your edit (A mistake? Purpose?) It claims your edit was done on 21:44, 7 October 2013 (UTC) while the talk page history says it was done 07:31, 10 December 2013‎ (UTC). No wonder that you already reverted even if you said you would revert "tomorrow". So I don't want to discuss with you because I would just repeat previous arguments and I severely doubt I would change anything because you seem to have your own world view which is not necessarily backed up with facts (see "Estonian SSR" above). In Germany there is a saying "Der Klügere gibt nach" (the wiser head gives in) even it makes me a bit sad then the most annoying people win. --Jaellee (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Harju County (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Peter I, November Revolution, Saku, Harju, Duchy of Estonia and Kesklinn

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harju County, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gypsies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank Gotch, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estonian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Estonian flags, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greater German Reich (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -DJSasso (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Jaanus Sorokin ‎. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Laser brain (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)