User talk:RJ CG

Rein Lang

Your contributions to Rein Lang so far have been anything but constructive. You should refrain from disruptive editing in the future, lest the Mighty Hammer of Wikipedian Justice fall upon you with all its political gravity. Digwuren 21:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Rein Lang, you will be blocked from editing. Digwuren 21:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Your bans did not teach you anything. It is you who repeatedly blanked sourced content I added to this page and replaced it with unsourced POV statements. Let's present both Russian and Estonian viewpoints here, shall we? By the way, if you insist on your illiterate statement about "Dozor", I'm cool with that. If you want to make it look like rant of illiterate politically motivated author, let's leave it as it is. RJ CG 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

One more question. Is opposition to Bronze Soldier's relocation and grave-digging a crime in your eyes, so you repeatedly mention it every time Dozor iz mentioned? RJ CG 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on User talk:Lysy. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors; instead, assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Also, do not accuse other editors of vandalism. Lysy's reworked whole article as you can see from history, he did not just remove material. And, vandalism accusations are considered personal attacks. Sander Säde 19:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried my best to assume it, but failed. Lysy (who very rarely participate in topics I am interested in) popped up on the "cyberattack" page hours after I changed Russophobia page not to his liking and started to remove the referenced and relevant info from cyberattack page. He did not add a single source, just rearranged existing data and carefully removed everything not in sync with the "Blame Russia" tone article had before. I can not see it as anything but vandalism. RJ CG 19:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

_{(Edit conflict with Lysy)}I don't know about your relations - and actually, I support yours/current version more. But his edits do not look like standard hit&delete vandal actions - it is pretty clear that he tried to improve the article. And s/he is an established editor, far more edits then you and me together. Accusing another wikipedian of vandalism - whether in notice or edit summary - is a very grave accusation and in case of established editors should never be made lightly. That is why I removed that warning - you should have used some of the "lighter" templates or just left a manual message - actually, I recommend that you should do that now, explaining your side of the reasoning as well.

With that I am off to sleep... which I should have done quite a while ago... Sander Säde 19:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Your message in my talk page

RJ CG, I do not appreciate the unfriendly message that you've left on my talk page as much as I do not appreciate your POV pushing. I'm putting Cyberattacks on Estonia 2007 back on my watchlist now to make sure that your POV pushing edits do not pass unnoticed. --Lysy^talk 19:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So message reached the addressee. Mission accomplished :) In the future, would you be so kind to explain removals of referenced info? If you noticed, I kept your (and other's) edits almost intact, with small exception of the wording regarding hacker's statement. RJ CG 19:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I apologize for calling your edits POV pushing. --Lysy^talk 20:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize too. I was pretty angry at you for your initial edits, but you did right thing in the end by forcing me to rework the article. Cheers :) RJ CG 20:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

All's good that ends good. Peace. --Lysy^talk 20:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rein Lang. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Sander Säde 14:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the Meatpuppeters? RJ CG

No, just replying to attack by estophobe, who pushes that all estonians are fascists. Sander Säde 14:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you guys preparing ground for attack against me in ArbCom or something with your constant baseless accusations of racism? You are shameless liar if you say that I ever implied that all Estonians are fascists. I really have no more comments on your unfortunate statement. RJ CG 14:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Rein Lang ([1]), you will be blocked from editing. Digwuren 16:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is bad faith warning from repeated name-caller who had been exposed as liar by me. I am wondering how low can you guys (Korps!Estonia) go in your Homo Soveticus-styled attacks against editors who happen to disagree with your narrow vision of this world. RJ CG 17:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's say that your attempt to support baseless accusations looks as lame as your childish namecalling and outlandish accusations. Quote from obscure website still does not mention "anti-fascist". I cut you some slack in order to avoid edit wars. RJ CG 19:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Russo-Estonian relations, you will be blocked from editing. Find a valid source - or even any source. Otherwise your claim does not belong to Wikipedia. Sander Säde 15:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith warning from person who is obviously aware of Estonian denial of automatic citizenship to the offspring of post-1940 migrants and tries to advance his politically motivated viewpoint by issuing false warnings.RJ CG 15:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article, as you did to Rein Lang, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Digwuren 15:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for tedious editing at Russo-Estonian relations while violating WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're 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.

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:46, 16 July 2007 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to see justification of the block, that is, if you don't count lies by members of Korps! Estonia as justification. Most of warnings of Korps!' members are not just in bad faith, they are plain lies.

Decline reason:

With a quick glance, I see you've reverted a HUGE number of reverts at that article, easily hitting or passing WP:3RR at least twice in the past week. Please take a moment to think of this as a wake-up call -- edit warring is very much frowned upon, we would much prefer that you build a consensus by the use of talk pages. Feel free to make use of Wikipedia's robust dispute resolution process; troublesome editors can be dealt with via the admin noticeboards and arbitration committee, if needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

RJ CG 16:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Luna Santin made an interesting accusation. The way I see it he chose to forget about [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:OR]] accusations as they would obviously generate a lot of unpleasant questions about editing styles of contributors who attacked me. Instead he recided to stick to 3RR. Let's take a look at page history [2]. Would Luna Santin be so kind to point out any sequence of events when I initiated edit wars? Edit wars and frivolous use of {{cn}}tags (as in case when citizen of Estonia nad one of main contributors in Estonian section of English wikipedia repeatedly denied something spelled out loud and clear in his own country Citizenship law) were started against me all the time, I never reverted anybody's edit. Each and every revert I made was to return sourced relevant information added by me and deleted by Korps!Estonia (Alexia Death, Colchicum, Sander Säde) in order to advance their politically motivated POV. But even with that (although it does not seem logical to accuse one of defending himself, but not much is logical in Estonian segment of en.wiki regardless), I would be interested in seeing proof for 3RR accusation against me. Aren't we confusing 3RR with 3 edits of same article? In this case Colchicum and Sander Säde should be banned too. RJ CG 18:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think FayssalF means tendentious editing (aka WP:TE), not tedious editing. Digwuren 17:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Would it have ben bannable offence, neither of your guys (Korps!Estonia) with your repeated POV-pushing and false accusations of anyone who have misfortune not to share your POV would survive on wiki past mid-May. RJ CG 17:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your personal attacks help with your unblock request. Suva 17:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

To be frank you you, at some point lies should be called lies, at least in order to have proof that your snitching on admin pages (as Sander Säde frivolously did) is just settling of political scores and have no merit. I tried to be nice and quiet with you, just patiently correcting your distorted statements and being very attentive about supporting my every edit with relevant NPOV source and just ignoring your libelious and overblown accusations. It did not work. RJ CG 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

On the relevant note, when I joined wikipedia I didn't understand why Petri was so loud with his accusations on Estonian segment and same Petri was so quiet and decent on the other segments. I do understand now. You guys need to be fed your own med (accusations of political bias and escalations of every dispute) all the time in order to keep you from harrassing another wikipedians. I am actually of opinion that calling you POV-pushers and liar (with good NPOV sources, as usual, I am religious about it) will remedy future disputes. RJ CG 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, aren't most of those cited things rationales from the deletion guideline and not from the blocking policy? I mean, blocking for 3RR is fine and all, but OR? NPOV? Those are reasons for deleting an article, not blocking a user. Weird. Utgard Loki 18:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That's why they quickly switched to 3RR, which did not happen (I never reverted same piece of text 3 times in 24 hours).RJ CG 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Whoopsy, I re-read 3RR page and understood that violation is per page. So I was clearly guilty of doing that, reversing blatant POV-pushing and removal of referenced data by different editors (who belong to same clique accused of sock-and meat-puppeting several times and acquitted on technicality that network setup behind proxy they share is set in such a way that it is impossible for wikipedia to make a conclusion) in different part of the page in question. Mea Culpa! RJ CG 18:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit warriors frequently do pose themselves as the Sole Defender of All Sacred Justice on the wiki -- this is a common trap people fall into, the belief that they own the project and are the sole authority of what does or doesn't belong. I hate to break your ego trip, but edit warring is really just disruptive; if the users you're in a conflict with really are as bad as you seem to think, there are better ways of dealing with them (as mentioned above). – Luna Santin (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Your e-mail address?

Please provide an e-mail address or contact me by e-mail. I need to talk in private about the character assassination you are the target of. -- Petri Krohn 00:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:BRD

Please read the article. The guideline says that the one who made a bold edit which got reverted starts the discussion explaining why he thinks his edit is better. The discussion is kept when a new consensus is achieved. Your edit was definitely bold one. Suva 13:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Done.RJ CG 15:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you have started the discussion doesn't give you right to revert again. You can revert only if new consensus is reached, and this is reached when other editors agree with your points. Or don't have clear opinion at all in some amount of time. Suva 15:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This very same logic should apply to actions of my opponent, shouldn't it? But I didn't see you calling on him to revert his edits and to discuss differences on a talk page. And I'm not sure since what time I should beg you or Digwuren for the right to edit page. Could you clarify, please? RJ CG 18:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He hasn't reverted me.

You should really read through the WP:BRD and WP:CON

In short. Page's current state which has lasted for some time, and several editors agree to, is current "consensus" if you make a bold edit, which changes the idea of section or even whole article radically and you get reverted you have to explain why you think your edits are better. Then the conversation should find a new consensus or stick to old one.

Unfortunately WP:BRD is not a rule. And some people don't respect that guideline. First step would be to come to some sort of agreement with other editors to follow some guidelines and talk first not edit war.

I see that some editors are just trying to get eachother upset. I am even so bold to guess that some people are being payed to fill wikipedia with wrong information, I wish I am mistaking though. I wish the whole stuff is just some sort of misunderstanding created by media and governments.

Anyways, my "wise words" to you: World is not black and white. People who don't like coffee don't neccesarily have to like tea. And my wise words to everyone involved: Edit warring in wikipedia is not helping anyone. The current battle only damages the reputation of both Russia and Estonia. Suva 18:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Those are mightily nice words you write here. I only wish they would be more fact-based. Would you take a look at article in question before writing your comment (read something before you comment on it, didn't they teach it in an Estonian school), you would notice that yours truly had been involved in editing of this section for the most of the Friday, Aug. 10. As it was by the end of the Friday, it contained brief description of Russian position and comment from rather partial (and let's say, not extremely friendly to current Russian regime) Jamestown Foundation. Then Martintg and Digwuren started to edit this section over the weekend in the clear and blatant violation of WP:BRD you claim to respect so much. Not a whiff of displeasure from you. I haven't been involved in wikipedia over the weekend, as is clearly seen from [3]. Then, Monday morning, I edited section, basically removing Estonian interpretation of Russian claims and just listing the claims (and I'd like to ask for a umpteen time, since you happily ignored this question before - aren't Russians allowed to speak for themselves). This triggered immediate flurry of accusations of WP:BRD violations. Excuse me, but since factual basis for your accusations of a WP:BRD violation is so flimsy and partial, I have no other choice but to question your right to lecture me anything related to etiquette. RJ CG 19:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said before WP:BRD is not a rule, nobody can VIOLATE it. I am just losing all kinds of respect towards editors involved in this dispute and wikipedia itself. For some strangest reasons you started to seem like a most reasonable person in this stuff, so I just decided to give some advice.

BRD is a tactic - strategy. Very clever one at that, if you can use it correctly. You can't say that anyone has violated it, but you can use it to avoid editwars and get the article NPOV. Suva 20:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Using this talk page

It has come to my attention that this talk page has been used by some of this user's content opponents abusively. I made a first clean up and I intend to keep it on my watchlist from now on.

The most blatant violation was posting by Digwuren on the top of this page. Anything that contradicts the spirit of {{Pinfo}} will be removed and posters will be reported.

It has also come to my attention that some used this page to post warning templates abusively. WP:DTTR sums it up nicely why this is a bad practice. When I see these templates posted again with the sole intention to harass the user, this templates will be removed on sight. For now, I removed various warning images. I intend to remove messages later, unless the owner of this page objects.

However fiercely one may disagree with the content of this editor's edits, vandalism and test templates are not the right way of settling content conflicts as they clearly do not apply. Such templates are nothing but harassment and those who abuse them will be reported.

Finally, I would like to state that I have never interacted with this user and I have no intention to "protect" him from being punished for any wrongdoing he might have done or will do. I see the block above given during the last Digwuren/Petri mess being sorted out and I thoroughly endorse all three blocks. Please do not waste time spreading the content bias accusations. I do not care for the content of this user's edit but he is obviously being harassed. This matter will be raised at the workshop of Digwuren's case, once the page is created.

Your cooperation is appreciated, --Irpen 19:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion

I hope you don't mind me giving you one. I notice that you never received the proper welcome at this project. Instead of the guidance template, you were welcomed by Digwuren's trollish entry. It is kind of late for {{Ruswelcome}} to be placed at your talk but judging from your Babel message, you might want to check some links at its bottom.

Generally, it is a good idea to alternate editing of controversial topics with something less contentious. Maybe you can create a new article or expand some? The Russia Portal, particularly its "Things you can do" window, and the Portal:Russia/New article announcements may be worthy to check out for some articles or suggestions were work is needed. Regards, --Irpen 23:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I see that false warning templates placed here by D and Korp! Estonia have been removed. Good! I was going to remove them in June, but was a bit too late. I consider all of them harassment and part of a campaign of character assassination. None of them had any grounds in your conduct, all were misuse of the templates. Unhappily the blocking administrator did not see through the disruption and harassment. -- Petri Krohn 16:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I may be partly to blame, as I regurally placed 3RR and some vandal warning tags on User Talk:Digwuren, in that case for very good reasons. It may not have been a good idea to use templates, but once someone starts communication with you with personal attacks, it is very difficult to maintain a polite conversation. -- Petri Krohn 16:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)