User talk:Digwuren/Archive 1

Welcome!

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

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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

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

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Alex Bakharev 14:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Stop reverting my articles! (by Redstar1987)

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

Stalking and personal attacks

I am reverting your personal attack from Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn (See: [2]) What you are doing is stalking, and will get you blocked. Please do not re-introduce the material. You are of course welcome to discuss the individual issues in the proper context. -- Petri Krohn 20:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your accusations are baseless. Digwuren 22:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that I had to do this, but I have reported you at WP:AN/I. -- Petri Krohn 00:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Fourth Wall, the report and the deafening silence that followed has since been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive236#User:Digwuren. Digwuren 19:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous edits from 194.182.142.5

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

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

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

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

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

Edit summaries

Please do not call good faith edits "vandalism" as you did here. -- Petri Krohn 05:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The edit I reverted there is obviously not a good faith edit; it's a reversal to a misrepresentation of what the source says for POV-pushing purposes. Digwuren 05:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Stalking

It seems that you have started a personal edit was against me. In this undo you reverted my minor edit that removed an extra newline from an image caption. Please stop! -- Petri Krohn 05:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You are mischaracterising your edit. It changed "At its original location before May 2006" into "... in May 2006". This is clearly inaccurate, as the statue had been fully relocated by the end of April, and thus never was in its original location in May. Digwuren 05:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears I mixed up the year numbers. In context of 2006, I'll withdraw my objection. Digwuren 07:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Bronze Soldier of Tallinn

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

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

Please don't remove referenced inf.

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Estonian SSR, you will be blocked from editing. Please, notice, that removing referenced information as you did here, is considered vandalism (see "Blanking" section there). For edits in such a style a user can be blocked.Cmapm 15:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Denialism"

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

3RR block

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

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

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

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

---

Request reason:

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

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

Decline reason:

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

---

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

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