User talk:Digwuren/Archive 2

Archive

1. User talk:Digwuren/Archive 1

Bulgaria vote

Might I ask you to put in the word Oppose, just so there's no confusion for the deciding administrator as to how you're voting? Thank you. Biruitorul 21:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out; somehow, I missed that standard voting customs apply in RMs, even though they're held on talk pages. Digwuren 22:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, great. Also, sorry for removing the Ceauşescu information rather abruptly, but it is indeed the case that the Romanian Orthodox Church uses the Revised Julian calendar, on which Christmas is December 25th. I suppose that's not so well-known, and you and K. Lastochka certainly didn't deserve Anonimu's customary personal attacks. Biruitorul 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grazon —SlamDiego_←T 07:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Socks and Feet

If you are a centipede, then you need many socks and are to be feared, but if you are a millipede then you need even more socks but are innocuous. —SlamDiego_←T 12:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Taken into account. Digwuren 13:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Pip Utton

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Pip Utton, by Hu (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Pip Utton seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Pip Utton, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't do that

Digwuren, please don't make any further edits like this. Users are within their rights to remove posts on their talkpages. If they do, it counts as evidence that he/she has read the messge, which is what it's for. Putting it back is not your business, whether or not it came from an administrator. Altogether, be careful and considerate when editing other people's user talk pages, please. Make sure you avoid user space harassment. Ask yourself: am I adding information that the user wants or needs? Because the only single legitimate use of the user talk page is constructive communication with the user. It's not a noticeboard for displaying stuff that you think other people need to see. WP:NOT a battleground. Bishonen | talk 09:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

Estophilia

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Estophilia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ChrisLamb 15:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren, your creation of Estophilia seems to be a clear example of employing WP:Point tactics. I am certain the article will be deleted, as in English such term is almost never used (11 Google hits).

Making WP:Point edits can be fun, but in the end it is quite counterproductive, and it negatively impacts your credibility as a serious Wikipedian. Most people can see right through it, and they don't appreciate it much. Take my friendly advice, and never do things like this in the future. Balcer 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren, I did not understand your edit summary when you removed my prod of Estophilia. If I understand your summary correctly, it seems you are dismissing the WP:POINT guideline as being fundamentally incorrect. WP:POINT is very much accepted by the Wikipedia community. If you feel that the creation of Estophilia was not an example of WP:POINT, please clarify, because I did not get that interpretation from your edit summary.

I have created a section on the talk page to discuss this matter. Also note I will probably nominated the article for an AfD discussion soon. --Jaysweet 19:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm implying that you're reading into Estophilia ideas that are not there. Digwuren 19:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar of National Merit

The Barnstar of National Merit

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		For excelent contributions related to Estonia ChrisLamb 16:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Noe

Hi. Please avoid commenting at User talk:RJ CG at the time being. Let admins deal w/ that. Otherwise you'd be blocked according to WP:HARASS. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean 'Note'. :-) Digwuren 17:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

To be done

Bronze Soldier of Tallinn

• part of the concerns presented in [1] are addressed by /Eesti Päevaleht April 30, 2007: Pronkssõdur on uues kohas!, edited by Aivar Pau/

• in the same context, /Postimees June 8, 2007: Riigikohus jättis sõjahaudade kaitse seaduse jõusse/ reporting a ruling of Riigikohus is also relevant

• Interesting details for Bronze Soldier of Tallinn are presented in /delfi.ee April 27, 2007 7:10: Pronkssõdur on ära viidud/

Estophilia

Draft

To be written.

Sources

'Georg Julius von Schultz (Dr. Bertram), 1808-1875. Possibilities and Limitations of Estophilia among the Baltic Germans in the 19th Century', by Johann Gottfried of University of California. Printed in 'Zeitschrift für Ostforschung'. [2]

'1710–1850. The Baltic Landesstaat. Emergence of national consciousness and Estophilia' by Estonica [3]

'F.R. Faehlmanni estofiilia: sihid ja retseptsioon' (Estonian for 'Estophilia of F. R. Faehlmann: goals and reception'), a PhD thesis by Kristi Metste: ERIS entry

How Estonian literary culture was born, by Ea Jansen of Estonian Institute [4]:

“ The era of the turn of the nineteenth century and its first couple of decades can be termed the epoch of "Estophilia",i.e. Estonian national awareness, and was imbued by the ideas of the Enlightenment. ”

The History of Estonian People, by Evald Uustalu of University of Michigan [5]:

“ An Estophil movement believing in the possibility of a native Estonian culture added fuel to the gradually smouldering national feeling. ”

Crafts and Arts in Estonia, by Estonica: [6]

“ By the time the Estophile Baltic Germans and later the first Estonian linguists and ethnographers began taking an interest in the old writings of the county people, they were often presented with 'popular' pseudo-interpretations instead of the genuine traditional meanings. Provided the scholars' 'new-way-of-writing' background and their informants' 'old-way-of-writing' background would have allowed for any reciprocal understanding at all. ”

Notable Estophiles

• Otto Wilhelm Masing
• Georg Julius von Schultz aka Dr. Bertram

Remarks

• It may be necessary to point out explicitly that due to the heavy German influence of the period, Estophilia is referred to as 'Estophil movement' even in English by some authors.
• Estonica lacks an article. It should be created, and pointed out that Tiigrihüpe was among its sponsors.
• Estonica's content is under a Creative Commons license. Some reuse may be possible.

Blocked for your tendentious editing an edit warring at Anti-Estonian sentiment

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®} 19:15, 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).

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

---

Request reason:

Anti-Estonian sentiment is not a recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estophobia. Rather, it's an attempt at new start.

First of all, it's created as a stub, and it does not incorporate the text from the deleted article. (I have specifically stated this as intentional in [3], by the way.) Secondly, the reasons listed for deletion under closure, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, are unapplicable since the article does not contain any research-level content yet, original or otherwise. Thirdly, the consensus during AfD was that the concept exists and is notable, albeit presented problematically; by a fresh start, this concern is addressed. And fourthly, by avoiding the -phobia term in favour of a simple phrasing, the (misplaced) concern of WP:NEO is addressed.

The charge in the log differs from the charge listed above; the latter also claims edit warring at Anti-Estonian sentiment. Seeing [4], I respectfully disagree with this classification, and request an explanation.

As for the charge of tendentious editing, I believe I can refute it, but I would need to know the specifics. Digwuren 19:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

History of disruptive editing and edit warring. The AfD makes clear that the concept itself was held to be original research, barring reliable sources discussing the topic itself. Additionally, the stub was simply the lede from the deleted article, only changed to reflect the new article name. — Vassyana 03:59, 17 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.

I've only spotted two reverts at the article mentioned. What policy permits this block again? — Alex^(U|C|E) 20:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR does not require a "full" violation of 3RR. "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." (emphasis in original) Vassyana 03:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The vote on the AfD was almost evenly split between keep and delete, so I don't see how you could say the "AfD makes clear that the concept itself was held to be original research" Martintg 03:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers. Vassyana 21:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ultimately, admins will abuse Wikipedia:Ignore all rules to impose whatever outcome they want. Sorry. :-/ …75.30.203.226 05:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting piece

Sorry to see you blocked for so long, especially as your new article seemed different from Estophobia. Ah, well. Meanwhile, this article may interest you, particularly the description of Russia as "fascist". While this is an opinion piece, we should keep our eyes open for scholarly works also labelling Russia in this way, and perhaps incorporate that term into our articles on the country. Biruitorul 02:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in last week's Eesti Ekspress' op-ed by Priit Hõbemägi. It's titled Russia is a fascist state, and it's available (in Estonian) at [7]. If necessary, I think I can translate it; it's not too long. Digwuren 01:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a provocative (but apt) title. Do give us a flavour, if not the whole thing. Biruitorul 02:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"Ms. Tlisova's food was poisoned (causing a nearly fatal case of kidney failure), her ribs were broken by assailants unknown, her teenage son was detained by drunken policemen for the crime of not being an ethnic Russian, and agents of the Federal Security Services (FSB) forced her into a car, took her to a forest outside the city of Nalchik and extinguished cigarettes on every finger of her right hand, "so that you can write better," as one of her tormentors informed her.".

This appears to be a quotation of the article For the Sake of One Man by Bret Stephens from Wall Street Journal of Tuesday, July 17, 2007. Unfortunately, the whole article is not available, but the lead is here. Digwuren 01:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It is available (at least for me) at the link I gave above. Biruitorul 02:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Biruitorul, this is obvious. Nalchik means she is Cherkessian. Cherkessian, according to the domminant view in Russia now, means terrorist and wakhabist, or at the very least supports them. And terrorist and wakhabist means you can shoot, or at the very least extinguish cigarets. Everything is "logical".:Dc76\^talk 16:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It may be obvious, but not to some here, who importantly for the rest of us, appear determined to conceal the truth about Putin's Russia. Biruitorul 07:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And more: [8]. The evidence mounts. Biruitorul 02:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RfC

Your RfC still needs work. For a start, you need to actually fill it in. Secondly, you need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct otherwise it's unlikely to ever get any comments. --Deskana (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of that, and working to rectify this incompleteness. Digwuren 17:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Anti-Estonian sentiment. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC).

Rein Lang

Artificial birthday party controversy - this is a) POV (the controversy has become very real no matter what the initial intentions of the parties involved) and b) confusing (what is an artificial birthday)?

They also pointed out that this era was characterised - who they? Which era?

Interesting distortion - the fact that this is your POV doesn't make it less POV

The Nochnoy Dozor group has in Russian media made calls for the Minister of Justice to resign over the event - this is plain bad English. And why not mention that Rahvaliit demanded the same, albeit with different justification? AdaHeidelberg 16:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page. Digwuren 16:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry...

I forgot to tell you the most important thing... the reason why we asked about Kutsherla valley on the Estonian Wikiproject talk, is that we had found this link in Estonian. Maybe you can help us with it. Thank you, again. --Ginosal 09:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandal accusation

Regarding your accusation of vandalism, I'm afraid you are mistaken - there was no vandalism committed. The comment I removed was clearly an uncivil remark which violates WP:CIV. HanzoHattori's edit is one of the more serious examples of incivility: Taunting

My removal of the incivility is addressed by WP:TALK, which states:

"Removing personal attacks and incivility. This is controversial, and many editors do not feel it is acceptable;..."

I violated no Wikipedia policy nor guideline and it certainly was not vandalism:

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia."

I recommend that you be very cautious about accusing others of vandalism in the future. False allegations can lead to problems for the accuser. Vandal fighting tools such as TW are very powerful and need to be used carefully. I use VandalProof myself, and I know how easy it is to misconstrue another editor's edits when one doesn't see the full context of the issue. I recommend erring on the side of caution. The 'pretext' you found 'unconvincing' in your judgement of vandalism, is actually quite convincing when one is aware of the context.  ;) Just be more careful in the future! And always remember to WP:AGF! – Dreadstar † 16:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree I should have used a deletion warning, not a vandalism warning, and apologise for that. However, I firmly reject the idea that [9] constitutes a personal attack, and I disagree with its removal under the applicable policy. Digwuren 17:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the apology! It's much appreciated! One small correction, I never said it was a personal attack, I identified it as an uncivil comment, specifically: Taunting. So, I firmly agree with you that it wasn't a PA...;) Oh, and you really shouldn't have been 'warning' me at all. My action, was well within guidelines - even tho that particular guideline is considered 'controversial'. – Dreadstar † 17:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Then, I express my explicit disapproval of removing such comments, including taunts, and caution you to err to the side of caution when judging comments in the future. Digwuren 17:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't generally even bother with uncivil remarks of that nature, but it was late..I was tired, and the other editor was edit-warring to keep his version in place; he did not have consensus for his changes, which were under dispute on the talk page; and he was making insulting remarks to all the other editors who disagreed with him, while he ignored comments about policy, and was pretty much well engaging in disrputive behavior. "Cautioning" me is fine, but context is everything. – Dreadstar † 18:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In general, I would prefer that comments on talk pages be left alone, unless they're clearly and immediately harmful or obviously without any constructive purpose. Publishing private residences' addresses without their residents' consent would fall under the first clause; incoherent strongly abusive rants would fall under the second. Mere rhetorical questions I would consider OK in any circumstances I can currently think of, albeit many of them would, of course, be quite disagreeable. (I suspect there might be some context in which a question could seem merely rhetorical but actually fall into one of the above categories; I just can't think of any.)

In summary, I think I can consider this incident a minor misunderstanding. Clearly, you're not a hit-and-run deletionist vandal :-) Digwuren 17:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

AfDs

Please note that AfDs are not votes, so unexplained entries will generally be ignored. Also, I'd like to ask you about your remarks. Wikipedia is not a trivia collection. I believe (and not without cause) that the articles I've nominated contain nothing but trivia. How is that handwaving? --Eyrian 17:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I firmly oppose most of the AFDs you nominated today. I could support some, if they get properly argumented.

In many cases, you've pointed the reader towards WP:FIVE as though this was a basis for deletion. It is not, at least any more than mentioning the compendium of the English Law can be a valid basis of a legal conviction. The deletion policy has a number of reasons for deletion, but this is not one of them. Accordingly, you might want to amend your nominations, referring to recognised bases of deletion; when you do, I may reconsider some of my votes. Digwuren 17:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

From the five pillars: "Wikipedia is not a trivia collection". A reason from the deletion policy: "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia". I believe it to be trivia. That constitutes a valid (though disputable) reason for deletion. --Eyrian 17:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're relying on such a construction, why aren't you posting it in the AFDs? (Mind you, I would still consider it incomplete, but at least, it would be better than what's there now.) Digwuren 18:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It seemed to me that my reference to the five pillars was sufficient. I'll be more explicit in future nominations. What would you consider incomplete about it? --Eyrian 18:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sourced version

Source version has to stay. --194.57.157.28 21:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to do my best. Digwuren 21:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'm from France but I'm Romanian.--194.57.157.28 21:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If you like chats with socks of banned vicious trolls, be my guest. `'Míkka 22:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This anonymous account operating from open proxy is most probably a sockpuppet of banned user:Bonaparte. `'Míkka 22:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I consider it very unlikely. From his style of writing, he seems like a newcomer. Accordingly, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers applies. Do you have any contrary evidence? Digwuren 22:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

And I consider it almost sure. And unlike you, I have a long experience with this troll. Anyway, it is irrelevant. Wikipedia:No open proxies. A person who goes into troubles to edit from an open proxy is troll who evades block. `'Míkka 23:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Religion of Peace

I responded here. --Raphael1 11:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Latvian citizenship laws

While I actually have materials which deal with minority rights/politic during the first republic, it is, in keeping with your supposition, all based on the notion that everyone's already a citizen. I'll see what I can come up with on naturalization. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

• http://lv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautas_padome

Lai nodrošinātu Satversmes sapulces vēlēšanas bija jāizveido Latvijas pilsonības institūts. Tas tika paveikts, 1919. gada 23. augustā TP izdodot likumu Par pavalstniecību.

• http://home.lanet.lv/~politics/raksti/Pilsoniba/pilsoniba.htm

Likuma trešais pants divām personu kategorijām deva tiesības iegūt Latvijas pavalstniecību paātrinātā ceļā, un proti:

1) bijušās Krievijas pilsoņiem, kuru pastāvīgā dzīves vieta ir ārpus Latvijas, bet kuri cēlušies no Latvijas robežās ietilpstošiem apgabaliem, kā arī šo personu pēcnācējiem (te jau parādās ius sanguinis princips);

2) personām, kurām likuma izdošanas laikā Latvija bija pastāvīga dzīves. vieta, bet kuras neapmierina 1.pantā minētās prasības (tas ir, nav cēlušās no šiem apgabaliem un nav arī bijušas piederīgas pie tiem).

Šīs personas sešu mēnešu laikā no likuma izsludināšanas dienas varēja iesniegt iekšlietu ministram lūgumu uzņemt Latvijas pavalstniecībā.

(in short) Paragraph 3 provided for expidited naturalization:

1) former Russian citizens who currently reside outside Latvia but who originally came from now Latvian territory, and their descendants (ius sanguinis)

2) those who were permanent residents when the citizenship law was decreed, but did not satisfy the conditions of Paragraph 1 (that is, neither originated nor belonged to any of what is now Latvian territory)

These people had 6 months to hand in their citizenship request

• http://www.np.gov.lv/index.php?lv=akti_lv

Losing was easy though, by the 1919 law paragraph 7 you lost citizenship if you were a woman who decided to marry a foreign sugar daddy.

• http://www.politics.lv/vesture/1940/3.htm

Tautas padomes 1919.gada 23.augustā pieņemtais Pavalstniecības likums piešķīra neatkarīgās Latvijas pilsonību visiem, kas pastāvīgi bija dzīvojuši Latvijas teritorijā līdz 1914.gada 19.jūlijam. Līdz ar to 1920.gadā 94 % Latvijas iedzīvotāju kļuva par tās pilsoņiem, 1935.gadā šis rādītājs bija 97,7 %.

If you lived in the Latvian territory until July 19, 1914, you were granted citizenship. In 1920, 94% of Latvia's inhabitants were citizens, in 1935, 97.7%.

I haven't been able to locate the actual text of the 1919 law although it's quoted high and low. I'll look around some more. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The Riga Peace Treaty between Soviet Russia and Latvia allows for naturalisation in article VIII of the treaty: "Similarly, persons who are to be considered citizens of Russia according to the provisions of the second part of this Article, may by the same date and on the same conditions opt for Latvian citizenship." [10] Martintg 12:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

This may have been a one-time event, designed to give time for people to settle down in the anxious times. It is likely that regular naturalisation rules were different. Digwuren 13:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Dear Digwuren, Thankyou for making a comment on my page and helping me get out of that unhappy debate. I had absolutely no intention of offending anyone when I came to that page. Least of all do I wish to disparage the courage and noble cause of the rights of the Baltic peoples to their self-respect and self-determination - quite the contrary, I share in these aspirations. The dark shadow of the Soviet propaganda and security machine undoubtedly repressed your nations in ways that westerners cannot even imagine, and no-one, least of all me, wishes to offend, even by the negligence of failing to acknowledge the intensely tragic history which has enfolded the east. Please believe me that my comments were intended to show that the 'west' has never been a monochrome pro-American entity. I do think the article about lynching is rather appalling, and would be better left out of this - it is about as tasteless as referring to the fate of the Baltic German Jewry after 1938, not just because the accusations should not be made for propaganda purposes, but also because the subject itself should not be approached with anything like levity, or as a lever in any debate. In any case, I am not going back to that other page for any reason whatever, and hope that other editors will resolve the matter to their own satisfaction. I simply could not watch as the experience of western Europe since the war was portrayed as the continual and single-minded progress of an enlightened pro-American consensus. Western European opinion in this matter is very diverse, not merely in the (delusional) Soviet-sympathetic fringe, but in many intermediate shades of liberal or moderate political thought. I hope I may leave this thought with you in friendship. Kretzsch 18:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Estonian National Movement

So, what is the corect translatrion of the name: Estonian National Movement or Estonian Nationalist Movement? Please see Talk:Estonian Nationalist Movement. `'Míkka 00:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Both are kind of correct, and both are somewhat unprecise. I prefer the -ist one because it helps to bring out a nuance difference inherent to the Estonian language word liikumine, but it's not perfect. As I explained on the talkpage, some day, a disambiguation will be needed.

In specific, rahvuslik means 'ethnicity-based' or 'nationality-based'; particularly, in a preference-relating way. English nationalist conveys most of that, but it indeed does have additional problematic connotations. English national doesn't have *these* connotations, but instead, it hints towards officialness or autority, as in First National Bank; in American English usage it may also refer to concepts that are found all over the nation's territory. This movement is certainly not official in a state sense -- it's not even a party yet, but it might become one some day -- and Estonia's territory is so small that 'all-republic' (üleriigiline) is rather irrelevant; in fact, it has become a running joke for summer entertainment tours.

Due to the nuances of liikumine I mentioned above that are hard to explain in English, I expect this movement to rename itself within a few years. Hopefully, the problem will go away then. Digwuren 02:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable. Thanks. `'Míkka 21:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR

I believe you violated WP:3RR on Congress of Estonia. Please self-revert or stop reverting. Thank you. RJ CG 16:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about, he has reverted only once today, see article history. Perhaps you should actually read WP:3RR? And instead of putting 1996. data there you really should update the article with the current situation - that right now only about 8.5% people living in Estonia lack citizenship and that number is decreasing. Sander Säde 16:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Estonians

Hi! Would you please care to explain your revision of Estonians? Removing tags without providing any sources is a form of vandalism. If you're going to claim that your own people were the first to arrive in Europe, you have to have sources to back that up. You might read more at WP:OR. JdeJ 18:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments at my talkpage. May I suggest that in the future you try to avoid personal insults when discussing with others? They only serve to lower your credibility. Everything you say about the migrations of various people may very well be correct. I've never ruled out that Estonians might have been early arrivers in Europe. I do object to a page making such claims without any sources. Almost any people might have arrived early, but without proper sources thers's no foundation for making such claims. JdeJ 18:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What you're saying doesn't match what you're doing. {{Dubious}} has considerably different connotations from what you pretend here.

As for the statement of interest -- I know what I'm talking about. Digwuren 18:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Lonely Planet is your source for claiming Estonians were the first in Europe? Apart from the credibility issue, your source doesn't even support the claim, it just says Estonians arrived early. Look at the similar Lonely Planet pages for Albanian, Greece, Lithuanian etc. They say the same thing. I'm leaving the page for an hour or two, but unless a source supporting the claim that Estonians were the first in Europe is provided, it will be reverted as original research. Once again, I'm not saying it's not true, just that it have to be sourced. JdeJ 18:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

No, my source is a general understanding of the region's prehistory. LP is just an easy-to-google publication. Digwuren 01:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I hope you won't mind my insinuating myself into this discussion, onto which I managed (for reasons that remain unclear to me) to stumble. I write only to suggest that the two of you might do well to leave a note at the WikiProject Estonia talk page directing editors there to Talk:Estonians#Arrival in Europe; it is quite possible that those who are well acquainted with quality reliable sources relative to Estonians might be able to find something to adduce encyclopedically on the first in Europe proposition. Joe 05:15, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Constitutional Pilsener.jpeg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Constitutional Pilsener.jpeg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 09:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Slavic peoples. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. I've pointed out to you before that removing tags just because you don't like them is vandalism. Instead of directing personal attacks against other users and reverting things you disagree with without providing any explanations, you are free to use the talk pages of articles. JdeJ 12:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Please avoid personal attacks on the talk pages like this, in the edit summaries like that or that. It is very difficult to remove personal attacks from the edit summaries so please think before hand. Also removing sourced info like that with the only explanation: "removing someditor's propaganda" is not the best style of work. Please think about it Alex Bakharev 05:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I stand by all these characterisations, and resent the accusation of incivility. Digwuren 05:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)