User talk:Nug

Welcome!

Hello, Nug, 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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! User:Advocatus diaboli

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

Express Your opinion, please

Red army crimes in Estonia - attacked article, voting for deleting debate is going on page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Red_army_crimes_in_Estonia
Red Army crimes

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ttturbo (talk • contribs)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)

The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

20 SS Division

Hi I have removed your last dit from the article as the links are already there in the info box and the body oof the article --Jim Sweeney (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fresh pigs on the Pigcam

You might appreciate [1]. It's got quite a number of pigs on right now. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 22:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another wildlife camera is in the news: Foto: nugis viis kakukaamera pesast muna minema. A marten has been caught on camera stealing one of the owl's eggs. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caution

If a user asks you to stay away from their talk page, you should consider that an absolute request. If you experience problems with that user requiring discussion, go to WP:WQA or WP:ANI and ask uninvolved editors for help. Further cornering of editors on their own talk pages may result in sanctions, especially if the dispute involves Eastern Europe or any other area under Wikipedia:General sanctions. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 15:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

??? Your "caution" comes almost three days after my last message on Russavia's talk page on March 18, in which I was attempting to resolve the issue of Russavia's increasingly strident editing. What are you doing here? Martintg (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am responding to a request for sanctions at WP:AE. It has come out that you posted to Russavia's talk page after he asked you not to. That's a clear line we want to avoid crossing again. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 23:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well your response is misplaced. As I said, my last comment on Russvia's talk page was three days before your "caution" and two days before someone else made a complaint about Russavia's continued unprovoked incivil behaviour in a report to WP:AE, to which you refer. incivility and personal attacks for which he was clearly warned previously not to engage. I have reopened the WP:AE report as I will be presenting evidence with diffs showing these attacks were unprovoked. Martintg (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you post to Russavia's talk page after he asked you not to? Yes or no? Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Hi. Regarding this PROD removal:[2]. That link does not establish notability. Per WP:N, " If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The link you provided ([3]) is not an independent secondary source, so it does establish notability. The topic of Estonia-Chile relation may yet turn out to be notable, but we need better sources. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, however looks like some else is expanding that topic, let's see where it leads. Estonia-Iceland relations is definitely notable for the reasons stated. Martintg (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well i just AfDed it (here) before noticing that someone had come along and started working on it. Anyways, there are 5 days before the AfD closes, that should be plenty of time for interested editors to dig up sources, assuming there are good sources out there. Cheers. Yilloslime ^T_C 04:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Ethnic EPithets

Hi,

you might have seen the discussion at [4]. Apparently, this sort of thing is surprisingly common on Wikipedia -- advocates of all sorts of weird ideas like to brand people who dare to counter them as being of "that other ethnicity". This kind of dog-whistle classification of sources into "good sources of unspecified ethnicity" and "evil sources of that other ethnicity" runs counter to the spirit of WP:NPOV and, since it requires the editors to research the source's ethnicity, also WP:NOR -- but it seems Wikipedia doesn't have a policy that would explicitly prohibit it. We should have such a policy, perhaps named WP:NEEP for 'No Ethnic EPithets'.

Do you think you could draw up a proposal? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 07:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make a very good point. I will draft a proposal and drum up some discussion. Martintg (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Our flying pig reported you for 3RR on JB and Safka. This is a mistake, I believe, but you may wish to revert yourself for the time being. Colchicum (talk) 21:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pigs are both cute and tasty, and they never battle on Wikipedia. Are you sure you haven't made a mistake? Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 10:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, pigs are tasty (though maybe not for Risto Abdullah), my English sucks, I meant something else. I meant our beloved eliminationists. I seem to remember that "he has a history of treating Wikipedia as a battleground" sounded threatening some time ago, alas, the times have long passed, which, of course, doesn't make their activity here more acceptable. Well, I am not a very honest person either, so it won't be long before they eliminate themselves, given their track record of outing, edit-warring, POV-pushing and incivility. As to the pathetic propaganda, with such friends as финский ученый Йохан Бекман, who needs enemies? He is just a worsened mirror image of the "one-man disinformation bureau", who doesn't even emit ionizing radiation and is thus plainly boring if taken seriously. Colchicum (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think shunning is the most appropriate course of action here, let it start, and it will soon take on global dimensions. If they try to start RfAr (let alone RfA, which one of them has long dreamt of :)), they'll get what they deserve. As to their edit-warring, there is no reason to worry, Sander's tool (the public watchlist, I mean) proved to be invaluable (is it updated?), and the WikiProject Estonia is still more or less on the wheels, as I see. Colchicum (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you are most certainly wrong that the IP is not JB, but I won't insist on this, let's make the life simpler :) He is at work again. Ok, let's wait a bit. Colchicum (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[5] made on April 2 2009 to Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

This block appears to be punitive. I self-reverted my last edit at 15:06, 1 April 2009 and haven't edited the article in over 24 hours since. Martintg (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=This block appears to be punitive. I self-reverted my last edit at 15:06, 1 April 2009 and haven't edited the article in over 24 hours since. [[User:Martintg|Martintg]] ([[User talk:Martintg#top|talk]]) 21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=This block appears to be punitive. I self-reverted my last edit at 15:06, 1 April 2009 and haven't edited the article in over 24 hours since. [[User:Martintg|Martintg]] ([[User talk:Martintg#top|talk]]) 21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=This block appears to be punitive. I self-reverted my last edit at 15:06, 1 April 2009 and haven't edited the article in over 24 hours since. [[User:Martintg|Martintg]] ([[User talk:Martintg#top|talk]]) 21:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

This [6] is the 4th revert for which you were blocked. If you self-reverted it, you certainly didn't mark it as such (you don't seem to be in the habit of marking your reverts with "rv": this is bad). Which one do you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to my last edit in the article, in which I revert myself after I was informed on my talk of a 3RR report, I assumed this was at issue. The article in question was subject to an intense BRD cycle, so I don't see how the first alleged revert was in fact a revert. I am surprised at the block, given the apparent consensus amongst the other editors, even Russavia, that there was no violation. In any case I have not edited the article in over 24 hours, so is this block punitive? Martintg (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the second and third alleged reverts are related. Martintg (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your first revert re-introduces and the prospective Finnish Islamic Party represented by. This seems clear enough. Why am I interested in Russavia's opin ion of this matter? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many edits are there in between this alleged first revert and the previous instance of it? I've gone back at least a dozen edits and still can't find it. So how are the second and third alleged reverts are related to each other and the text "and the prospective Finnish Islamic Party represented by" you claim was re-introduced as the first revert exactly? Given my track record and formerly clean block log, you may have given me the benefit of the doubt and issued a warning instead, remembering your first impression rather than precipitously change the result after input from just one side. As I said, the article in question had not been edited for quite a while, I stopped as soon as I became aware of the situation so this block comes across as punitive rather than preventative. Martintg (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considering user's good standing and the promise to be careful in the future, I support lifting the block - no need to stain a good reputation (block log) in this case. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is that the facts of the case do not seem to support a block. A 24-hour block enacted 24 hours after the supposed 3RR violation seem to be unwarrented here. Though he may have technically violated 3RR, it is also clear that he disengaged from the article after he did so. His clock is 7 hours off, so it was only about 23 hours between last revert and block, but since a) the 3RR block is supposed to stop edit warring and b) the edit war was not active (it had stopped at 22:06, April 1, 2009 and this block was made at 21:36, 2 April 2009). I would support and unblock here with the stipulation that we acknowledge 3RR was violated; the unblock is made in good faith that the user intends to not re-do the same edit again once the unblock is made... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been generally pretty careful in the past. Obviously I realised there was an issue at the time of the report, hence I stopped editing that article when I did. I would have appreciated it if the reporter had at least given me the courtesy of warning me on my talk page first before reporting me. But I don't have a thick skull that I need to be given a 24 hour block some 23 hours after I stopped editing the article. I'll certainly be more vigilant in the future. Martintg (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martin has a previously clean block log and is usually careful. He obviously stopped editing the article and reverted himself once he realised there was a problem. I recommend shortening the block to "time served", as blocks should be preventative rather than punitive. - Biruitorul ^Talk 04:24, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I'm entirely happy with M's response; but unblocked anyway. Do please be more careful in the future, as you have promised William M. Connolley (talk) 07:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]