User talk:Miacek

This user has a zero tolerance policy towards trolls on Wikipedia.

Governorates vs. Duchies

Hiya, I noticed you added the coat of arms for the Governorate of Estonia to you userpage[1], so I was wondering what the connection was. I've been doing some reading and a few sources seem to indicate the formal title was actually "Duchy of Estonia", since the Tsars formally held the title Duke of Estonia during that period of Russian rule. The term "Governorate" seems to be more about administrative aspect of that rule, in other words, one could say that the Duchy of Estonia was administered as a governorate of the Russian empire. Your thoughts? --Nug (talk) 02:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting thoughts, I checked a few crosswiki links, but the relevant articles in Russian wiki seem to confirm, that the Duchy of Estonia ceased to exist with the Treaty of Nystad, as the Governorate of Reval [2], founded in 1719, is said to have succeeded the Duchy. Nevertheless, the official title of the Russian Emperor did contain Князь Эстляндский, Лифляндский, Курляндский и Семигальский [...] [3], i.e. Duke of Esthonia, Livonia, Courland and Semigallia (but the title also includes 'Duke of Schleswig-Holstein' among others). Estlandia (dialogue) 08:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I found this source Russia & Europe in the Nineteenth Century by Roy Bolton which states: "However, Tallinn retained its local self-government, and its cultural and economical autonomy within Imperial Russia under the Duchy of Estonia."[4], also Foreword to the past: a cultural history of the Baltic people by Endre Bojtár: "Its northern part became the Duchy of Estonia, first under Swedish and then, from 1721, Russian rule"[5]. Then we have references to the "Duchy of Estland under the Russian crown"[6] and here[7]. --Nug (talk) 10:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

3RR at Party for Freedom

Your recent editing history at Party for Freedom shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please 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 a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

At least I give an explanation for my reverts. Do you revert according to your moods now?

Thanks for translation

Thanks for your help with the Estonian translation which allowed the closing of an OTRS ticket. Appreciated Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 11:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Lake Peipus

Please revisit Talk:Lake Peipus#Name_again Lotygolas Ozols (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Far-left politics

Hello Estlandia,

there is currently a discussion wether or not to include a list of (arguably) far-left parties in the article. However you decided to revert without referring to the posted comments on the talk page. You might want to join the discussion instead. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For your work related to Estonian topics on English Wikipedia.

LauraHale (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, my cat is over ten years old, he'd like a young friend like that on the pic :D Estlandia (dialogue) 09:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Far-left politics#Edit warring

I am sending this message to all the editors which I believe have been engaged in reversions on this article. Please discuss and gain consensus before removing/adding the section. —Dark 09:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

ARBCOM Notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Anonimu and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Codrin.B (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Talk:1993 Russian constitutional crisis/Draft

A tag has been placed on Talk:1993 Russian constitutional crisis/Draft, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

useless copy from 2009

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Bulwersator (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Copei

Hello Estlandia,

I have used the article on Copei that was listed in the "further reading" section as a reference. Therefore it is in the references section now, and the further reading section is not needed any longer. Kind regards --RJFF (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I see. The IP troll (permablocked User:Dodo19) is as a rule nonconstructive in his reverts, so I undid his changes. No use in trying to explain him anything, only reporting him can help. Regards,Estlandia (dialogue) 16:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

HI

Have we met? --Dog Whipper (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Miacek. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 00:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Highbeam

Hi Estlandia, you may be interested in Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications. Cheers, Nug (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me! Cheers, Estlandia (dialogue) 08:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Your HighBeam account is ready!

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

You are deleting Rankovicism now? It is being used now in other articles

On the article Socialist Party of Serbia we have just agreed today to use the term in the infobox. It is used in the article on the League of Communists of Serbia. It is well-referenced, it clearly describes that Rankovic's politics were popular, it describes the significance of it, and it describes that his agenda continued after his death. Deletion of this article is unacceptable.--R-41 (talk) 13:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. You have zero sources for the claim that SPS was 'Rankovićist'. Pure OR.Estlandia (dialogue) 13:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

You seem highly aggressive and combative on this. The SPS' founder and first leader Milosevic has been reviewed as having an agenda linked to Rankovic's politics. Look at reference 108 on this page [8] and this reference: [9]. And if you disagree with its use in one article, then why are you deleting the entire article on Rankovicism that is well sourced?--R-41 (talk) 13:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

[10] this source you linked actually juxtaposes Milošević' and Ranković policies. And even if there were similarities (which I don't doubt there were), this does not mean we could classify SPS or League of Communist as 'Rankovićist' - a total neologism with no support in sources. Estlandia (dialogue) 14:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No it is not a neologism, the term was coined in the SFRY and used as early as the 1960s, the sources in the article demonstrate this. Here is the use of the term in 1969 [11], here it is used in 1974 [12], here it is in 1977 [13] here it is in 1985 [14].--R-41 (talk) 14:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Socialist Party of Serbia

The addition of Rankovićism is subject to consensus found at the bottom of Talk:Socialist Party of Serbia. It was being discussed over a very long period in which time you made no suggestions and no contribution. I recommend that if you oppose the term, you assert your views on the discussion first because at the moment, you are presenting yourself as the antagonist - reverting work that has been in development for weeks. Furthermore, it appears you are not only reverting the term Rankovićism which may seem more constructive, but you are deleting the full works of the editor and this is regarded as blanking. Not acceptable. The way I see the situation is this, you have already nominated the article for deletion, let's see the outcome of that - if it be deleted per your suggestion, we'll revise every entry containing the term. Until then, can you please leave the sections in accorance with the consensus. Thank you. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 17:55, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Consensus or no consensus (there are just two of you) - you are constantly adding a totally unsourced notion into the infobox.Estlandia (dialogue) 17:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, you are misusing the revert button: this functions is meant solely for simple vandalism. Misusing it has already led to the privilege being withdrawn in the past.Estlandia (dialogue) 18:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not going to use it on you again (it's just for simplicity - no offence intended). Wikipedia does not work on a "consensus or no consensus, I do what I like" basis. I only suggest we await a result on the deletion request and I promise you, if it be deleted, we will remove the entry everywhere. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Ever heard of WP:OR or WP:V? Estlandia (dialogue) 18:06, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Both. However, I am convinced that this is not the case here. You have done the correct thing by nominating the page and I am simply awaiting more contributions. I have nothing more to say there but I will respect the outcome and that is a promise, there will be no resistence from me if it goes the other way. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Template:Islamophobia

Please explain why you want to exclude Eurabia from Template:Islamophobia on the talk page.--Toddy1 (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit war over Eurabia

Your resumption of the edit war over Eurabia has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Altetendekrabbe reported by User:Estlandia (Result: 24 hours).--Toddy1 (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Seventeen Moments of Spring

I am that article's author. My account was compromised yesterday as I left the computer while being logged on when my twelve-year-old nephew was nearby. I didn't even notice he tampered with anything, but upon entering today I realized what happened. Sorry. Anyway, I re-reverted your edit and restored my last version. Many thanks and keep safeguarding the site. Bahavd Gita (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

You last removal of POV-tag

I noticed you just removed the POV tag from the Occupation of the Baltic states article. I don't think this is a correct step, taking into account the POV dispute on the article's talk page. The main arguments of one party are still not answered, and by doing the revert without bringing new arguments and thoughts you just join an edit war, which is unproductive. I recommend you to self-revert. Hope to productively collaborate with you in future. Best regards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I demur. Igny just got off of a lengthy topic ban from all East Europe articles - and we ought not "enable" this behaviour. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Miacek, I would strongly recommend you to remove you revert on Occupation of the Baltic states. If you review it history you would notice that you are in direct violation of WP:3RR rule as well as (together with Collect and Martin) in violation of WP:TEAM. Consider this as a warning that such edits are unacceptable on WP, in part per policies which I referred to here. (Igny (talk) 23:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC))

He is not in any such "violation" and issuing such a "warning" is contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I would urge you to remember you just got off a long topic ban - and jumping right into the topic you were banned from is not especially wise. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed you did that again. I respectfully request you to self-revert (or not to revert Igny).--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Igny reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: ).--Toddy1 (talk) 06:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello Estland. I noteced that you along some other users have been edit warring in several biographies in order to remove the historically accurate place of birth and replace it with modern-day country names.

The point is that you are linking Estonia as "country of birth", exemple here, to a person born in 1982, when in fact Estonia, as clearly stated in the article, only restored its independence in 1991. As much as the occupation may be disputed, the fact is that a person born in Tallin in 1982 is in fact born in Estonian SSR in a country called Soviet Union.

I don´t have any ties or relation to Estonia neither to the region, but I am fully aware of the historical events that happend there, and I do support historical accuracy to be used in encyclopedic articles in opposition to any other tendencies, just as the vast majority of editors do. Doing otherwise brings problems of nationalism and recentism into this debate, and we want to avoid those in this and all other matters.

I also noteced User:Nug´s excuse how the edit is backed by "standard practice in Estonia related articles" however there is no "special standard" for Estonia, and they should seek a consensus on this, rather than highjacking the articles related to one specific country and doing something which is not standard troughout Wikipedia. There was also an explanation provided by User:Jaan but also fails to provide a valid reason why the "merely occupied" situation should be ignored. The occupation lasted for decades, and the fact is that people were born in the Soviet Union while that occupation took place. Otherwise we would be ignoring an important historical event which was the Occupation of the Baltic States, and we don´t want to ignore that fact. The occupation took place, and we should transpond adequately that fact into the articles.

Hoping you´ll open a discussion and seek consensus instead of edit-warring in group, I send you best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

The sources doesn't mention Soviet Union and I have searched for this.They only mention Estonia so per WP:BLP we should stick to what sources say.--Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 15:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

@FkpCascais, during the period of the "Estonian SSR" you can have

• Estonia = the country USSR

or you can have

• Estonia the country = occupied by the USSR,

but you can't have both. For example, we don't list persons born in Lyon in 1941 as born in "Vichy France." VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

KKE

Look this, and please stop the propaganda. --Greek Transistor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 10:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

You also --Greek Transistor (talk) 20:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI

I have mentioned you in this thread. Ankh.Morpork 15:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, if I do find time, I might participate.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 15:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

AN/I thread Re: Talk:Gdansk/Vote

I started this ANI thread to discuss the AN3 report, as well as related issues, as a neutral party. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Preußische Stargard etc.

I completely agree with your recent revert on Royal Prussia (or as it's more commonly known - Polish Prussia). We do need double naming and I also didn't realize it in the beginning. It's your offensive edit summary, that I find unacceptable. Your namecalling, insults and accusations are absolutely uncalled for. 83.28.23.47 is probably just a new guy, who's only trying to find his way around the Pedia. Maybe he is a little biased, but then again who isn't? (With my luck it's probably you). On a different note: We say "non-NPOV" around here, not "POV". "POV" does not mean anything, don't mindlesly follow other peoples mistakes. WP:Think a little bit. Happy editing and good luck with your reverts. Just calm down and chill, OK? Skoranka (talk) 05:22, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Me again. Just letting you know I left a few words of wisdom on 83.28.23.47's talk page. Skoranka (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference

I'm sorry to report that there were not enough accounts available for you to have one. I have you on our list though and if more become available we will notify you promptly.

We're continually working to bring resources like Credo to Wikipedia editors, and this will very hopefully not be your last opportunity to sign up for one. If you haven't already, please check out WP:HighBeam and WP:Questia, where accounts are still available. Cheers, Ocaasi 19:12, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Independent Greeks

Estlandia, I think that you have made a change in the Independent Greeks article and you omitted the Liberal nationalism label to the  party's ideology. In my opinion, the labels populism, National conservatism and Greek nationalism, may create the feeling to a reader, who does not know many things about Greek politics, that this party is xenophobic, something that is false. So, I put the Liberal nationalism label in order to show that within the party there are patriots, who just love Greece, but do not feel superior to other races or nations. Only liberal nationalism makes this clear to the people, as the other types of nationalism are considered more extreme. Unfortunately, I have not found yet any official statement or newspaper article that proves the liberal national ideology of the party.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.66.125.169 (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC) 

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Eurabia

You called a peer-reviewed journal article and the Financial Times "fringe". Would you care to even make an attempt at backing up that laughable assertion? nableezy - 17:37, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Please remember me and continue the effort against far-right trolls

I was accused (see my talk page and all pertinent links there) of being a sock puppet, because someone didn't like my anti-nazi efforts on Golden Dawn (Greece) and Meligalas. Most likely, I'll be blocked based on completely circumstantial "evidence" (in Wikipedia, they don't block because they're certain someone is the culprit, but because they assume, based on half-baked assumptions) and an application of the WP:GAME practice. My accuser is, of course, Greek - and in Greece, the far right is rampant and on the loose. Please continue the good work against racists and right-wing extremists, especially w.r.t Greek topics. Moderatelyaverage (talk) 00:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

That's great, accusing me behind my back even, of being a far-right winger and "on the loose", whatever that means, without any evidence. At least I had evidence when I opened the SPI and I left a message for you to participate. As the person who opened this SPI I had the chance to read all the invective you threw at your opponents, calling them "nazi-trolls", "nazis", far-right-wingers and any combination thereof. Did you see me getting upset when I saw you talking like that about the right-wingers if indeed I identified with these people? Go and read the Greek junta article where I wrote the Human rights section years ago. When you finish reading please let me know if my writings sound like those of a right-winger to you. Better still read one of my favourites: Greek Junta Trials and let me know how far to the right it is. It obviously isn't anywhere close. Let me give an example:

Revision as of 03:20, 17 April 2007 Dr.K. (→‎Civil Rights: Added context to civil rights suppression):

As soon as the coup d'état of the 21st of April 1967 was announced over the radio, martial music was continuously broadcast over the airwaves. This was interrupted from time to time with announcements of the junta issuing orders that always started with the introduction We decide and we order. Normally this kind of introduction is applied inside army barracks when the commander issues the orders of the day that the soldiers are expected to follow. Taking the application of this system into the civilian domain was the junta's method of replacing Parliamentary legislation with a series of military orders broadcast over the airwaves and in the process signal to the Greek people what the new legislative method was. Long standing political freedoms and civil liberties that were taken for granted by the Greek people for decades were instantly suppressed, special military courts were established, and political parties were dissolved, all with simple, uniform, military order type announcements over the radio. Legislation that took decades to fine tune and multiple Parliaments and elections to enact was thus erased in a matter of days. The rapid devolution of Greek Democracy had begun.

I wrote this and much more. Why am I telling you all this? Because the reason for this investigation is not political in any sense. If you were anywhere but here on Wikipedia I would congratulate you for your stance against the right-wingers. The shadow of the junta may be faint but it is long. We don't need a revival in an even worse version. But here is not the place for fighting; this is an encyclopedia. No name-calling should be used to subdue your opponents, the discourse must be civil as much as possible and no socking is allowed. The discourse within Wikipedia must remain professional and civil. That's all. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:12, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop stalking my edits

Hi, recently you've arrived at several articles you've never edited or expressed an interest in before solely to revert my edits. It is painfully clear that you are following my edits around and are trying to provoke confrontations and edit wars. Please stop, as this pattern of behavior constitutes WP:HARASSMENT. Thank you. Volunteer Marek  14:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

And how exactly did you find those articles, that you had never edited before, if not by stalking Jason's edits today? [15], [16], [17], [18] - you followed his edits and reverted them en masse.--Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 18:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll take that as a pretty direct admission that you WERE in fact stalking my edits. So please stop.

As for how I found the "Persecution of xxx" articles, well, gee, since I was involved at the "Persecution of Muslims" article, I went through and looked up "Persecution of [insert other group]" articles for comparison purposes and put them on my watch list. Dhimmi and dhimmitude were already on my watchlist. So no, I did not look up or stalk Jason's edits. Unlike what you did to me. Volunteer Marek  22:33, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

You seriously believe anyone would buy into your laughable explanation as to your massive reverts of Jason yesterday? You have already been blocked for stalking editors like Russavia in the past, so please stop such activities in the future. Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 08:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Katowice Forum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TASS (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) 16:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

More on Pilsudski dictatorship in Poland

Thank you for your recent edits and reviews of the Wikipedia article on Pilsudski.

There is an on-going discussion and edits of this article related to Pilsudski dictatorship. Your contributions to this discussions and edits will be most appreciated. See the talk page of the Pilsudski article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:J%C3%B3zef_Pi%C5%82sudski#Sources_on_Pilsudski_dictatorship:_Britannica_Concise_Encyclopedia.2C_The_Oxford_Companion_to_Military_History.2C_Gale_Encyclopedia_of_Biography.2C_Columbia_Encyclopedia_and_Time_Magazine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.172.86 (talk) 07:40, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if my words are vandalism or if I hurt you, but it seems to be that many enwiki users forget about how wikipedia maintains its neutrality. Wikipedia keeps its neutrality not by delete selected information because of Soviet this, Soviet that. It preserve that neutrality by accepting and expressing many points of view together. So if you see some articles are too POV, the only good thing to do is add verifiable sources from the other points of view to restore the balance, not by deleting the sources. Deleting like that is not making wikipedia more neutral. It is CENSORSHIP. To be frankly, I am sick of some users using the agrument "Soviet this, Soviet that" and delete the information, even if the sources are taken from reliable sources such as Russian Archive Agency (Russian, not Soviet). I used to think En.wiki is the most neutral wikipedia version because English users can be the citizens of many different countries, but now I am gradually believing that it is merely a propaganda machine of CIA and the anti-Soviet powers. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 14:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

English Wikipedia is a rather neutral Wikipedia, in contrast to, say, the German Wiki, which is heavily biased to the left.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 14:06, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I was rude and I was impolite to you. But I believe, if the German wiki was biased to the left, the good thing to do is add more info in the “right” point of view to restore the balance, not deleting. Михаил Александрович Шолохов (talk) 14:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Zori Balayan

Isa Gambar is an Azeri politician, why should his criticizing Zori Balayan's book be added to the article? He criticizes Zori Balayan' book about the historical events, but he is not a historian. Ninetoyadome (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Gambar is a professional historian who at the time (1982—1990) worked at the Institute of Oriental Studies of AzSSR, so I think he qualifies. Secondly, Hearth was critized by many Azeri intellectuals, whilst it was said to have been hugely popular in Armenia. I think this deserves a mention.Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 18:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

His wiki page states he is a politician and doesnt mention anything about him being a historian. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isa_Gambar it says his wife had a Doctorate in History but nothing about him. Is there a source you can add that shows hes a historian or an Azerbaijani historian that criticized the book? Ninetoyadome (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I relied on Russian wiki, where it's mentioned that he graduated as a historian and worked as orientalist (also mentioned here as orientalist: [19] (востоковеды Абульфаз Эльчибей и Иса Гамбар)).Estlandia (Miacek) (dialogue) 19:48, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank You Ninetoyadome (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring =

Your recent editing history at David Horowitz Freedom Center shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. // Liftarn (talk)

Civic Platform

Hello Estlandia,

you know that Wikipedia:No original research is a core policy of Wikipedia. You know that Wikipedia does not publish theories that have not yet been published in reliable sources. If you find an article that deals with the interesting theory that Civic Platform is stronger in the parts of Poland that belonged to Prussia before 1918, and Law and Justice in the ones that belonged to Austria and Russia, I will be very interested. But without it, it is just an unsourced (although not incomprehensible or outright false) theory, that may be published on a blog or in a forum, but not here. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dushanbe riots, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BMP (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) 12:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

re Nagorno Karabakh

I mass-reverted someone who added the same screed to multiple pages. It had no purpose being on the others, he doesn't get to play shotgun and hope it sticks. It also contained at least one factual error. I see no reason to coddle this user. --Golbez (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason not to fix the alleged error and revert the whole thing. It was a sourced para.--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Being sourced does not make it relevant for the article. Was it relevant in the other half dozen places the exact same thing was pasted? No. But since you've insisted, I'll elaborate: 1) It introduces Khojaly as if this were the article on it, when it's handled further down in the existing prose. 2) It says it was in the NKAO. 3) It says this happened in 2012 (I know they mean 1992 but still). 4) It gives the details of the massacre when before it was part of the narrative of the war, as if the massacre was separate from it. 5) It then gives the existing text as "Background of the genocide"; really? Not expressing a certain POV here, are we? 6) So far as I can tell, despite supplying a dozen references for a single paragraph, not one is in the English language. Why is that? 7) It repeats information given lower in the article specifically because the editor didn't care what was in the article, because he pasted this same exact paragraph to a half dozen articles. 8) It simply was unnecessary, hyperbolic, and added nothing to the articles it was placed in. That's eight reasons. --Golbez (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Social Democratic Party

I know centre-left isn't an idelogy, so that's why I removed it afterwards. By the way, learn some manners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netsurfer123 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop making the same meaningless edits again and again. Not sure why 'centrism' was removed too, given the abundance of sourced in intro.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:51, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to cause such a mess. I was only trying to clear it up. Well hopefully I can continue making contributions elsewhere without being moaned at. I understand that my edits were meaningless, but initially I thought they were beneficial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netsurfer123 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, just be more careful in the future and do not edit war.--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:59, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about the edit war. I wasn't actually aware of it because I wasn't sure whether I had changed the link back or whether someone else had, but what the heck, it's fixed now :) Yeah, I'll be more careful in the future :)

The Communist Party of Greece

The Communist Party of Greece has too an Eurocommunist ideology --Danrolo 23:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Danrolo/IP 190...

Hello Estlandia,

User:Danrolo has been blocked for 72 h. However, he often edits with changing IPs. The administrator, User:Bbb23 asks us to inform him if Danrolo returns with a new IP. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Vandalism

I see you are stalking my edits, thank you. Reverting addition of a porn star to a serious article is fighting a vandalism. If you have a problem with that, go ahead and report me. - Darwinek (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

First, this addition was NOT simple vandalism and I will report you if you do it again. Second, I'm not stalking anyone, i have the article in my watchlist since I first edited it in 2010. [20]. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:31, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

It was a simple vandalism, and you can report me even now if you think otherwise. Cheers. - Darwinek (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Stalking again?

[21]. Seriously, stop it. You've never edited that article before.Volunteer Marek 20:38, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

And I'm no longer allowed to edit articles I've 'never edited before', if you have recently edited the article concerned? It shouldn't really surprise you that I'm interested in Slavic and Germanic languages. Don't disseminate accusations of stalking so carelessly. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:29, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Not if it's a repeated long term pattern, no. That's stalking.Volunteer Marek 16:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Editing general topics like Slavic languages after you happened to edit it is not stalking you, esp. if you consider that I've created numerous articles related to Slavic peoples before. Stop making things up. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:46, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Repeatedly showing up soon after I edit an article, especially in cases where I'm having a disagreement with someone, *is* stalking. Look, if this was a one-off occurrence that'd be one thing. But I've had to warn you about this kind of behavior several times in the past. In one instance you didn't even bother to deny that you were stalking my edits.Volunteer Marek 18:10, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there are instances when I don't even bother to argue with you. If you feel being stalked and harassed, you might take the issue to a relevant noticeboard, though my gut feeling is that another Arbcom case is not far away anyway. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

You've been saying that for something like three years. Seriously, I really don't want to have to go and dig out all the diffs, I would much rather you simply stopped doing it. There's plenty of articles on Wikipedia and there's no reason why you have to follow me around.Volunteer Marek 18:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, digging out old diffs - that's what your group excels in :) Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 19:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a "group" and I wasn't even a part of that ArbCom case, so, no, try again. In the mean time quit following me around. Also, if you have some kind of problem with Piotrus or you intend to file an ArbCom case against him, you should probably let *him* know. Strange.Volunteer Marek 19:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Baltic blowups

My apologies Estlandia. It's just frustrating when you've got editors supporting revisionism. GoodDay (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No revisionism here, just some editors suffering from amnesia. --Nug (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW Estlandia, say hello to my stalker. PS: Atleast he agrees that he's suffering from amnesia. -- GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I know Nug since 2008, no surprise that he has my talk page in his watchlist.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Nug already beat you to it (ie. linking to my Czech revert) & like I explained to him, I let the undoing of that revert stand. GoodDay (talk) 14:52, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Erika Steinbach

[22]Volunteer Marek 19:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Karabakh War

Here is the link, http://www.eurasianet.org/node/66664, i probably set it up incorrectly. Ninetoyadome (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Received Your mail

Hello ! I received Your e-mail, but something in my Outlook Express stops me from making a reply. So I reply to You here instead. And a large Thanks, by the way. However I've got no knowledge of the subject You wanted me to have a look at though. (But I've been interested in the "in between the wars-period" for a long time. WWI and II aswell.) In general I agree that some Polish users seems aggresive towards non-Polish users, and they sometimes deliberate or not (?), uses dubios and/or biosed sources. And quite a few Polish-related articles are sadly affected by "tipping" in a certain direction, disreguarding all NPOV Wikipedian rules. Or by removal of some parts and adding others - often with no obvious reason. (Example the city of Wroclaw/Breslau was in the middle of the 13:th century destroyed by the Mongols, three of each other indepening, Swedish encyklopedias states, but was removed without reason, even though thecity was not under Kingdom of Poland during this event. I'm just sad for the readers, and the credibility of English Wikipedia in the long run) I do though hope that Marek is about to improve himself as editor. He actually is reasonable, but very suspicious towards non-Polish editors, I guess. But on the other hand, circumstances like an anonymous user (after starting his argumentation rather well) accuses Polish people of being car thiefs is not helpful eighter. Cheers Boeing720 (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol. Wheren't you just complaining about supposed (as opposed to apparantly, real) canvassing? Volunteer Marek 01:28, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

1.User Estlandia wanted me to take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Democracy&diff=543134565&oldid=543078941 , and like I here stated, I'm not up to date with this issue at all. But there was no harm in mailing me this.

2.In general (to all users) I would just like to point out that in writing , in my own experience atleast, small matters suddenly may very fast blow up to troublesome argumentation. Please concider that Wikipedia is ment to be an encyklopedia for readers. No need for hard words. Boeing720 (talk) 23:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring on WP:AN

Please stop that. That is not ok, and it's particularly not OK on the Administrators' Noticeboard. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

What is not OK? Censorship on the noticeboard or reverts thereof?Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 21:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

All three of you, actually. The material should (as Marek noted) have been linked rather than cut-paste, even if it was collapse boxed. That sort of text dump from elsewhere is ... not good. Marek should have asked for it to be linked or done a removal-and-link rather than just removal. Your revert back to the original condition (twice) was not constructive.

Unless you disagree that the proper format is to link it, what you should have done was remove and link. So should Marek, for that matter. I asked Skapperod to do it, as he put it there first. But you and Marek should stop fighting over it.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:13, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

History of Latvia

English Wikipedia, is getting nuttier with each passing month. GoodDay (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You've reverted me at Latvia & I got reverted at Estonia. You may aswell complete the hat-trick & revert me at Lithuania. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Junge Freiheit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bavarian (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) 11:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

????

[23]. If it wasn't an edit summary I'd ask you to self revert and strike but ... Volunteer Marek 17:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

First, why do you keep posting here, if you erase all my posts or comments from your own talk? Second, as to the edit comment, even the most patient person will react if endlessly provoked. You know just as well as anybody else that your constant accusations of me 'stalking' you are pure rubbish in the light of how you're actually behaving at the same time. Recent examples: [24] [25]. Happy stalking!--Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't post here, but that es was just beyond the pale.Volunteer Marek 17:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Notification

[26] Volunteer Marek 19:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Centre Party and "Personalism"

Hi! You reverted my edit removing "Personalism" from the Centre Party's ideology. If you look at the article Personalism, you'll see that this is an ethical/metaphysical philosophy, not a political ideology. I believe the term you mean is something like "personality cult". Now, as you'll no doubt agree, this would not be NPOV in any way. If you can find sources saying that the party has a personality cult or something similar, by all means add them into the main text (as opinions, of course), but I'll have to remove "Personalism" from the infobox right now. Abc347834 (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Erich Weise, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page German Order (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) 11:21, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning: WP:ARBEE

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Please refer to this AE request for details. Notably, you must not make personal attacks on others under any circumstances.  Sandstein  07:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1993 Russian constitutional crisis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alexey German (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) 13:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Article 50 in the Movement for a Europe of Liberties and Democracy entry

Hi,

Why are you constantly deleting The Netherlands entry from the Movement for a Europe of Liberties and Democracy article. As you can see on their website www.meldeurope.com, Article 50 just joined this party. Your deletion is not on par with the facts.

I googled and could not find anything on a party called Artikel 50 or its EP deputy. Please add sources. www.meldeurope.com is a dead link. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

As you can see in the article the correct web address is www.meldeuropa.com You'll find all your information there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.33.128 (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The rules they it is the duty of the user who wishes to add content to add sources, too. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 12:14, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello Estlandia,

Artikel 50 is Daniël van der Stoep's new party. (EP page) Stoep has confirmed his affiliation with MELD on twitter. --RJFF (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Hello. You have shown in the past an interest in the designation of Politically Incorrect (blog) as "Islamophobic". I am informing you that there is an ongoing discussion about the subject here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but will take a look there. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 15:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

English lessons

I do not think you can give me one :). Maybe you need more reading of accademic journals, as I did. --Yemote (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC) I do not

Re:

Thanks for the barnstar. Keep cool and always remember: it's just a Wiki. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Christian Left

Hi. According to the Servicio Electoral, the election authority in Chile, the party previously known as "Christian Left" is now known as "Citizen Left". Here is the official document. The Spanish Wikipedia articles should be merged into one. Pristino (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Islamophobia

Do you really think that it is appropriate to remove organisations from a template in the middle of a discussion at NPOV? I'll abide by any consensus properly reached and not self-determined by an editor, but you don't appear to want to wait for that. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Roman Dmowski

According to [27], you are one of the main contributors to this article. I am done with my rewrite of it, and I'd like to submit it to GAN in the near future. Any comments and edits would be much appreciated, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:11, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Islamaphobia

Hi. Perhaps you do not realise that you are not supposed to add Template:POV to non-article pages, but this clearly explained in the template documentation. Please stop adding it. Formerip (talk) 15:26, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Your recent editing history at George Galloway shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. RolandR (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Islamophobia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Richard BB 21:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I'm sure you know about WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, etc, yet you just used an edit summary for what is clearly a personal attack. And one which suggests you can somehow read by mind. I don't like Galloway but I also don't like using tabloids in this way. The comment is also pretty ironic considering the pretty clear pov that comes through all the editing I've seen from you. Dougweller (talk) 07:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)