User talk:Vecrumba

Odds and ends

• Limited Wikitime owing to family circumstances, ongoing
• Archived January 8th, 2008
• Archived May 1st, 2008
• Archived Christmas, 2009
• Archived September 5, 2010

A Start for You

You deserve this to balance out Anonimu and Anittas. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  03:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Copy Editor's Barnstar

I award you this Copy Editor's Barnstar for insisting on clear, comprehensible, and grammatically correct articles.—Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Scandalous!

Hello Vecrumba, Viriditas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Cookies for you!

Cookies!
Some cookies to lighten up your day! Remember, it takes two to tango - it only takes you to edit uncontroversial Wikipedia articles. If you need a list of red links, just let me know. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 11:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

 

Jstor

I noticed you said you pay for Jstor articles. I have access to Jstor and could help with research if you need it. MBisanz ^talk 21:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically I have access too, but only at NYPL in the city, not at my local Brooklyn library, and at NYPL I can only get printed (paid for, I think it was $1/page) copies. I'll definitely keep your offer in mind, much appreciated!  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  21:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Race

Well, it is a quote I am bound to like personally. It sounds pretty much like anthropological orthodoxy, not just fifty years ago but, if anything, moreso today. Who actually said it? Who is Tumin? Is the source relevant for the article? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, in his day, Sherry Washburn was one of the world's leading physical anthropologists (up there with Lewis Leakey) but his specializaton I think was primatology, not genetics. But definitely a leading scholar, he pretty much headed the Berkeley anthropology department at the time. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I rather thought you'd appreciate the quote. (!) The work (published by B'nai B'rith) is a compendium of questions related to race and intelligence which Tumin asked a series of scientists: Henry Dyer (educational testing), Silvan Tomkins (psychology), Ralph Turner (sociology), and Sherwood Washburn (anthropology), with Tumin's summary for each question. I should (other window, done) fix attribution of the quote to Sherwood. To your question, whether R&I or (perhaps better for) History of..., it would seem to me that the anthropological view, being less interested in explaining the latest numbers, offers a useful perspective. One of the key works "behind" the questions was Audrey Shuey's "The testing of Negro intelligence" (1958), along with later ones of similar ilk. What is of particular interest is that (bold is Tumin's): "The four scientists are in substantial agreement that the claims advanced by [Audrey] Shuey, [Carleton] Putnam and [Henry] Garrett (and later by [Wesley Critz] George) cannot be supported by any substantial scientific evidence." (They all made the racial inferiority claim.) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that certainly does sound relevant. Also, perhaps for the article on race. I have argued there that in academe, the discipline (viewed as a natural science and not just as a social science) that specializes in human beings is anthropology, so the Race article should privilege the views of anthropologists. I still believe this, but somewhere in the top half or top third - where the history of the idea is presented, and different views (taxonomic, essentialist, lineage etc.) are summarized, it might also be useful to summarize Tumin since he is explicitly seeking to represent diverse sciences - obviously in this regard the differences among them are as important as the similarities (not because one discipline is better than another, but because - I presume) the differences reveal something about each discipline. Do you have confidence in the method by which Tumin selected his sources? I know in 1963 Washburn was among the tops in anthropology, are the other scholars equally notable in their fields? Were they being asked to give their own opinion, or speak for their discipline? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:15, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

"You kind of have to read the whole thing." That said, Tumin:

• asks the obvious questions
• quotes an excerpt from joint statement at UNESCO conference in Paris (on race and intelligence), notably, anthropologists don't include mental characteristics in classifictions, et al.
• mentions recent works bringing up the notion of inequality: Shuey and works quoting hers
• four scientists at the top of their professions were asked to read Shuey and Putnam ("Race and Reason") and to respond to a series of 11 questions about them.

those four described as (quoting)

• Dr. Henry C. Dyer, Vice President, Educational Testing Service, Princeton, N.J., one of the country's foremost authorities on intelligence and ability testing;
• Professor Silvan S. Tomkins, Professor of Psychology, Princeton University, Princeton, N.J., one of the country's leading specialists in personality testing;
• Professor Ralph H. Turner, Chairman of the Department of Sociology, University of California at Los Angeles, and a noted expert on social and cultural patterns in the Negro population; and
• Professor Sherwood L. Washburn, formerly President of the American Anthropological Association and Chairman of the Department of Anthropology at the University of California at Berkeley, one of the world's most distinguished anthropologists.

So, a bit of both, as they provide personal answers but also from the perspective of their disciplines. They are not described as, nor do they presume to be, official representatives of their disciplines—but their credentials are clear. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Tumin quotes this portion of the 1950 UNESCO statement (point 9.)

Whatever classification the anthropologist makes of man, he never includes mental characteristics as part of those classifications. It is now generally recognised that intelligence tests do not in themselves enable us to differentiate safely between what is due to innate capacity and what is the result of environmental influences, training and education. Wherever it has been possible to make allowances for differences in environmental opportunities, the tests have shown essential similarity in mental characters among all human groups. In short, given similar degrees of cultural opportunity to realize their potentialities, the average achievement of the members of each ethnic group is about the same.

Hope this helps. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

A tidbit on significance, some part of this is reprinted in Hubert Humphrey's "School Desegregation: Documents and Commentaries." Neither this or Humphrey's is available online. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you have convinced me that this is a relevant and reliable source for the articles on Race and race and intelligence. It is just a matter of contextualizing it (when it was written, and why) and figuring out where exactly it belongs in each article. I wouldn't give it as much weight as professional association statements, but I think that you could combine quotes from this source with presentations of professional asociation statements effectively i.e. any specific example from this book helps illustrates the relationship between the particular (individual views) and the general (collective statements). Slrubenstein | Talk 10:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I tracked down a copy of Humphrey's text (to buy, not borrow—the NYPL is not terribly convenient to work these days) and expect that to show up in a week or so. I would offer Humphrey as an unimpeachable source in regard to intelligent political discourse—it will be interesting to see what HHH cites in support of what public policy. I'd add that Tumin's summary of responses to each question presented is quite cogent, it's unfortunate it's not easier to share it. I'm a bit full up at the moment with some drop-dead deadlines but might find time later next week to scan it. Whether or not we actively use sources which are reliable but a bit off the beaten path in actual content, they are valuable to find and to discuss. Clearly, hashing and re-hashing the same compendium of well-worn and well-known tomes has not yielded consensus. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 13:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Race, evolution and behavior

Vecrumba,

I was wondering whether you’d be interested in helping try to improve the neutrality of the article about Rushton’s book Race, Evolution, and Behavior. There’s a discussion on the article talk page where I think your input might be valuable, and your contributions might also be helpful in the article itself. I’m currently waiting for a book to arrive that I’ve mail-ordered to use as a source there, but once it does I’m intending to work on this article some more also. --Captain Occam (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I did order Sesardic's much-pilloried text, despite not mainstream it will be interesting to see what he says, if anything, regarding Rushton. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Correlation versus causation, it's always the great debate regardless of the subject matter. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Arrivederci R&I proceedings

I see no useful purpose in further participation, and as I'm not a named party I've unwatched all the associated pages. Editors are welcome to contact me here with any questions. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Mikemikev

I have a history with Mikemikev and am in no way neutral. But I was hoping you could build a bridge between him and myself and others - you and disagree a good deal but you strike me as principled and fair. So I am disappointed to see the trouble you are having with Mikemikev. Do you feel you could take it upon yourself to try to mentor him? I fear if no one does, it will just lead to an RfC or something. Slrubenstein | Talk

Just saw the banner up top. My condolences. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that. 96 of her 98 years were good ones, though I'll hopefully never know the horrors of war my parents lived through.

On Mikemikev, great minds think alike, perhaps. I've dropped a Wiki-mail or two in Mikemikev's direction—clearly he's well read and could be valuable. Right now, however, I see him as having become the yin to Mathsci's yang. However, in keeping with having unwatched the R&I arbitration, I'm not joining in, reporting, or anything.

My experience is that 99.99% of editors can agree to disagree, however, after years of WP abuse—and the first-hand experience that even paid propaganda pushers can be civil, if obstinate—I have no stomach for anyone treating anyone else like an idiot. If Miekmikev survives the arbitration and feels ready to be more constructive, I'm glad to assist in any way I can including the occasional whisper in Mikemikev's ear. I've had some modest success in bridging gulfs in the past, as long as editorial differences, no matter how great, are based in good faith. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:15, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

III think you will see one major difference between Mikemikev and Matchsci if you just go to User Contributions and look at their earliest contributions - I often find this a good way to get a sample that says something about their POV and editing interests ... to put a contemporary edit conflict into a larger context. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been avoiding the subject, so to speak, but of course you're right. The best way to understand any conflict is to go back to the beginning. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 13:36, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

A fresh cup of coffee offered a few minutes for browsing. Let's just say that it's clear whose modus operandi has always been to throw in barbs and impune editor's conduct, choices of editor to agree with, etc. Thanks. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Alas, Dante's protagonists will be constructing ice hotels for the damned before any mentoring is to be had. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 13:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Reread the Inferno - the centre is ice. <g> Collect (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Sadly, only read in spot quotes, and, unfortunately, I've been perusing the Inferno through my Gustave Dore album... time to download and read in toto. That said, on the other, perhaps it's a serendipitously sign that there is hope after all. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Then again, perhaps not. Sigh. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:23, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

And gone from bad to worse. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I’m sorry about this. I think you’ve been a very reasonable editor during the short time you’ve been involved in these articles, and from what I’ve seen of your edits, you don’t deserve the insults that Mikemikev is flinging at you. During the eight months or so that Mikemikev has been involved in these articles, I think he’s usually been reasonable also. I don’t understand what’s gotten into him during the past few weeks, but this isn’t exactly normal behavior for him. When and if he gets over his current attitude, I hope you’ll be willing to give him another chance, if he hasn’t been topic banned by that point. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

IMHO the R&I arbitration has only been a venue for amplifying bad feelings. I looked through Mikemikev's edit history from the start at Slrubentein's suggestion and I'd agree with your assessment. That's why I haven't shown up back at the arb to support Mathsci's "ban him now" lobbying; that, and that Mathsci has shown a denigrating attitude toward other editors from the very beginning (I've looked through his edits from the start as well). IMHO Mathsci is a contributing, not moderating, factor; I wouldn't support anything Mathsci lobbies for at the arb even if circumstances, at face value, appeared to support his position. Mikemikev's behavior can be attributed to misunderstanding and a poisoned atmosphere; Mathsci has insulted editors at the arb who aren't even involved (IMHO part of the poison). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Just a note concerning Mikemikev: he seem to be somewhat successful at getting you to lose your temper. Please don't play his game. Even though we do disagree on many things, you do strike me as a fair editor and your edits strike me as logical and appropriate under most circumstances. At this point, I am more or less forced to believe Mikemikev is strictly trolling to get as many editors as possible to lash out at him (my guess is just so as to sidetrack any possible collaboration on the R&I articles). I'd hate to see you blocked because he made you lose your calm.--Ramdrake (talk) 16:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not mad, I'm sad. "Get a life" can be taken as being mad, it's not. The bright side is that if I'm under attack from the extremes of both sides, I'm somewhere in the neutral center. I've reached out to another editor with whom I believe Mikemikev has less issues as with me to suggest a more constructive approach. I wasn't expecting this downturn of events, I was hoping to build a bridge to Mike's editorial POV. Since we already know people will disagree on race, who disagrees with whom and over what is irrelevant; what is relevant is being able to talk about it without insulting each other. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, absolutely. We need to be able to discuss our disagreements and "get to the point" on the reasons why we disagree (so to speak). Then, only do we have a chance of building a position acceptable to all parties. :) --Ramdrake (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

On the motivation, speculation is irrelevant of course. Many have claimed to read my mind and been erroneous in their conclusions. :-) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Inception

you said:there's only been fairly crude wiring to the brain's vision center, so what that technology call? I just want to know.75.73.152.238 (talk) 11:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I know that there has been work with implants connected to external devices to stimulate the visual cortex to provide some limited capabilities--more like patches which are "on" or "off"--for visual communication to the totally blind. It's not an area of research I follow, though. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

OK.75.73.152.238 (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Moscow and BGN

Moscow, like Florence, has a conventional name field; I have clarified accordingly. What we don't want, I think, is for people to people to jump up and down insisting on the Approved name field, which would be Moskva; if BGN always had a conventional name field, it would be a useful standard, but most of the time it doesn't. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read through a number of presentations the BGN folk have delivered at various symposia regarding the fine art of location naming. The "conventional" name field, by only being present when there is significant English language usage other than the approved/standard name for a place, makes it very clear there is colloquial English usage that takes precedence over other forms. It is this clarity of providing the "conventional" name when, and only when, needed which is, in fact, the very value of the BGN database. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. "Firenze" is a second-order administrative division while "Florence" is the city (seat of a first-order administrative division). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

But actually looking at the database shows that the conventional name field doesn't exist whenever needed; it exists for a few very well-known cities. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The implication, at least, is that the approved/standard name is fine for English usage. Do you have an example or two I can take a look at? I did exchange some Emails with the BGN folk quite some time ago when I had some questions. Note that BGN, although maintained by a U.S. governmental agency and providing usage for the State Department et al., is independent, and so you will find State Department press releases which differ from BGN usage; in those cases, BGN is still reflective of common usage. (That seems, however, the inverse of the case you are talking about, where common English usage is, in fact, missing from BGN.) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave one: Frankfurt (which our nationalists have moved to Frankfurt am Main). At that point I stopped looking; if they don't supply the conventional name there, there is no hope for the towns where our naming disputes actually arise. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've also noticed that when there's no conventional but an approved and short version, the short version is invariably the English vernacular. That would be the case here. This might be worth something following up on with the BGN folk for a bit more clarity. Obfuscating this particular example it that there are a pile of Frankfurts or Frankfurt-Somethings (!). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Advice?

Thanks for your helpful comments in the arbitration enforcement thread.

That said, I was wondering if you had any advice for me about where to go from here. I trust your opinion and respect your involvement in these articles a lot, and I'm still a novice here with a lot to learn. One of the clearest messages I got from the arb enforcement thread was that when I see something that I think should be reverted, I should just revert it myself rather than expecting someone else to do it. Do you think that's acceptable for me to do at this point? I definitely don't want to step on anyone's toes, but I care a lot about beginning to contribute to these articles in productive ways.

I also have some other ideas of things I can do that I doubt anyone would have a problem with, like adding some references to the section on mental chronometry. If you have any other suggestions about things I can be doing to help out, I'd be interested to know.

I'm a little concerned that I'm going to end up inadvertently acting in a way people associate with Occam, even if it's for a completely different reason, like happened recently with my comments on Victor Chmara's page. If you notice me doing something like this, would you mind pointing it out to me? I'd hate to repeat a mistake like this completely accidentally.

I'm aware that I'm going to be heavily scrutinized for a while here, and I'll probably be having to walk on eggshells for a bit. Any advice on how to keep in line while still contributing to these articles would be appreciated a lot. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 07:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Any newcomer to any contentious topic who reverts anything will be immediately dinged for edit warring. All enforcement actions are content-agnostic; there will be plenty of folks looking to ding you because they've already decided you're just Occam with a longer name and will denounce any revert you make as Occam's if they think he would have done the same. No one making those accusations cares whether or not it's actually so, i.e., guilty with no prospect for proving innocence with protestations of innocence on your part taken as your being difficult and disruptive.

  If you see something that "does not belong" or is "missing," start a new section on article talk (if there isn't one in progress already on the point in question) and discuss whatever needs to be removed, put back, changed, etc. The much heralded, touted, and promoted "unofficial slogan" exhorting editors to "be bold" in editing is, regrettably, little more than a euphemism for the hurt locker awaiting new, especially, participants in any area of contention who edit first and discuss later. (The shabby treatment of new arrivals at articles is a more general and well-known phenomenon.)

 The bottom line is that if there is a subject you care about you have to be prepared to deal with the topic and also the politics—and that editors who dispute your editorial POV for whatever reason will line up to question your motives with innuendo, accusations, and lies. Regrettably, "being nice" to others is not a prerequisite for WP participation; there are perennial icons of abuse who point the way for others to emulate. This is not cynicism speaking, it is merely how the system works. Forewarned is forearmed.

 Lest this sound like whining doom and gloom before my morning coffee kicks in, the reward is that you will meet editors of integrity who care about the same subjects as much as you do. And if you find you disagree with someone, and they are someone whose editorial position you respect, you will find yourself widening your horizons. You may well continue to agree to disagree, but in the process you will gain a deeper understanding of different viewpoints. On most days, that makes wading through the muck worthwhile. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Discussing on user pages instead of at article talk can be interpreted as recruiting for your editorial position if there's an expectation on the part of your (and the contacted editor's) antagonists that the editor you contacted might agree with you. If you do need to kvetch somewhere, pick someone's talk page who can't be construed to be your or Occam's ally.

P.P.S. Except for the pointer to your artwork, your user page is blank. You might want to spend a bit of time providing some information about subjects you care about and how you came to be interested in them. I do realize this can be a bit more of a challenge if you're not using your "real" identity on WP and wish to guard it (for good reason). Still, I think it would be helpful. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Two bits of friendly advice to follow up on what Peters said: 1) You can never do too much to bring verifiable reliable secondary sources into articles. At present, Wikipedia is chock full of statements that "everyone knows" but that can't be verified, and may in fact be in disagreement with the best sources. (I would say that is especially the case for any articles that have anything to do with IQ.) Looking up published sources and thinking about those deeply, and perhaps suggesting new sources if you have access to a good library, is a great way to win favor with editors of all points of view who are truly curious about a subject. And it's just the right thing to do if we are all here to edit an encyclopedia, as we are. 2) There is great value in practicing editing on articles for which you have no particular point of view. There are 6,823,541 articles on Wikipedia, essentially all of which need further editing and improvement, and a person with broad intellectual interests can find plenty to do here to help. There is a copyedit backlog elimination drive going on right now, dozens of WikiProjects with lists of stub articles to expand, and plenty of other sources of suggestions of things to improve on Wikipedia. Practicing collaboration with other editors on less contentious topics and projects helps develop the editorial social skills that allow for smooth interaction on the contentious topics and result in indisputable improvement in article content. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

@Ferahgo. "when I see something that I think should be reverted, I should just revert it myself rather than expecting someone else to do it". That's exactly how I have earned my topic ban. But you are on the right track. Edit something different, and no one will accuse you of "meatpuppetry".Biophys (talk) 22:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Your and my topic bans

I am very sorry, but I have removed a section in your latest edit, as it violates your topic ban. As to my stated "voluntary topic ban", I have avoided all edits in articles that might be of interest to Digwuren or his Wikipedia supporters. The article you brought up has never been part of this dispute – neither I or my opponents in the DIGWUREN disputes have ever edited the article before, at least to my knowledge. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. – As to "saving your butt" I and others believe that you commenting in a case about Russavia was a violation of your interaction ban. I believe, that if the case had ever resulted in blocks or other sanctions, you would have been among those sanctioned. As to my BOLDness, If you or anyone else involved had somehow indicated dissatisfaction at my decision I would have reverted and offered my apology. You did not. However, accusing me of improper action as you did here by innuendo is most unwelcome. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. – I have also removed your attempted WP:OUTING. Thanks for the link anyway, it was quite interesting, to say the least. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 04:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) As I first wrote to you back in 2007, I failed to understand the source of your position on the Soviet legacy in the Baltics in particular given your balanced and valuable contributions to WP elsewhere. I fail to see how you can consider something as violating my topic ban over that area of contention in pointing out your activity while at the same time stating that very activity on your part is of no interest with respect to the area of conflict or editors interest in that topic matter. Really, I would rather you not contact me or follow me further on this at the moment as you appear to be overly interested in my attempts to move on and, instead, drawing me back to the conflict as if to prove I'm some sort of source of disruption.

There was no attempt at "outing" on my part. I was countering your contention that there is some sort of on-Wiki speculation fueling editorial conflict; the speculation, in fact, is off-Wiki and unrelated to our past or present mutual interactions. As for the rest, if you are indeed a member of an activist political group with a decidedly anti-Estonian axe to grind, that should be noted to avoid areas of COI, that is in keeping with WP policy. If you are not, then obviously it matters not who you are, and actions should be taken to avoid speculation. There are more than a few Wikipedians who have adopted the monikers of various personalities. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. There was no innuendo. Your persistent contact is indeed trying my patience, and if these conversations of ours continue we will be both blocked as being at fault, so, again, I respectfully suggest you disengage. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

P.P.S. I do look forward renewing our topical debates 129 days, 11 hours and change from now. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Really, having thought further on your charge of outing, that is quite serious and given your accusation has caused an ArbCom member to (rightfully, were your contention true) threaten me with a block at their talk, I will be conducting any further correspondence regarding your charges off-Wiki so as to not open myself to further—and false, I regret—accusations on your part. Recall:

1. you inserted yourself in a dialog unrelated to you (I don't recall your having any personal EEML evidence pages) to make accusations I was preparing to go back on the warpath, that is, called me a liar for stating my purpose was to put the past behind us;
2. you falsely represented yourself as voluntarily not editing in the area of contention: the Soviet legacy in the Baltics and Eastern Europe, when, in fact, you have edited on said topic, and removed my statement of evidence in response to your false statement (and repeated it since, elsewhere); you should not have made that false statement in the first place;
3. lastly, you falsely accuse me of attempting to "out" you.

Given our seemingly diametrically opposed editorial positions (at least on one subject), I'm flattered you've seen fit to pay as much attention to me as you have even though it's months more before I'm free to return to my primary area of editing interest.

Please feel free to return for more constructive dialog. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I see you are (my perception) disingenuously (end of my perception) attempting to put the cat back in the bag. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Petri, I still hope to someday understand the basis for your ardent anti-Estonianism, particularly your denunciation of Estonian "fascism." (My personal experience is that such fervor is often born of personal family experiences projected on to a people or events as a whole.) Perhaps we can have that conversation on-Wiki when my topic ban expires? Meanwhile, I have said all that needs be said for the moment regarding this "wikinteraction." Ever trusting our next meeting will be more collegial, PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Alas, spoke just a wee bit too soon, still doing more cat-stuffing, I see. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I am preparing a very polite response to your questions. However, you will have to wait for tomorrow. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Petri. I would recommend we agree to disagree for the moment and reconvene when your other current entanglements have been put to rest, and you've also had time to consider your actions regarding myself. Any politeness on your part following so closely on the tail of your allegations will just seem like more back in the bag cat-stuffing. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIV (August 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LIV (August 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The return of reviewer awards, task force discussions, and more information on the upcoming coordinator election	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles, including a new featured sound
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients and this August's top contestants	Editorial In the first of a two-part series, Moonriddengirl discusses the problems caused by copyright violations
To change your delivery options for this newsletter please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies ^talk 19:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for joining WP:WikiProject Bacon! Feel free to post questions, concerns, comments, suggestions for improvement to the WikiProject, updates on related events and goings-on, etc, at the talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bacon. We now have six members so far, yay! Thanks again for signing up as a participant, -- Cirt (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Heads up about an RfC

Please note that there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year.  Roger ^talk 05:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity

Your comment on this edit - the most recent of a little revert war - might be very constructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a closer look at the content being referenced in the edit that's been added and removed. I tend to agree that while genetic and ethnic heritage correlate, it's really a question of what bits and pieces of genetic heritage are reflected in an ethnic population (groups diluting or contributing being rather determined by personal -phobe or -phile perspectives) rather than (at this point in human evolution and mobility) genetics defining an ethnic group. It doesn't help informed discussion when there are folks running around looking for "unique" genetic markers so they can say, Q.E.D.! Here's biological proof we're different. (I recall something along those lines with the Irish some years ago.) I can only observe that when you search for lab results to prove your personal POV there is a quite remarkable tendency for one to succeed (!). The point is that genetic marker or not doesn't make a Gaelic-speaker any more or less Irish. Language followed by customs are the key. IMHO religion is a late-comer, certainly with regard to Christian or later; I personally don't consider religion, or considerations such as geopolitical alignments, to have anything to do with ethnic identity. That people of the same ethnic group denounce/renounce and kill each other over religion and politics is their mutual downfall—imagined differences can be more powerful than real differences. But I wander off topic! PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

For example, a former coworker of mine is of German ancestry (grandmother off the boat, spoke German obviously). He, however, doesn't speak German, follow German customs, etc. So, in ethnic terms, without the linguistic and cultural trappings (that would be essentials), he's gone melting-pot American. In this case, genetically he may very well carry the markers that say "German," but that does not make him part of the ethnic group. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The key point for me is that ethnic identity is complex. I didn't turn to you because I expect us to agree on all points, but because I know you would be a thoughtful participant in the discussion and we need more thoughtful editors discussing the matter. The key thing is to raise the level of discourse on that article's talk page. We need more well-informed participants in the discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The learning is in understanding differences, no? :-) It might be a day or two before I have a chance to weigh in at the (worthwhile) discussion. Best, PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 13:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI

[1]. Offliner (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes, I state the facts regarding Petri's stalking and false accusations and that's me attacking Petri. Get a life. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

A comment

Perhaps you do not know (that's a secret), but most graduates from the Moscow State University in humanities area have a second military specialization officially entitled "military disinformation". That includes art of creating conflicts and other useful techniques, something that comes from Sun Tsu and Divide and rule. My military specialization was only epidemiology...Biophys (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been toying with the idea of "radiomaskirovka" in the Internet age, but only after my topic ban expires lest I be accused of skirting my topic ban by "going off-Wiki" even though disinformation as a tool is a universal technique used by everyone/anyone engaged in geopolitical conflict. We can discuss then. And particular thanks for your prodding about being drawn into conflict. Unfortunately I was concerned based on past experience that if I simply ignored it all I would risk that being viewed as tacit agreement (i.e., ignore something "bad" you did hoping it goes away) with the accusations. I've made my offer to Petri for both of us to disassociate from Offliner's accusations. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Just in case, I did not mean Offliner who specializes in computer sciences according to his user page. Yes, unfortunately we can not discuss our problems because whatever we say will be interpreted in the worst imaginable way.Biophys (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Notification

[2] Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You've been restricted under WP:DIGWUREN

Hello Vecrumba. Please see the closure of WP:AE#Vecrumba. This enforcement request has been closed by enacting sanction #1 (restricting comments on issues where you are not named, expiring December 22) and #3 (interaction ban with Petri Krohn, indefinite). There will be no change to the current expiry of your topic ban from Eastern Europe, which will be December 22. Though you may resume editing and commenting on Eastern European topics after 22 December, please try to ensure that you follow all Wikipedia policies. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

As long as I was here, my understanding is: where I am "not named explicitly," that is, if someone launches personal attacks on EEML members as a group ("EEML", referring to "meatpuppets" of an EEML member, etc.) I may not comment (until expiry on December 22) even though I am included in said group. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:56, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Vecrumba/SovietJewishLatvia

User:Vecrumba/SovietJewishLatvia, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Vecrumba/SovietJewishLatvia and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Vecrumba/SovietJewishLatvia during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Uzma Gamal (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For offering advice to the student. Would you be interested in helping students on a more regular basis? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think mid-next year I could commit to formally devoting some time. For now, still coming out of the weeds. That said, if there is a set of pages to keep an eye on, if you can provide the Wikilinks, I'll add them all to my watchlist and keep an eye out in the meantime. Best! PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Seasons greetings and best wishes for 2011! Biophys (talk) 01:40, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you, and he's quite the handsome fellow too. Wish I were as dignified looking! :-) :-) С Рождеством Христовым!! PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 02:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Request

Hello Pēteris and welcome back editing articles on Latvia. I want to ask whether you would like to apply a more poetic translation to the content of the articles Rīga dimd and Div’ dūjiņas gaisā skrēja? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 18:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It's always a challenge to translate highly idiomatic folk lyrics. I'm out of town this week (alas not vacation)—when I get back I'll check what Vitol's arrangements have for their German lyrics as additional reference. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

See what you think of Div’ dūjiņas gaisā skrēja. :-) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think it is good. That may be because I have no clue when it comes to poetic lyrics... ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

You have translated "skrēja" differently in the first verse. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Third verse, there is no mention of "safe" in Latvian. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll think about taking the safe out; but is the implication clear in English? Sētiņa implies the security and safety of a fenced-in or cordoned-off area, I'm not sure that comes across with just "homestead"

I think staying at home is safer than going to war. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"bāliņis" = "brother dear", excellent translation. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll add some notes where I've taken poetic license. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

In this case not necessary, it is right on the money. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Fourth verse: Our banner? Not just banner?

Latvian doesn't use definite or indefinite pronouns (minimally "a" or "the", but extending to implications of this, that, ours, theirs...), without the "our" it could be taken to be mercenaries as opposed to defending ones homeland. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"Tur aizgāja, tur palika", is that "he" or not just "went and stayed"? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It was worth clarifying that the rest of the verse is about the brother, so one specific individual. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"life eternal" would be "mūža" or "mūzīgs", "nemirus'" (nemirusi) sounds different to me. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Well,

• "undead" didn't seem right :-)
• literally "fell in war [but] didn't die" doesn't really seem correct
• "nemirstība" would be "eternal life", so it seemed more appropriate to put it in the affirmative.

(Should we move this to article talk?) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more like "nemirus'" (nemirusi) = "never died" (since they will be remembered). ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I have taken a shot at the article with my improvements. Feel free to comment or make chnages. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way - does "aijā" mean slumber? Never thought of that before. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:29, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, technically not, but it would be in line with, for example, "Aijā žužū lāca bērni", so for this verse as a lullaby. I also took a whack at Rīga dimd. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:32, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think "aijā" could be replaced by slumber - "aijā" does not make sence in English. And you are right about the lullaby analogy. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:46, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

On "Felled in war — never died" perhaps "Felled in war — never dying"? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Or "never dead" - it really depends on the grammar. I think this verse delivers the true essence of the whole song. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:42, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I have taken a second shot at poetry, you are welcome to comment or change. Your Rīga dimd translation is really good, I have nothing to add. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Just for your information: I have invited User:Lothar von Richthofen over to join this discussion, even though I think the translation is mostly done by now. What do you think Pēteris? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 22:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Certainly! And I shall have to purloin some of his userboxes as well. :-) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a small issue with the translation of stanza 7 line 1: "The soul they thus came upon". I cannot comment on the original Latvian text, as my knowledge of the language is rudimentary. However, the current translation is very awkward and unnatural, as well not particularly poetic. I tried a more natural wording, but was reverted with this explanation: rv- this verse is continuing the previous, hence "thus". Personally, I do not think that "thus" is critical for continuance here; the fact that this verse follows the previous one is enough for such purposes. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that thus or actually thusly is a bit klunky. What's needed is the continuity between the act of gathering souls (same verb as one uses for gathering flowers in a field) and then switching to the one specific soul, that of the brother, which they came upon during their gathering. Perhaps something along the lines of "And so..."?PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That works much better, thank you. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps: "And so the soul they came upon, was enveloped in a white woolen shawl."? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 22:31, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Without the they it sounds like the soul was already enveloped when it was found. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, okay... I think the article looks pretty good now. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 22:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Moldova

Hello,

I noticed that you are a fellow active member of WikiProject Moldova. Some time ago I created a new userbox for the project and proposed that it become official. Since no responses have been made as of yet, I am hoping to spark a discussion at Template talk:WikiProject Moldova User on the matter.

Mulțumesc,

Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:55, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Good work! Cu apă caldă în ceea ce, PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Tom Holzl

I respect you a lot. But Tom Holzl is just a troll using the web to self-publish his own views. Please, just do not feed him. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... I guess it's not coincidence then that in an act of kindness I deleted the part of my response to him that stated (my perception) he was here to proselytize his one true religion and to denounce the infidels. No feeding trolls. Warmest wishes for a Happy New Year! PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vecrumba. You have new messages at Sadads's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

One more time, Sadads (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia

Hi! From your edits, it looks like you might be interested in ancient Dacia. Would you like to join the WikiProject Dacia? It is a project aimed to better organize and improve the quality and accuracy of the articles related to these topics. We need help expanding and reviewing many articles, and we also need more images. Your input is welcomed! Thanks and best regards!

--Codrin.B (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks (!), one of the least known rivals to the Roman empire. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 01:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed! :-) And thanks for joining WikiProject Dacia! Please let us know if you have any questions, suggestions or if there are certain areas where you have expertise and want to participate. The project pages, categories and templates are almost done and functional, although there is plenty of room for improvement. Looking forward to collaborate on great articles! --Codrin.B (talk) 15:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I do have a good book to read to dust off the cobwebs, haven't thought much about the Roman Empire nor its competition since school days Latin. I seem to gravitate toward subjects surrounded by controversy, is there something I should know about? :-) Best! PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is a controversial theory linking Dacian and Baltic languages, not main stream at all. Most mainstream theory suggest Albanian as a living relative, while Romanian and Bulgarian are the only languages that I know of which have Dacian words in them. Do you know anything of it? Any examples of Baltic words of Dacian origin?. Personally I think it doesn't make sense and is loaded with nationalistic and political agendas, similar to the theory that Dacian is the mother of Latin, which tries to justifies why Romanians speak a Latin language when Romans stayed in Dacia for so little. Speaking of controversy :-) --Codrin.B (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the Baltic-Dacian link would seem to be tenuous at best. It is true that Latvian/Lithuanian still have many of the characteristics of the ancient Indo-European languages, I sometimes myself describe Latvian as Latin with diacritics (!). However, I would think that any similarities to Dacian would really be from being derived from a common Indo-European root (e.g., both having similarities to, say, Sanskrit). As for Dacian, Illyrian, Albanian, Romanian, the question is what's related and what's borrowed and in which direction? :-) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:39, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Good points. Makes sense. Please helps us with this issue then :-) --Codrin.B (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Can't stay away from controversial topics? You may want to start with a classic one, i.e. what was the relation between Getae and Dacians (in recent times the the standard story of "Geto-Dacians" unity strongly supported by the Ceausescu regime is increasingly criticised by Romanian historians and archaeologists, and even the 10-volume history treatise published by the Romanian Academy, a notoriously conservative institution, mentions the dispute - something that would have had you expelled from mainstream academia two decades ago; the debate is/was quite alive in Bulgaria, although there they favour the theory stating the two population groups were different). If you succeed in doing a GA out of this subject, I promise I'll put that Stalin photo of yours on my user page :)).

The relation between Dacians and other supergroups such as Germanics, Baltics or Slavs is actually uncharted territory, given the paucity of samples of the language spoken by them. The words we have indicate PIE roots that are mostly found in Baltic or Slavic, but the scholars are agnostic about the relation between Dacians (or Thracians) and those groups. Also, according to Florin Curta's research about the "making of Slavs", which received a lot of positive reviews, Slavs as a cultural group appeared mainly in the 6th century under the influence of the Byzantine Empire - and the region where this "making" was done was exactly the low regions of Wallachia and Moldavia, suggesting that some local groups arguably descending from the Getae took part in the cultural genesis of Slavs (italics represent my understanding, this idea is not explicitly expressed by Curta). Anonimu (talk) 22:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

race II

There has recently been some discussion about the article's structure and I have taken the occasion to reread it and I think it has three major problems - I have raised this on the talk page but hope you don't mind my contacting you individually. I do not want to make any unilateral change to the article but if you agree with anything I say, maybe you could help. First, there is a section that sumarizes a[pproaches to race (essentialist, taxonomic, etc.) and I think we need to do a beter job of organizing the material in the first half of the article to follow this summary - it is aluable because it provides reasonable limits for what views we include, and also provides a logic for organizing different views.

Second, the opening section on historical views does not provide historical views. And this is really important, because we need to establish HOW the concept of "race" emerged, that the concept has a history, and moreover, that early views of race provide a good example of what we later call "essentialist." I posted a proposed addition on the talk page - if you like it perhaps you can add it, making whatever edits you see fit?

Finally, the article was once structured so that after discussing essentialist, taxonomic, and lineage views of race, each section ending with a critique, the article then explained how population and clines were the key concepts used today to understand genetic variation - all neat and well-organized, But over the past year or two there has been these stupid tit-for-tat process where some editors, anytime they find a sentence proposing that scientists reject race, then add sentences on how some still use it ... and worse, others, seeing any suggestion that someone believes in biological races, then adds a few sentences on how this is despite most scientists rejecting it. Too much of the article reads like a running debate. For example the section on historical views, instead of beginning with what people thought in the 19th or 18th centuries, begins with the social construction argument. Why? It is not a question of right or wrong, or majority versus fringe view, it is just a matter of clear organization. To the extent that there should be any debate at all, it should be in ONE place only, not in every section. Do you see the problem I see? If so can you help with a clean-up?

Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:28, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

To the simpler issue, my sense was that we didn't want to fork "History of...", but there's probably a much better compromise, that is a summary of history just less detail as opposed to modern thought. On the larger, I should have some thoughts in the next few days. I agree that the structure has deteriorated over time to where it doesn't tell a story, it's like someone spilled a jigsaw puzzle but didn't fit the pieces together. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vecrumba. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dacia.
Message added 21:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

If you wish, please provide input. Thanks and best regards. Codrin.B (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVIII, December 2010

Your military history newsletter – Volume LVIII, December 2010 From the editors • "Military Historian of the Year" • Discussions • The month's new featured and A-class content • Review awards Contest results • A-class medal recipients • bahamut teaches us proper usage of "Jargon and acronyms" To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. Past editions may be viewed here. BrownBot (talk) 21:55, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

leak vs. hack

You know, I've given it a lot of though over the past year or so and yes, I do think that the possibility that it was someone from the list, releasing the info out of a personal agenda, who then had no qualms about lying about it, was responsible. Volunteer Marek  05:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The grossly prejudicial and inaccurate statement initially announcing the EEML mail contents (more than half out to get Russavia, etc.) points to a clear conspiracy to tar and feather every EEML participant and to engender the maximum worst case bad faith interpretations of its contents. The claim that the list was released by a participant through an act of conscience because the (other) participants' conduct was so egregious that they could no longer participate is fundamental to the tar and feather meme. That is why it all points to a hack job presented as a "leak." (Aside from the list failing at a point which corresponds to the last Email in the archive—but that could be coincidence.) There's nothing I did on-Wiki during the existence of the EEML list which is different from what I would have done otherwise. Unfortunately, it appears some people are eager to pull out the axe and grind it a year later. That is completely unacceptable. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no, I don't think the list was "released by a participant through an act of conscience". I think it may have been released by a participant out of basic pettiness, shittiness, and other low moral qualities that usually characterize a fink. Never underestimate the fundamental weaknesses of human character and the banal reasons for why it does what it does. Volunteer Marek  06:00, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there's more than enough pettiness to go around. The "act of conscience" was how ArbCom portrayed it, which allowed it to "admit" all possible circumstantial timings correlated to on-Wiki activity (which would all be in the sphere of articles at contention and would be independently on everyone's watchlist) as direct proof of guilt. If I had been topic banned for a year for simply participating in EEML, I would have respected that judgement. Not the judgement that, by not even acknowledging my statement that I was only periodically reading my personal Email, called me a liar. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 06:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that part WAS goofy. Volunteer Marek  06:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

As you possibly know, two similar mailing lists were discovered on ruwiki, and a lot of people received serious sanctions (some of them also edit here). First case followed Operation Trust scenario (the "dishonest person" was actually organizer of the list who created it in order to engage other unsuspected users in illegal behavior and give them up to ruwiki Arbcom). However, in the both cases everyone finally knew who the "dishonest person" was, but we still do not know it here, which shows a better level of preparation. I am sure that no one had a "conscience crisis": he/they carefully collected all messages from the day one of the mailing list (although the original archive was deleted soon after creation of the list), released everything at the moment of their choosing, and did this without trace through a hacked wikipedia account. Biophys (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit problem

Something here went wrong (see bottom). Also, the thread was just closed (see top)... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, not sure what happened there, looks like some sort of edit conflict that went awry. I reverted to the closed version prior to my comments to Deacon. Closed is closed, hopefully done with. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

good faith

Hi, Vecrumba! I noted your revert of Soviet Russia back to "Boslhevist Russia", which you explained as

faith edit, Bolshevist Russia applies 1917 to 1922

— Vecrumba, the forementioned diff

Recognizing the WP:GOODFAITH which you set as the main motive of your revert, I must however draw you attention to some another standpoints of Wikipedia, such as WP:POV and WP:NPOV which seem to be not less significant in this case.

• A "Biased writing" clause warns against writing in "assumptions about the popular opinion of one's area, country, culture, language, ethnicity, etc."
• "Local bias" also warns against
  • —"terms … where no nation is clearly implied"
  • —"references … without mentioning the appropriate jurisdiction"

There's no need to remine that the term "Soviet Russia" which I insist upon is a derivative from the full official name of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic. Since 1917 it has been mostly used in the unbiased, local sources through the world, from primary (telegraph agencies, diplomacy) to the most reliable secondary (scientific publications based upon abovementioned sources and archive documents etc.)

As for the "Bolshevist Russia", stemming from emigrant editions, its propagandistic scent becomes clear if we put it on a par with "Tory Britain", "Maoist China" etc. where the name of a party or a leader is used as a hyperbolizing, protrusing manipulation known as unjustified generalization.

No doubt, phrase "Bolshevist Russia" occurs frequently, however in Wikipedia one must weight this frequency against encyclopedical style. One must differ between neutral science on one, and opinion and advocacy journalism on another hand. Since encyclopedias speak about "Soviet Russia", there's no need to enforce "Bolshevist" instead. Of course, if the theme of the article requires a reminder of the hard-to-read name of the political party at power (for example, is specific event is directly related to a known decision of this patry) — it's enough to mention it once.

I also have to challenge your conclusion about the time bounds (1917 to 1922) for the "Bolshevist Russia". Not only Sergei Melgunov, but the entire scope of the emigrant Russian press insistently repeated it after 1922, i.e. when the USSR was already created. This serves a separate evidence of an estimate of this construction as a "local bias".

Respectfully, Cherurbino (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe even the treaties of the time in their English language translations state "Bolshevist Russia." There's no bias or "enforcement" here. "Soviet Russia" also widely applies to the post-1922 period and so is less appropriate. That's the most common usage with regard to the choice between the two that I see in English language sources. I do know that "Bolshevist" has been portrayed by some as a pejorative term, that is in no manner the case. From an encyclopedic standpoint, "Bolshevist" is the more accurate term. This topic has been discussed at some length in the past -- hope this helps. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I should add that "Bolshsvist Russia" is the official English language usage by the Russian government at the time, for example, bulletins of the Russian Information Bureau in the U.S. I can probably find those links again. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Diplomacy and international relations are one of my specialities. Is not a question of "believe-not to believe"; it's a matter of diplomatic protocol. The concept of authenticity requires to name the states only as they are named officially. "Encyclopedic standpoint" derives upon official naming as well. No encyclopedia in the world names its main article about the country "Bolshevist Russia". Thus I cannot agree with your opposite statement "„Bolshevist” is the more accurate term".

Re: "pejorativeness". This is not an appropriate plane for projections. From the poin of view of politology both terms are just different levels of generalization. "Soviet" is an organizational form of authorities, power etc. "Bolshevik" is a name (what is worse, a semi-official: generally they are "communists") of a political party. Not all the members of the Soviets, even not everybody in CheKa were "bolsheviks". So far, this is a case of an unjustified generalization.

There is another important aspect of the issue. Whatever mine or your personal balance of estimates between "bolsheviks" and "soviets" is — some specific, "neurolinguistic" approach discovers the following. More often the word "bolshevik" is repeated, the more it takes root in the subconscious mind of the readers. Generating an interest among a certain part of them. You see, whether you want it or not, it becomes a sort of 'propaganda of bolsheviks on the sly'.

Between two evils people use to choose the least one. But! Whether you sympathize bolsheviks, or not - it's your own business. As for me, the only criteria I follow is WP:NPOV. "Bolshevik" is less neutral than the "Soviet", since it protrudes "one part" as "a whole". This is not correct. Remember "Tory Britain", "Maoist China" — this is the same case. Respectfully, — Cherurbino (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Re: "bulletins of the Russian Information Bureau in the U.S. " — it's directly in line with my example: these bulletins are a propaganda. What we need here, is a neutral naming. Cherurbino (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

P.P.S. "Bolshevist Russia", in propaganda is a mirror of "tzarist Russia". Both phrases do not fit in NPOV, albeit "tzarist Russia" is more politically correct, since it defines "political system". I prefer Russian Empire, or Imperial Russia. Cherurbino (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I really fail to see why an official publication of the Russian government for consumption in the United states, using the Russian government's preferred naming convention, is "propaganda" that does not apply. Whether or not you or I consider it to contain propagandic content about the actions of the Russian government is immaterial to how the Russian government refers to itself. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:51, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Let us distinguish between two different kinds of publications. First are laws, regulations etc., mentioning the country, its capital in accordance with the objectives of these materials. Second are government-sponsored where authors may vary from statesmen to journalists, poets and writers. Latter tend to use colourful expressions in favour of boring office language. This technique helps them to influence the attitude of a community toward certain things which is a propaganda by definition.

You substitute concepts saying about "Russian government's preferred naming convention". Not all the words said over the "Voice of America" can be interpreted as a "preferred naming convention" of the U.S. federal government (listen to standard disclaimer of VOA saying about "may, or may not"). Same is true for all the overseas-oriented media of Soviet Russia and USSR up to the "Moscow News".

This is not "government refers to itself", as you insist. Quite the contrary: this is how individuals refer to a subject in the materials printed at the expense of government, its bodies and agencies. Which "…may, or may not reflect the official position" and, moreover, naming of the country.

Historical fact: Before 1924 Petrograd was very often called "Red Petrograd" in newspapers and other printed media. But it gives no rights to name the city in this way in encyclopedic materials. Cherurbino (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You bring up analogies which do not apply. You can't denounce state run Soviet media as biased with reference to what it calls Russia. Biased in other ways, certainly. Moreover, how is it "individuals" refer to Russia? These are not op ed pieces attributed to individuals, and the implication that there is some freedom of the press at that time stretches the imagination. I'll read over your response in more detail when I have a chance. :-) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:18, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

---

P.S. Hoping to find understanding between us in this minor discrepancy, and looking forward to further cooperation between us in en-wiki, I want to draw you attention to this large article of mine which I created last year in ru-wiki

• ru:Евреи в Прибалтике

Highly appreciating your

• History of the Jews in Latvia

I hope you may find my materials to be useful for you as well. As you see, I haven't yet created Baltic Jews in parallel with ru:Евреи в Прибалтике :))) Cherurbino (talk) 10:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure "Baltic Jews" is that useful as the experiences and histories of the Jewish communities from Estonia, Latvia (cosmopolitan merchant class), Lithuania/Poland (shtetls with centuries long histories) are widely varied. I'll take a look at your article. Thanks! PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Not enough coffee today, Pale of Settlement of course, never mind! I wasn't thinking in the larger regional context. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I do not hurry you. Look. Read. Take anything you like :). Cherurbino (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there an undercurrent that "Bolshevist" is somehow pejorative anti-Soviet propaganda? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

People argue a lot about words, POV-tags and other minor details... If I was allowed to edit in this area, I would not waste my time for such discussions. Yes, this word still has no negative meaning in Russia. To the contrary, it had a very positive connotation, which led to creation of "Bolshevik" parties in many countries [3], ironically starting from German National-Bolshevik Party in 1920s. Biophys (talk) 22:52, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene discusses "Writing neutrally for Wikipedia"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Communist terrorism

I find myself slightly bemused by your comments on this proposed content inclusion. ~Were on earth out of the proposed content did you get "communist terrorism" is nothing but Nazi propaganda? Given this is actually what has happened? Look again at the sources, and think of the usage of the term at that period. Tentontunic (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that I know whom you are I understand your comments a little more, however I ask again recall how the Nazis used this as a form of propaganda to help them seize control. This is a section which shall be expanded upon, we still have to add the actual first usage of the term after, after all. Tentontunic (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Alas I arose on the sardonic side of the bed. You will note that "communist terrorism" far outpaces "left wing terrorism", etc. as opposed to the contentions of some. Checking published sources by narrow bands of years yields informative results. Best! PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 06:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your graph, I did not know that could be done, you just thought an old dog a new trick, thank you. Are you in support of the proposal or do you have an alternate choice? Tentontunic (talk) 14:33, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, apologies for rudely not answering, I see no issue with "communist terrorism" nor with the dearly departed "communist genocide" (actually refers to genocide BY communists as well as genocide OF communists in sources). IMHO, WP is a hotbed of accusations regarding Russophobic Eastern Europeans seeking to rewrite history in the post-Soviet era in order to demonize communists and the Soviet Union. My detractors would point to that statement as proof of my genetic inability to be objective (codeword "nationalist"). PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Ed talks about real-world collaborations and how you can help

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Google ngram and Vilnius, Vilna, Wilno

Hey Peters, when I check google ngram I get that all three names register and in fact it was only recently (post 1991) that "Vilnius" overtook "Vilna" in sources [4]. "Vilnius" did not over take "Wilno" until around 1970 [5]. "Wilno" still shows up though out of the three it is now the least frequently used one.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right, not sure what I did wrong. For anyone watching, here's a graph from 1600 to 2010...

• http://ngrams.googlelabs.com/chart?content=Vilnius%2CVilna%2CWilno&corpus=0&smoothing=3&year_start=1600&year_end=2010

Of course, Vilna has continued strong as any sources writing about pre-20th century history are most likely to use that instead of Vilnius--similar to still finding Libau a strong contender for Liepaja in any historical accounts of the Russian Imperial Navy. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. on that note, kudos for attempting to address naming. I think we all need to be a bit more lenient in that regard--as anyone researching history should know the most common place names up front. From EB:

• Vilnius, Russian Vilnyus, Polish Wilno, Russian (formerly) Vilna, city, capital of Lithuania, at the confluence of the Neris (Russian Viliya) and Vilnia rivers.
• Ventspils, German Windau, Russian Vindava, city and port, western Latvia.
• Gdańsk, German Danzig, city, capital of Pomorskie województwo (province), north-central Poland, situated at the mouth of the Vistula River on the Baltic Sea.

Best! PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean you

I would just let you know that under "some users working in this area" I didn't mean you. In my opinion, your vision of some aspects of history is deeply distorted, however, I have seen no manifestation of dishonesty or bad faith from your side. I never accused you in bad faith, and I hope I'll never have reasons for that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert: Your comments regarding my approach for Communist terrorism, even if done in sincere concern for the article and in good faith on your part, were nevertheless most unfortunate. Even now, you cannot convey or acknowledge my acting in good faith without prefacing that I fundamentally lack objectivity in certain areas of history. I do not, I'm merely better informed than some and having spent an entire lifetime listening to propaganda (not just Soviet), I also have a very sensitive propagandometer. Nor have your accusations against other editors of lying, et al. of late been in any way helpful in promoting reasoned discourse. I hope your intended hiatus allows you to regain some balance. (@Tentontunic, after some consideration, I redacted yours, your question already posed elsewhere and also part of a larger issue as I hope I've conveyed here. Hopefully we can move ahead rather than get into another who said what.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

IMO, what I've done on the CT talk page is WP:ENEMY. I assumed that you, being a reasonable person, would accept it adequately. BTW, if you want, you can respond in the same vein, if you believe that will help us to understand each other better.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately that WP:ALPHABETSOUP does not apply. You preemptively accused me of a grossly inappropriate approach to a topic in the absence of any article narrative to support your contention. Consider waiting for the crime to be committed before convicting on the certainty of your personal anticipation. Taking your WP:ENEMY defense at face value, you clearly mistake me for an editor I am not.

  While I have my personal opinion of your editorial POV, I don't bring that to WP because I wouldn't want it to get in the way of considering your editorial contentions dispassionately. You recall the maxim, discuss the edit, not the editor? Possibly not, your public disparaging of my editorial viewpoint of late is something new and disturbing to our editorial relationship.

  I'm sure I give myself far too much credit, but perhaps you've just missed my moderating influence during my EE topic hiatus. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:52, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I was probably more emotional than I should have to. And you are right, I had to address to you on your talk page, not elsewhere. Of course, I recall the maxim, and I usually try to stick with it. However, your refusal to understand some quite simple and obvious things (I mean, "simple and obvious" in my opinion), contributed into my too emotional reaction, which, I concede, should never have to occur.

Upon meditation I came to a conclusion that you may be equally surprised with my inability to understand something that seems obvious for you. That is why it would be useful, in my opinion, to discuss the each other's editorial patterns to understand each other better, and, hopefully to save our time that we waste in fruitless disputes.--Paul Siebert (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

All editors are welcome on my talk page to discuss any aspects of any topic regardless of their personal POV. That sometimes works better than at article talk, or when more than one article is at issue. Regarding Communist terrorism, you might consider waiting for narrative to appear before assailing it. Preemptively attacking editors for narrative which they have not yet written is generally seen as disruptive behavior. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:44, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, just let me know when the draft is ready.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

"In the beginning"

Is as usual being overrun with pointless blather. Would you like to set up a subpage to discuss sources? Tentontunic (talk) 16:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be perfect. Also to keep in mind (and on the lookout for...) is that sources have linked Anarchism and Nihilism, the origins of Russian->Bolshevik->communist terrorism, to modern communist terrorism (1970's/80's at its height). Perhaps something along the lines of the below, citations will require sources and page numbers anyway. Obviously, prior to quoting them, sources should be read as a whole to avoid intentional or unintentional cherry-picking, misinterpretation, or mischaracterization. I suggest here or a subpage at my talk for keeping a list. Hoping this is not the case, but if there's any unconstructive commentary, being my talk, I can simply delete it.

CT sources

#	Source	Abstract	Time Period Covered	CT Links
1	Terror: From Tyrannicide to Terrorism, Brett Bowden, Michael T. Davis editors, University of Queensland Press, 2008, ISBN-13 978-0702235993	Collection of essays by experts	Lead essay is "throughout the ages", comprehensive view	Revolutionary terrorist groups include Marxist-Leninist GRAPO, French Direct Action, Belgium's Fighting Communist Cells, Portuguese FP-25 (Popular Forces of April 25)... active late 1970's/mid 1980's; briefly forged an alliance of "fighting communist organizations" with the RAF (German Red Army Faction), pp 255-256 next, same source
2	Daniel Heradstveit, Helge Hveem. Oil in the Gulf: obstacles to democracy and development. 2004. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0754639688	source2	source2	The Anti-Imperialist Armed Front was an alliance of three FCO. Actione Direct (AD) of France the Red Army Faction (RAF) of Germany and the Communist Combatant Cells (CCC) from Belgium. This group carried out bombing attacks on NATO pipelines in 1984 to 1985. The RAF carried out six attacks on pipelines in Germany. The CCC targeted six pumping stations on the 3700mile long pipeline which spanned Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Luxembourg and Germany. The attacks resulted in the pipeline being shut down for a 48hr period. There were no armed attacks on personnel from this group and this is believed to be due to the CCC having an aversion to excessive violence. The AD bombed the corporate offices of the Elf Aquitaine oil company in Paris. pp120
3	source	abstract	covers time period	material and page #'s more material and page #'s
3	source	abstract	covers time period	material and page #'s more material and page #'s
4	source	abstract	covers time period	material and page #'s more material and page #'s
5	source	abstract	covers time period	material and page #'s more material and page #'s

In this example, of note is not the type or goal or nationality, if you will, but the ideology. These all qualify as communist terrorist groups. Subtleties of motivations or intended results or ethnic background are not editorial justification for splintering CT. Best! PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure what source you have used above, but the alliance of FCO were called The Anti-Imperialist Armed Front, they were a grouping of the RAF, Action Direct and the Belgian Communist Combatant Cells. I have added this to your boxy thing, hopefully not breaking it in the process. Tentontunic (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

The particular author of the essay from which my detail came from was by Leonard Weinberg, West European Terrorism, 1950-2000. I also added publisher, year, and ISBN. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:30, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I am a disliker of Wiki table syntax, I'm always breaking it! PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

GULAG

I suggest you to take into account that current scholarly consensus (expressed by such an anti-Communist scholar as Robert Conquest) is that, whereas the Getty's figures do not reflect the total number of the victims of Stalinist repressions, they correctly reflect the GULAG population. All needed information is in the article and in the talk page archive. I doubt it is possible to question the publication in The American Historical Review; it is equally impossible that Conquest's may have any pro-Soviet bias. Therefore, all your additions reflect just a history of the issue, and should be treated as such. Please, bring the text you add into the accordance with what reliable sources say. Please, keep also in mind that English sources are preferable in English Wikipedia.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The preponderance of Russian language sources in the current article is not of my own making. I reuse one Russian source which has been in the article for some time now and has not been challenged, at least not in any current discussion. While my presentation is chronological, it is no way a "history" as you contend. The number of individuals who passed through the Gulag will never be known for sure as evidenced by those many who claim to know yet do not agree, as noted by multiple reliable sources. I do not even mention Conquest, nor do I have any idea what text I have added you contend does not appropriately represent the reliable sources cited. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You should have noticed that I try to avoid using Russian sources. The only exception is Zemskov, whose publication in the American Historical Reviews, which is highly cited by western scholars is an indication of high notability and objectivity of this author. I agree, however, that Antonov-Ovseenko, Shvernik's report, or Khruschev's figures should be treated with great cautions, because numerous mistakes in these sources have been found by western scholars.

Upon meditation, I realised that you started a good job: I myself (following the Petri's proposal) planned to add the section devoted to the history of this subject. I'll provide all needed help for that, however, I'll be ready to do that by the end of April only.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

PS. I would be grateful if in future you will try to add less inflammatory edit summaries: it was not a complain, but just an explanation of the mistakes you are likely to commit. Frankly speaking, what you have written is close to my own views three years ago. However, when I stopped to read politicised bs (both in English and in Russian) and started to read the articles in western scholarly journals, my views dramatically changed: I realised that real figures were much less impressive that those political journalists (from both sides of the Russian borders) are trying to convince us in. I am absolutely honest with you now, and what I am doing here (and what I was doing during my whole Wikilife) is exactly what you advised: I try to stick with what reliable sources (most of which are available for me) tell.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You did indicate I created text not in accordance with reliable sources. Specific examples of potential issues would be helpful in the future as opposed to blanket statements. You did indicate you meditated, so water under the bridge.

Personally I want to do some more reading of/reading of treatment of Volkogonov as the access that he had to archives is really no longer possible. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:56, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I would add that sources trying to tease out the numbers from the archives don't appear to do much to address those arrested who never survived the journey in the first place to even arrive and be accounted for. "Preference for English language sources" is with reference to ease of verification by the reader that a source has been represented fairly and accurately, not that there is a preference for English language scholarship over scholarship in language "X" where one can purport some differences of opinion exist. Do not misconstrue Wikipedia guidelines. Lastly, you are hopefully aware that your characterization of your most recent readings implies that Soviet archives are not politicized. They are, and even the driest most dispassionate reading and representation is politicized by its source. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You used obsolete sources, and I explained it to you (probably, in not completely proper manner). You responded with your inflammatory edit summary, so the score is 1:1 now. I suggest to stop at this point. With regard to reading, I suggest you to read the Getty-Rittersporn-Zemskov article, which provides an exhaustive information on that account, although some of their conclusions have been criticised. For instance, both Conquest and Wheatcroft argued that large number of released inmates could be partially explained by the administration's attempt to conceal some camp deaths. As a result, the actual camp mortality was higher by ca 10%. I also recommend to read the debates between Conquest and Wheatcroft, both of them look convincing, although I am inclined to believe more to Wheatcroft (I do not believe to Cold war hawks). Ellman's works are also quite decent.

In summary, can you do a favour for me: since your section is based mostly on obsolete sources, could you please either temporarily move it to the talk page, or to specify that, whereas current consensus is that the GRZ provided the most reliable numbers for the GULAG population, different scholars during different times provided different estimates? I myself cannot work on this section right now, but I would like obsolete or wrong information not to be added to this article.

In addition, It seems to me that the section should start with Solzhenitsyn, who arguably was one of the first persons who drew attention of general public to this issue.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding sources, I recall there is some web site where most articles I use have been collected and are available free of charge. Since I have an access to all of them, I simply forgot the URL. Try to find it. It will be much more useful than Volkogonov (the link can probably be found in the talk page archives).--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, current sources review the real challenges of coming up with "the" number. That is how "obsolete" sources count and continue to count. I am not trolling old sources to suit a particular POV. Working on the article will go better in appropriately adding material, not arguing over what is "obsolete," etc. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not keeping score, nor do I care to. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Re "Lastly, you are hopefully aware that your characterization of your most recent readings implies that Soviet archives are not politicized. They are, and even the driest most dispassionate reading and representation is politicized by its source." I read a lot about that, and most sources available for me agree that whereas each particular archive may be biased, it was impossible to forge whole documentation, so rather precise information can be extracted from these data: e.g., the number of inmates is proportional to the number of NKVD troops, so the any change in the former must affect the latter, and falsification can be easily seen; the number of released, according to the GULAG records, is supposed to correlate with the number of those who arrived home, and the discrepancy helps to reveal concealed deaths, the number of arrests in Moscow correlated with the changes in city telephone book (even such studies have been done). It is absolutely not a problem for historians to deal with distorted sources, and one of the most important historian's skills is the ability to extract reliable information from biased sources. I would say, this skill is common for all real scientists: extraction of reliable information from noisy data is common in physics and chemistry. Therefore, the claim that "the GULAG archives are biased, so all hypotheses on the number of inmates are equally probable, and no consensus can be achieved about that" is absolutely non-scientific approach. Despite some data may be unreliable, very reliable conclusions can be drawn from the whole set of the archival data checked against each other.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Re score. Neither I do. And I am always ready to stop.

Re challenges. Try to read the RGZ article, it is a really good example of meticulous work with sources. And, while reading Volkogonov, please keep in mind that before Perestroyka he worked for the propaganda department of the CPSU Central Committee.--Paul Siebert (talk)

Volkogonov would know where all the skeletons are buried. That is proverbial, of course, as countless victims perished on the way to the Gulag and will never be found, and their mass graves forgotten, left to some future archeologist to uncover. I don't judge individuals by the system they once inhabited, I only observe what they choose when given an option PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

So you believe he is reliable for the number of victims and is not reliable for, e.g. the circumstances of signing the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact? Why so selective approach?

Re countless victims, you again mix two issues, namely, the number of victims (i.e., the total amount of deaths including famines, deportations, diseases, etc; some disagreement about this number still exists, although the number is generally believed to be in between 15 million (Werth) and 20 million (Conquest)) and the number of GULAG inmates. There is no serious disputes in contemporary scholarly sources now, and the quote from Conquest demonstrates it persuasively. The text you are writing should reflect this point.

And what about other important points I raised?--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I will try not to interfere into your work on this article during next two weeks and I genuinely expect you to take into account all what I have written.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I've read the Conquest-Wheatcroft dialogs et al. IMHO you appear eager to pass judgement on sources based on your believing others are eager to do so as well. What I said regarding Volkogonov was simply that he was worth reading. Nor did I postulate that because archives are biased that all hypotheses [based on the archives] are equally probable (or improbable). What I stated was that archives are politicized, meaning they contain both records (of varying accuracy) as well as politicized history; and that anyone who merely quotes the archives—and there are many who do (finally the archives are open and we shall know the "truth")—is perpetuating that politicization. ("History serves politics.") There is no agenda behind what I say; take what I say at face value, not at what you infer. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What I am eager is to conduct a serious and respectful dialogue, where every side puts serious arguments, presents reliable sources and treats seriously the arguments from the other side. Of course, quarrelsome (or, using your terminology, "contentious") atmosphere of the CT, MKuCR and similar article is not a good background for such a dialogue, however, we have a chance to establish such an interaction in the GULAG article. I explained my viewpoint, I explained what it is based on. I would like to add to that (or to re-iterate) that most historical documents are politicized, and the major skill of every serious historian is the ability to extract reliable information from these biased sources. I already explained how people did that in the case of GULAG. Another example is that Conquest (or someone else observed that for some years (1946) the figures reflected not the actual population, but the camps' capacity, so the actual population was probably 15% higher. However, all these corrections are of the second order, and do not change the picture significantly. Therefore, the writing of Solzhenitsyn, Mikoyan, Antonov-Ovseenko, and similar authors should be represented as early estimates, which were useful for drawing public attention to the subject, but now have only historical interest.

I will not be able be active in WP during next two weeks, so you have a carte blanche. Let's see what you will write, and then I'll comment on that, and, if needed, modify the text (although I hope I will have no need to do that). Good luck.--Paul Siebert (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

No one knows any real numbers, and the estimates are very different. The most widely available Zemskov's numbers have been provided by the KGB and should be quoted as such, rather than considered the "truth". This is something Applebaum tells if anyone reads her book. The KGB numbers were disputed by Antonov-Ovseenko and others who refer to results of Khrushev's Shvernik commission and other materials. The independent estimates by Solzhenitsyn were not invented, but based on a number of objective considerations he described in his book. And so on. None of these authors declared that their estimates were wrong according to my knowledge. All secondary RS must be used and reflected per NPOV. As about Conquest, he is not an "anticommunist historian", and he never tells that he came with precise numbers. He tells however (in his book "Reflections on the ravaged century"), that all official Soviet statistics was completely invented, and that is something we can probably all agree about. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 14:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And this is where I think we come to the crux of the issue, which is, to summarize Wheatcroft: multiple groups were producing statistics on camp population and (my paraphrase) "had no reason to lie" because such lies would only (my paraphrase) "make things worse," from not receiving appropriate quantities of supplies to being held accountable for work production quotas not reflective of camp population.

Being that camp and other settlement inmates/deportees were reduced to stealing animal feed in order to survive, the statistic I added to the article (1939 example of far fewer # of inmates than work days indicate, oops!) represents the challenge in microcosm: that is, which number is the "right" one? The very precise population figures reported or some number at least (in the case of the example) 4.5x larger? Perhaps I shall have to write to Wheatcroft. :-) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, providing an exact number (rather than a range of numbers) at a diagram, when there are significant contradictions between different RS and no reliable statistics, would be a violation of NPOV. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The downside of "Western" scholarship, if you will, of the outside-in view, is that, using Wheatcroft's reasoning purely as a talking example, that ultimately there is the desire to find logic at the bottom of the barrel. Those looking at the picture inside-out know that in the Stalin era, where no one was safe, there is no logic. NKVD (declassified) records also indicate deported Estonians were resettled to their new homes in coach trains, each with nurses and a doctor to tend to passengers' welfare. We all know what a lie that was. And what was the reason for that? We can only speculate; but whether we look for some sinister logic or simply abandon the search for logic, the result is the same: one cannot assume the reliability of archival information unless validated by an external source. (I won't even start on Soviet, now Russian, archives which blame the actions of Russian defectors serving in German units on Latvians, Ukrainians, and other nationalities the Soviets spent half a century after WWII attempting to vilify.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Re "No one knows any real numbers, and the estimates are very different." What do we have in actuality?

1. We have some good archival research that has been published by western scholars in the top American historical journal;
2. This work has been cited many times by various scholars, and, although it has been noted that these figures need in some correction, in general they are reliable;
3. We have an opinion of the reputable (highly reputable) non-Communist scholar who claims that the number of people who passed through GULAG reported in this work (14 million + 4 million in colonies) is correct, and these figures reflect a scholarly consensus;
4. We have no sources that question or challenge this opinion;
5. We also have an opinion of some wikipedians who claim the opposite.

In connection to that, how should we present all these facts in Wikipedia? I cannot participate in long discussion, because my access to Internet is limited now. I replied only on what caught my eye, I'll respond in details later.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:15, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to note, as this is not an article talk page, it is also a place to air out thoughts as well as article specifics, you don't need to feel obligated to counter here, nor is lack of countering taken as tacit approval. Sometimes it's helpful to stray outside the narrow topic to consider potential issues.

Let's take the example of my cousin's husband. For the sake of even numbers, let's say 49 of 50 dead, a 98% mortality rate. Where would those casualties be accounted for in archival #'s? When bodies are just left lying atop the permafrost? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:44, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I like this passage in the beginning of the tread: "I doubt it is possible to question the publication in ...". I heard this only on Marxism-Leninism courses. Yes, it is absolutely necessary to question publications. Every good researcher does it all the time.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

You cannot question validity of any publication, unless some reliable source is found that does that. No sources have been provided so far that question the validity of these Conquast's words. Therefore, we must present the views that have been published in the highly reputable journal, that have been recognized as correct ones by highly reputable scholars, and that have been recognized as consensus views by one of the leading scholar in this area. In the absence of publications that directly question this Conquest's conclusions, any considerations about questionability, about the need to present alternative viewpoints etc are the attempts to give undue weight to fringe views at cost of the mainstream ones, which is a violation of both the letter and the spirit of the WP policy.

--Paul Siebert (talk) 06:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot discuss specifics at the article talk page because of my topic ban, but as a very general comment, yes, the validity of information or claim made by any publication must be properly described if it contradicts claims made in other RS. It is not required that publication itself was challenged. Per NPOV policy, one must include information provided by all reliable secondary sources and notice the discrepancies in data, rather than select one or several sources that satisfy someone's POV. I hope we can all agree about that.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I will only observe somewhat bemusedly how Conquest has been rabidly attacked when inconvenient and put up on a pedestal when convenient. Our mission is to question sources, to represent sources. Unfortunately, there is virtually no discussion on WP on what sources actually say, just arguing over who or what is, or isn't, the "latest" or "obsolete"—that's a particular favorite used to suppress content. The letter and spirit of WP policy is that the validity of publications should be questioned, that they be represented in the light of the best scholarly critical thinking, otherwise WP would be full of propaganda from all sides on all topics of contention. Really, I do tire of endless contentions that the letter and spirit of WP policy are being violated whenever one wishes to dig into what a source contends. Unfortunately, one of the core issues WP faces today—and which drives potential contributors away—is that all too often editors enamored of their POV (whether rightly or wrongly is irrelevant) consider "question" and "dispute" as one and the same, obviating (from their perspective) the need for critical discussion. It's a sad commentary that some of my best discourse on a topic has been with confirmed paid propaganda pushers who, owing to their job description, felt compelled to persuade myself and others of their reasoning. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact, this is very common situation when someone uses only one or two good books in the area for the sourcing. Doing so is fine. What else would you expect from non-expert? Then someone else is trying to source this article to other books by experts in the area, but hear in response "no, I do not want your sources". That is really bad and goes against the policies. Of course, such editor usually provides an "explanation" why the books by experts must be dismissed. Here are some standard explanations: (a) I think these books are outdated and disproved (sometimes with references to a few publications in obscure national newspapers telling that the book was "controversial"), (b) the books were published "outside academic mainstream" (even if they were published in Harvard University Press), or (c) the author(s) was a "bad person" (a traitor, a spy, a communist, an anti-communist, a Russophobe, or a racist, depending on the particular POV). This sometimes comes to extremes, when non-experts reject research/educational books by Nobel Prize winners everyone knows about (e.g. The Gulag Archipelago). One could just as easily dismiss the "Molecular biology of the gene" by James D. Watson claiming that author was fired for making an allegedly racist statement. But that's irrelevant as long as author remains a widely recognized expert in the area. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

@Paul Siebert, back to my question, no rush: Where in the archives would the 98% mortality rate I mentioned be captured in statistics? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:28, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Supreme Soviet

What do you know about the use of Supreme Soviet vs. Supreme Council? I reverted the IP on Transnistria and Politics of Transnistria because "Supreme Council" is the name used by the official website, but running a google search Supreme Soviet is quite common as well. Is there a history behind this? I'm personally leaning towards calling it the Supreme Council, per their official English Translation. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a long story which I shall attempt to condense. There was for quite some time a concerted effort on the part of editors paid to represent Transnistria ("PMR") as legitimate on Wikipedia, from contending there was a real opposition party (not a president for life) to regularly deleting the image of the official flag (with Soviet symbols) and purporting that the plain-striped-one flag was, in fact, official.

For quite some time the PMR web presence was hosted by an outside organization ("The International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty") which was simply a front for Russian interests in the region. (Transnistria basically took over all of Moldova's industrial capacity and then sold it off to Russian oligarchs.) The ICDISS folk have since faded away, apparently. However, I would still point you to very interesting reading here.

The Transnistrian story, of course, continues, ostensibly painting the image of a democratically elected parliament when their PMR president for life is still in his original office. As is their security minister, who was head of the Russian OMON forces that shot freedom demonstrators in the Baltics and, in Transnistria, whose thugs shot up an ambulance, killing one person, blamed it on the Moldovans, and the incident was then used as an excuse to clamp down with martial law. (By the way, the ambulance shoot-up account was from the commander of Russian forces, the forces supporting the regime.)

And so we come to the word "council" on the current parliament site that is clearly not intended for the populace as it is available only in English and Russian. A soviet is still a soviet by any other name, and so it's important that an encyclopedia present an objective picture, not one tainted by an English-language propaganda campaign. I don't object to including "council," but do object to the removal of "Soviet" in the English, as that is the proper translation based on the name of the institution.

You can't write neutral, objective encyclopedic content on Transnistria without understanding the underlying circumstances and factors at work as to what sources are reliable and what sources exist to portray a particular public face. For example, if you consult Charles King's The Moldovans: Romania, Russia, and the Politics of Culture, considered the seminal work on Moldova and Transnistria (King uses "DMR" for "PMR", the Dnestr Moldovan Republic), he refers to the DMR parliament as the Supreme Soviet. I'm sure someone else will come along to contend it's not up to us to decide. No, it's not, which is why we cannot ignore reliable scholarly sources in the face of web sites whose purpose includes propaganda seeking to "de-Sovietize" a regime. Hope this helps! PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the kind words, nice to hear from you. Tymek (talk) 05:25, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Reply

Re: It could even be someone attempting to get Tentontunic blocked through the suspicious appearance of anon IPs reverting to ostensibly avoid 3RR.

Even if you're paranoid, that doesn't mean they're not out there to get you

— Colin Sauter

That defense of edit warriors by you is dejavu all over again. (Igny (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC))

Well, given that of late I have been attacked for content I haven't even written yet, my well-spring of WP:AGF runneth dry. Everything is a conspiracy. I was going to add "...until proven not," but as you know, you can't prove a negative. Don't hold me responsible for the lessons Wikipedia has taught me. After all, my first serious involvement with Wikipedia was countering paid propaganda pushers over the frozen conflict zone. Ironically, they used more reputable sources (albeit obscure and expensive ones, hoping I wouldn't pay good money to debunk their misrepresentations) than other editors I've run across since who appear to be working for official Russia pro bono as mouthpieces regurgitating the same old tired propaganda. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: you can't prove a negative. Yes you can if you know how to apply Occam's razor. (Igny (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC))

Yes, well my direct Wikipedia experience is that people's application of Occam's razor in the absence of WP:AGF is merely self-righteous justification to slit throats without giving it a further thought. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Tentontunic is a sock and you supported both that account and mark nutley when he was suspected of sockpuppetry. Next time someone requests an SPI, please do not assume bad faith on their part. Just allow the SPI to go ahead - the mark nutley SPI was actually dropped because of comments by his supporters. TFD (talk) 03:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly where have I assumed bad faith on someone's part? I have merely pointed out possibilities that there are good-faith alternatives. Having been "convicted" and topic banned for a year based on timing, as opposed to the facts (ArbCom refused to even acknowledge my statement—demonstrating their guilty until proven guilty mentality), I am all for appropriate measures where abuse is unequivocally confirmed. Where not, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt. Were it an IP reverting Tentontunic's, I would grant the same benefit of the doubt to Igny. Both know the rules and know it's just stupid to get carried away. No train is leaving the station. You judge my actions and those of others based on your ego-centric-antagonistic view of your editorial adversaries as opposed to simply looking at a particular situation. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. The simple solution is to disable anonymous IP edits on all articles in the area of contention. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:19, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

P.P.S. I put in a request for permanent semi-protection for all articles in the occupation category. We'll see what happens. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:09, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Talking

Yes, I agree with your opinion (also nicely formulated by Bukovsky) that a middle ground between very big lie and truth is ...lie. But there is little you can do about it. In a long run, all our talks here belong to garbage, and only content counts. If you enjoyed talking or wanted to explain something to others, that would be fine, but many of your current discussions are clearly unproductive. None of your "opponents" is interested in Latvian culture and history. If you switch to editing other subjects, they will probably leave you alone. This is merely a practical consideration. Why waste your nerves and time? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

When I engaged the (paid) propagandists on Transnistria owing to following the Baltic connection there, it was a learning experience as I got into central/eastern central European history deeper than I had before. Unfortunately, where the Baltics are concerned, I'm pretty much intimately familiar with the history, so you are correct, it's mainly arguing with editors who won't change their position who call themselves NPOV and who blame me for being POV for not changing my position. Being I am of a self-identified ethnic background, they can also use that to sling the nationalist mud in my direction as well. It is what it is. Unfortunately, some things cannot be left to propaganda as long as Russia lies about its history.

On the more constructive side, I do have my History of Riga to return to. There I had been unaware that ecclesiastical history blamed Berthold's horse for his death(!). I'm also gearing up to add more materials to my web sites, so keeping a balance, at least, I hope! Best! PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. And you are right, giving the lie to propaganda doesn't do anything to inform people about what Baltic life or history or culture actually are, just what their history for a particular 50 years is not. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You tell: "unfortunately, some things cannot be left to propaganda...". Well, this entire project is a left-wing propaganda web site when it comes to history and politics, according to one user. Did not you realize that WP:SOAP is not at all enforceable? This place is currently being used for propaganda, disinformation, misinformation, all kind of things. There is nothing we can do to stop it. The only thing we can do is to leave propaganda to propagandists. Remember "The prayer" by Bulat Okudzhava? "Dai rvushemusja k vlasti navlastvovat'sja vslast'" ("let everyone who struggle for power to enjoy his power"). Another popular motto: "zivi sam i davai zit' drugim" ("Live yourself and let others live"). Of course some articles will be ridiculous, as they already are, but nothing is perfect.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Monitor. WikiProject Poland Newsletter: Issue 1 (April 2011)

WikiProject Poland Newsletter • April 2011 For our freedom and yours Welcome to our first issue of WikiProject Poland newsletter, the Monitor (named after the first Polish newspaper). Our Project has been operational since 1 June, 2005, and also serves as the Poland-related Wikipedia notice board. I highly recommend watchlisting the Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland page, so you can be aware of the ongoing discussions. We hope you will join us in them, if you haven't done so already! Unlike many other WikiProjects, we are quite active; in this year alone about 40 threads have been started on our discussion page, and we do a pretty good job at answering all issues raised. In addition to a lively encyclopedic, Poland-related, English-language discussion forum, we have numerous useful tools that can be of use to you - and that you could help us maintain and develop: we have an active assessment department. As of now, our project has tagged almost 80,000 pages as Poland-related, out of which 1,500 still need a quality assessment, and 20,000, importance assessment. we have also begun B-class quality reviews on our talk page, and if our activity increases, hopefully we will be able to institute our own A-class quality reviews. As of now, we have about 500 C-class articles in need of a B-class review. If you'd like to help with them, instructions for doing B-class reviews are to be found in point 10 of our assessment FAQ. once an article is assessed it will appear in our article alerts and news feed, which provides information on which Poland-related articles are considered for deletion, move, or are undergoing a Good or Featured review. Watchlisting that feed, in addition to watchlisting our project's main page, is a good way to make sure you stay up to date on most Poland-related discussions. you can also see detailed deletion discussions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Poland (which is another good place to watchlist!) also, those articles will be included in our cleanup listing, which allows us to see which top-importance articles are in need for attention, and so on newly created Poland-related articles are listed here. They need to be reviewed, often cleaned-up, and its creators may need to be welcomed and invited to our project we are maintaining a Portal:Poland automated Wikipedia:WikiProject Poland/Popular pages lists the most popular Poland-related pages from the previous month(s) This is not all; on our page you can find a list of useful templates (including userboxes), awards and other tools! With all that said, how about you join our discussions at WT:POLAND? Surely, there must be something you could help others with, or perhaps you are in need of assistance yourself? You have received this newsletter because you are listed as a [member link] at WikiProject Poland. • Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 21:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Songs

Do you like something like this? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 05:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but website www.bards.ru does not work today any more. Is it because of you or because of me? I hope not.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I did manage to download it, it has a certain grittiness and soulfulness to it, unfortunately I didn't get a chance at the time to listen all the way through (and listen through several times to get a real feel for it)—I'll let you know. It's a refreshing change from the Russian disco music they play at the local supermarket. :-) Спасибо! PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

It works now. It includes large catalog of freely downloadable songs by different authors [6], but this is probably far from your interests. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 04:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Dennis

Sveiks, I'd advise you not to feed the troll by reverting him any more, as that's what this creature is actually up to. His categorizations usually do more harm than good, in my opinion contributing to general overcategorization we have here, making it difficult to reach the useful information. I've just reported him, so I hope it won't take long before he'll be shown to the door. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 17:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, wasn't aware. In any event, the category is not for the establishment of subsidiaries of an entiry, so his entire SS unit and other German military unit categorizations needs to be reverted regardless. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement decision

Enforcement by indefinite ban of User:Vecrumba is declined. User:The Four Deuces is banned indefinitely from editing articles which relate to minority peoples of the Soviet Union due to repeated violations of the warning in Section 8 of the decision Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Vecrumba. Appeal is to the Arbitration Committee. User:Fred Bauder Talk 00:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Dank helps you see what article writers want from reviewers

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not allow others to involve you in completely irrelevant discussions like here. If you want to help or make me happy, please edit something neutral about the city of Riga, for example. Of course, this is also my fault. Next time I am going to ignore whatever happens at AE.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 01:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Fringe views

I agree with you that fringe views and conspiracy theories have no place in Wikipedia. This goes for both the area you are the most interested in (the Baltics) as well as for my field of interest (Russia), and all other articles too. I think the worst thing is when people insert material based on conspiracy theory or fringe books (these are usually written by attention-seeking journalists, political agitators and lobbyists). Academic sources almost never take these theories seriously, or even mention them. Yet some people keep inserting them to Wikipedia, because these editors have agendas. I think we should all work together to stop these people using Wikipedia as a tool for promoting their lies and fringe views. Nanobear (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

@Vecrumba. It's fine to show your good intentions. But it's also important to know the subject. How do you know if something is (or isn't) a fringe theory? Only by studying the subject and the literature, preferably books by experts. It's also important to know what claim was made by a source, exactly. That nuclear wars are possible and maybe even inevitable? But this is not a fringe view by any account. There is huge literature about this. There is a political struggle in the world around this right now (Iran, etc.). The Doomsday Clock now stands at six minutes to midnight according to the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists at the University of Chicago. Same with many other subjects. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

@Hodja Nasreddin, shorter answer first, quick thoughts. For example, "uninvolved" editors who contribute based on interpreting dictionary definitions as opposed to being familiar with a topic do a disservice to any subject matter. Those sorts of "dictionary definition" appeals by the involved to "rope in" the uninvolved to their side are part of the problem, as WP only requires consensus, not informed consensus. That said, to the recent article in question, those who make their living by writing sensationalist exposés et al. and have their current employer praise their work are neither scholars nor noteworthy. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

With regard to this particular article, I did not create it and only made some changes, mostly because I read a part of his book and found it rather interesting, and in fact supported by other independent sources, such as book by Albats. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

So the question becomes, is it mainstream content or is it more Walt Disney, prince of darkness? Note that the author there, who heavily promotes his book based on reputable sources and folks indicating his scholarship is good, does not merit a Wiki article. I think I'll remove the redlink. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. If a BLP article can be easily deleted by consensus, it simply means that subject was not really notable. Who cares? Of course we also have a lot of BLP articles about people even less notable than him, but once again, who cares? OK, I removed my comments. I guess this suppose to be a model. If I return to editing in the area and these guys appear and tell: "hey, that crap should be removed", I just do it to avoid the trouble. Fine. I have no problem because I know exactly what they are going to call "the crap". Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 20:47, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I did restore the mass delete so editors could discuss what is there, not something that pretty much had all the content deleted. That was extremely poor form for someone to have done so. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Food for thoughts

Hello Pēteris, Stumbled over an user essay with a very sharp perspective. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Personally I've always been perhaps overly fond of the moon-cheese metaphor, and there it was. Paldies! PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Taunts

I agree with you, Igny's use of "liberation" is intended mostly as a taunt. However, by seizing on it as you did at the talkpage of the 1944 re-occupation article, you have played into his hands. He's just throwing "liberation" in as a red herring to distract those who are trying to get the title back to the correct version. He knows that "liberation" has a snowball's chance in hell of being the title; he's just hoping to create tangential arguments. His behaviour is reprehensible at best, and his recent page-move seems an awful lot like gaming the system to me. Regardless, try not to blow up at him over such things. It will only create more problems and leave you open for potential repercussions. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

"states", "countries", "liberation", whatever. Please simply follow WP:Common name policy. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

This is the newer, kinder, gentler me. It is only my detractors who insist that every time I sign on to Wikipedia I do so in search of WP:BATTLEGROUND loaded for медведь. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are following this policy. But some others clearly do not. And frankly, I would never expect such illogical "argument" from someone who tells he is a mathematician.Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

You must check Igny's talk page, knowing his math background I asked him about the proof that 1 = 2, I remembered it had to do with .9999999999..... = 1 but had forgotten the math. See the "Let's try something completely different" section. Perhaps we're both merely caught in the logical backwash. :-) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if an educated person like I. understands that his argument was not valid (or even outright ridiculous, "1=2"), but still seriously uses it in a dispute, what does it mean? Just letting you know that I am going to have a ridiculously long wikibreak after looking at some of the recent disputes and sanctions. This place reminds me about the Stanford prison experiment or even worse. But this is hard to explain in plain words, so I left a couple of links to popular songs by Vysotsky at my talk page. Good bye. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 18:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Do let me know if you have the text of any of the lyrics. I regret that I must concur in your assessment of the recent and abject degeneration of discourse over EE related topics. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Sure. I realize that you know Russian as a native speaker. This sounds like fair poetic description of my on-wiki experience. Almost like Room 101, is not it? Please compare with opinion of a notable Russian scientist about ruwiki [7] who responds to a user with telling nickname Psychiatrick. And that is why I would rather leave this place. Good luck! Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 19:42, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Now I write my articles on the Google Knol to get money for them. Having money for writing articles is better than having a long block log and blots on personal reputation for defending the articles from vandalism or distortion. Psychiatrick (talk) 01:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you do not know, but a majority of users in English wikipedia with other native languages are Russians [8]: 26% as opposed to only 2% of Chinese who are more numerous even in the English-speaking real world. Why is that? Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

One empire lost, but as WP is the top-returned search engine match for virtually every topic, a new one gained. Words are still the means by which to persuade minds. It would be interesting to know the types of articles being edited. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:10, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Except myself, I saw only two people in the area of Biology, no one in Chemistry, two in Physics, at least two in Math, and a lot more (20-30 at least) in Russian History and politics. 1,900 people according to icon User:ru, but most of them made just a few edits. Surprisingly, I met only one active researcher among them (Dima K.), who like me, made some references to his publications in scientific journals. Some others apparently knew the subject, but I did not see any sign of them published anything of their own. A lot of bogus claims too: a graduate from Fiztex who did not make a single edit in Physics, a History PhD who knows Russian history worse than you or me, etc. Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles of non-notable persons

Above you said "note that the author there, who heavily promotes his book based on reputable sources and folks indicating his scholarship is good, does not merit a Wiki article." I was wondering, which author are you referring to? Also, don't you think the Looveer article should be nominated to AfD? Wouldn't that be a nice way of ending the disputes surrounding this little-known article? Nanobear (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think you're mixing two unrelated issues. One is the cottage industry of those who make a living by exploiting the darker side of human character getting some sort of pleasure in tearing down others.

The other is that Looveer is notable enough. If certain editors stopped monopolizing the conversation implying there is a desire to whitewash Nazism, constructive energy could be put to the content. There are more sources such as the Estonian association in Australia, her personal recollections which can be cited as such, et al. It's up to those editors, they know who they are, who don't appear to have any desire to add anything to the article except for associations with generally unsavory individuals or alleged Nazi war criminals, to cease fire.

To your specific question, the Lia Looveer article is merely a symptom. Pop the zit to eliminate it and the WP:ACNE will simply surface somewhere else. The challenge before us is to transform Lia Looveer into a microcosm of constructive cooperation and not, paraphrasing Fut. Perf., continue as a microcosm for the same-old same-old. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: Buggie111 discusses neutral point of view

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Soviet invasion of Poland

Come here, we'll solve it. --95.55.230.99 (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Hanseatic League

 

This user is a re-founding member of

WikiProject Hanseatic League.

OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:10, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 14:57, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Request

I would appreciate if you stopped your continued personal attacks against me. Thanks. Nanobear (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Then don't truck out conspiracy charges against others which include charges against me. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:11, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I have refactored my statement to stick to the point. Old Latvian saying, "When you stomp on s**t it only spreads and stinks." I suggest you reconsider your resurrection of attack dog tactics if you wish to avoid earning your just desserts. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 04:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors – Contest results, A-class medal recipients Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Editorial: Hawkeye's thoughts on the article writing process

To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Revision history of Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism

Hi, you recently added a reference to this article but did not supply a page number, would you be so kind as to do so? Thank you. The Last Angry Man (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, will do when I have a chance. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 12:08, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Cosmology

Since you have been interested in similar affairs, I was wondering, what is your opinion of Journal of Cosmology? The Journal probably isn't a reliable source, but the article, as it is, resembles an attack page (almost 100% of it is criticism). Do you think this is encyclopedic enough? Even the article of an evil person such as Osama bin Laden consists mostly of "neutral" description, not 100% of criticism. Nanobear (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm thinking I should pay my $35 peer-review process-management fee, $150 publication fee, and see if I can point to myself as now being published in a peer reviewed scientific journal. I did study advanced topics in physics, have always had a soft spot for cosmology, and have enjoyed reading some of the more interesting fringe theories such as the laws of physics predicting that at the end of time, everyone and everything that ever existed will exist together—that is, scientific proof of what we popularly consider the afterlife. (That would actually be an interesting book-end to the "life began before the universe" article dealing with the other end-point of time.) At face value, the article could use a bit more background. Even Soviet Russia Today (a wholly unreliable propaganda rag at the height of Stalin's power) is treated better in redirecting to Friends of Soviet Russia. I'd have to read a few of their issues, however, to give you a better answer.

Looking through their publications list on their web site, I do find myself tending more toward wanting to stare at my navel intoning "Ommmmmmmmmmm" than taking chalk to chalkboard to debate the finer points of quantum physics. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think adding more background would be a good idea. I think attack pages are always a bad thing, whatever the subject, and they should be NPOVed (or even deleted) as soon as possible. Don't you agree? Nanobear (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I would have to read through their "stuff" in some detail before deciding whether they have redeeming value (in which case at least some additional background is required) or if they are just a bunch of quasi-scientific quacks masquerading as cosmologists (in which case nothing much good can be stated about them). Whether or not they have redeeming value or are quacks, people should know about them, for example, the "International Council for Democratic Institutions and State Sovereignty" front defending Russian interests in Transnistria is/was totally bogus despite its mouthful of a name.

Just because nothing verifiably good can be said about something does not mean that WP policy should be to say nothing. If we do find ourselves in such a position editorially (can't find anything good to say), we should insure that we've been thorough in our research and fair in our representations ("NPOV") so that our position is factual as opposed to a hatchet job.

Unfortunately, achieving "NPOV" is not an editorial titration of "+" and "-" content to achieve neutral pH; "NPOV" is content representing something accurately on the editorial pH scale, wherever it may fall. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Between Rocks (or Reichs) and Cold Places

Yeah, when I was originally posting (before editing out for off-topicness), I had meant to imply that the concept of Estonians swallowing Nazi propaganda was doubtful at best, especially considering the Estonians' animosity for Nazi Germany. --Yalens (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There is that. One doesn't easily forget 700 uninterrupted years of someone else lording over you. Unfortunately the closely-related Finns are also pilloried regularly for parading around with "Nazi symbols" since they still use a white swastika on a blue background dating back to independence, not really giving a damn (!) about Hitler or Stalin, both are dead and gone and so are their empires. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't the swastika a common (well, not that common, but enough) symbol before Hitler stole it? Ah well. I'm not particularly surprised that some people want to delegitimize Finland's resistance to Soviet occupation (and the whole fascist thing is so overused, they're calling Saakashvilli fascist now too, big surprise there). --Yalens (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Though, with regard to the page, I would say it isn't necessarily hopeless to try to at least put in a section of criticism of the term Russophobia (an applicable article was posted to the talk page, for example), and I think I saw an article in the Economist (online) that was rather incredulous about Russian claims of Latvian Russophobia (apparently some mayor guy who claimed all this stuff about Latvia actually retired there...something like that). Then again, there are also better things to do than deal with that mess of a page. --Yalens (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You're right, on retiring, a whole pile of Russian military "retired" and kept their residences, which they could claim even it meant the rightful owner was dispossessed during the Soviet era, rather than return home to no pay, no barracks. Very oppressive indeed! On the related matter, haven't had time to spend on what was agreed to. I actually sent a request for the infamous response assuming it's already published somewhere in addition to Slucis letter, which is; let's see what happens. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to the Bacon Challenge 2012

Hello! You have been invited to take part in the Bacon Challenge 2012. In case you don't know or need a refresher, the Bacon Challenge is an annual celebration of bacon on Wikipedia in which editors come together to help create, expand, and improve Wikipedia's coverage of bacon. The event lasts all the way through National Pig Day 2012, giving participants plenty of time to work at their pleasure. In addition to the Bacon Challenge is the Bacon WikiCup 2012, a side event to the Challenge in which all bacon-related contributions done by those participating in the Challenge are submitted and scored by the scorekeeper (me) based on the scoring chart. At the end of the Challenge, the user with the most points in the Bacon WikiCup will win a shiny trophy for their userpage. In addition, the users who score the highest in specific categories (not yet finalized, but the categories include most image uploads, most article creations, most DYK submissions, and more) will win barnstars. Finally, all participants will receive a medal. While the awards are nice, in the end, the important thing is to have fun and enjoy what we're all here for, which is improving Wikipedia.

If you decide to participate, great! You may add your name to the participants list at the main page of the Bacon Challenge 2012, and pick up the userbox for your userpage if you desire. Signing up for the Challenge will also automatically enter you into the Bacon WikiCup. If you don't wish to participate, that's fine too - maybe next year! In the meantime, if you know anyone who might also be interested in participating, feel free to invite them! The Challenge is open to anyone and accepts participants at any time, so feel free to let anyone who might be interested know.

Note that I, the scorekeeper of the Bacon WikiCup, will be on vacation starting on the 18th of June all the way up until the 5th of July. I will have limited access to the internet, so I may or may not be able to score users' contributions during this time. Sorry for any delay in scoring (but since the Challenge lasts for more than half a year, there's no rush, right? (= ).

I'm looking forward to another fun, successful year. Thanks! ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!

You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.

This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:26, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Latvian-American communism

I just spotted your message, sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Quite a few of my links are busted up right now, drop me a line if you need any of the documents concerned and I'd be happy to email them to you. MutantPop@aol.com Carrite (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Finland and Spitfires Op-ed: Fifelfoo and hunting for plagiarism

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Baltic SSRs

Hello, Vecrumba. You have new messages at Lord Gorbachev's talk page.
Message added 20:59, 18 July 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: Gulag

I made a couple of comments at Gulag talk page, but this is not really a big deal. It might be a good idea to actually contribute to content of articles on the subject rather than be involved in discussions, but unfortunately I do not have time for that right now. Good luck! Biophys (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as Russia continues on its course of glorifying the GPW to the marked absence of acknowledging the impact of the Soviet legacy—aside from Да, Да, Да, let's move on, giving a whole new meaning to the term Dadaism—there will continue to be scholars and editors postulating the USSR wasn't as bad as its victims make it out to be. Funny, I never see anything like that on WP about Nazi Germany, or see anyone being attacked for "Nazi-bashing." It's a problem endemic to a number of topic areas, unfortunately. (I can hear the wailing of "equating" Nazi and Soviet occupations = denial of the Holocaust, etc.) Must have woken on the cynical side of the WP:BED this morning. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:38, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you see Walk on Water (film)? One interesting aspect of the movie is how young Germans felt ashamed of having a Nazi executioner grandfather who was running from justice. But I have seen some Russians who were very proud of having NKVD grandfathers. That's the difference. Biophys (talk) 18:40, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

No, I haven't but I will put it on my short list. You are, of course, completely correct, as the bust of Felix Dzerzhinsky, founder of the Cheka, was restored to its Soviet-era place of honor in the courtyard of the Moscow police—demonstrating pride in his accomplishments and honoring his example. Whereas if a bust of Herman Goering, founder of the Gestapo, were to be restored to a place of honor anywhere in Germany, well, you can well imagine the result... PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:24, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yes; there is a series of internet publications about this [9]. As one Russian poet said, "Mne zal' stranu gde prosheny ubitsy i kazdyi pyatyi s nimi zaodno" (he meant that 20% of population supported Stalin and his policies at the time when he wrote this). But a few years ago that was already 50%. Few people can think differently. No wonder, there are more "ubiits" in Russia than ever, and they created real hell. And the crime comes from the very top. Biophys (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Zeebrugee and Afghanistan Op-ed: WereSpielChequers examines RfA

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

AE

FYI Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Vecrumba --Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 13:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid you have completely misinterpreted and over-reacted to my utterly benign—as it is simply factual—observation. I would have much preferred that the request to delete an article which touches on the Soviet legacy and portrayal thereof had come in from the outside from an uninvolved third party to the conflict regarding that same-said portrayal, and would think you would have preferred that as well in order to avoid any hint of partisan motivations in advocating to remove content potentially inimical to painting a positive image of official Russia in its dealings with the Baltic states. I do very much look forward to our interaction ban being lifted so our exchanges can be more fruitful in generating positive content for Wikipedia. After all, it's quite unfortunate that according to current interpretation of the interaction ban, whoever gets there first owns the article—meaning that we personally can't debate each other on any article where the other is active. Wouldn't you agree? That's a rhetorical question for your personal pondering, of course, and not an attempt to bait you into violating our interaction ban. (For any observers, this posting is permitted under communication required for dispute resolution as we can all agree that AE requests in this arena have proven to be notoriously fallow ground in which all seeds of understanding wither as soon as planted. Any long-term resolution requires thinking outside the AE box.) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you were involved in discussion of this in the past

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification#Request_for_clarification:_WP:DIGWUREN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Vecrumba_2. Nanobear (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It appears you have violated your interaction ban with Russavia by undoing his removal of a reference on Latvia–Russia relations, 'The Case for Latvia'. There may still be time for you to self-revert. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. However, you will appreciate that this interpretation of an interaction ban (as opposed to my contacting Russavia on his article talk or discussing his personal motivations in Baltic related articles in talk or edit summaries) means that whoever edits an article now owns it, locking out an editor with whom they disagree. I consider Russavia's edit, which eliminated a source only because it is critical of Russia, to be harassment of all those editors who are interested in a reputable representation of the Soviet legacy through to Russia's interpretation of said legacy through to current foreign policy regarding the Baltic states. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 13:25, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Jaunā Gaita

Hello Pēteris. I am working on filling in some blanks to make the article, The Case for Latvia, meet the notability criterias for books. Perhaps you are familiar with the magazine Jaunā Gaita? Would you say that the article 2 Zinātņu doktori par rislaki veikumi meets the first criteria of notability of books? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 16:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with Jaunā Gaita, it's quite well known and respected and features some of Latvia's leading thinkers among its editors. I agree that the article by Gundar King, per his scholarly author information at the John Wiley & Sons site:

Gundar J. King is a professor and dean emeritus in the School of Business, Pacific Lutheran University. His writing includes cases, articles, and books on management and public policy. He is a past president of the Western Association of Collegiate Schools of Business.

qualifies his review of The Case for Latvia as meeting notability and scholarly requirements. Thanks for finding that. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:49, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Carthage and Australia in Palestine Op-ed: Remembering 9/11

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A draft of the AE request

Dear Vecrumba,
I consider a possibility to file the AE request as explained on the MCuCR talk page[10]. However, since the sanctions are not my primary goals, I would like to discuss this draft with you first. I hope it would be useful to look at the issue again. That may help to avoid some negative consequences and to save the arbitrators' time.
Regards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

You propose a year-long ban or block for myself for a minor edit changing no article narrative. In diplomacy that is known as a strong-arm tactic no matter the terms it is couched in. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Vecrumba,
I initiated a straw poll here. I would like you to express your opinion on that account.
Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh well, responding to a cut and paste template, longer response @ "poll." A poll focusing on wronging and not content is not a step forward, it is a throwback to the Hatfields and McCoys. Yes, moving forward by voting on your allegations of guilt against editors who don't see things your way—meanwhile, it's not like you haven't advocated for a less than accurate representation of the Courtois source rather than identifying and dealing with issues more constructively. +PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK

Peters, I would appreciate if you looked and answered on my last post I made here. This thread was initiated by you, and although I initially replied in somewhat aggressive manner (for what I apologise), upon meditation, I came to understanding that the question you raised deserves more serious attention. I would like to continue this discussion.
It would be also good if you looked at my last post here, where, as I believe, I was able to explain my viewpoint more clearly. You are not obliged to comment, however, I would like you to at least read it.
I also started to feel that the new attempt to come to consensus is likely to fail. If that will occur, I'll probably restore the version that had been modified with violations of the editing restrictions, and, if some of the users listed in the AE draft will revert it back, I'll file this AE request. Frankly speaking, I do agree that the addition you made to the footnote is in the gray zone, so they may be considered as minor or major edit depending on the context. I think, these figures (along with others) belong to the article, and should be moved to the appropriate section (which has to be created). I believe, we two, as the users belonging to two opposing camps, may persuade others to add this section. In connection to that, I don't think you will have any reason to re-revert my prospective revert of the edits disputable that are the subject of the last dispute, and I, accordingly, will not have to list you in the AE request (although I still hope I'll be able to avoid doing that).
Regards.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm unfortunately fully occupied the next few days, I did respond to your more sober post and gave you something to think about. As for the prospective AE, is there a train leaving the station? The longer the group takes to work through things the less contentious they will be and the more likely it is there will be some accommodation. Personally, I am quite happy for content to change in the course of due consideration, but I am not likely to self-revert an edit which did not affect content, particularly under threat. Your plan to revert the 85-100, I assume (and you are in the minority view, as well, I've explained to you the problem with your problem with BB), will only fuel acrimony. I would respectfully suggest you not offer up on a platter an opportunity for your editorial opposition to take pot shots at you for your own questionable (it doesn't matter that you don't consider them questionable) edits, which is what will happen if you proceed with your AE. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 23:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I also thought the train had already left the station. Unfortunately, recent development of the discussion demonstrate that that, probably, not the case, hence my previous post. I don't want you to be dragged into the new quarrel that can potentially start in close future. Since other participants seem to sabotage development of the discussion (by re-iteration the same arguments and by disregarding the facts, sources and arguments presented by me: for instance, as I argue, Courtois' claim has been misinterpreted by adding "85&100", look at the original text.), the version that have been added in violation of the edit restrictions seems to stay. That is not acceptable, so if I'll find that the discussion does not progress any more, I'll revert this change, and the next attempt to re-introduce it back will result in AE request.

As I already wrote, I would prefer not to list you in this AE, and I suggest you to start thinking about the draft of the "Death toll" section, where all figures, including those added by you to the footnote will be presented. --Paul Siebert (talk) 23:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You tell: "I'll probably restore the version that had been modified with violations of the editing restrictions, and, if some of the users listed in the AE draft will revert it back, I'll file this AE request". I think key word here is "probably". No further comments. Biophys (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Still 99.99% off(Wiki)line, @Paul, my experience has been that the probability of a self-inflicted wound is positively correlated to the continued brandishing about of the weapon causing the wound. Really, your "unacceptable" plus an AE threat has degenerated into an attempt (my perception) to insulate yourself from charges of edit warring; it reflects poorly on your words seeking reconcilement. As with the "nobility" of Soviet goals in WWII, one judges words by results, not results by words. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

And what were the results of the activity of the Baltic WaffenSS personnel, in your opinion? I mean other results than protecting the withdrawal of the German troops and prolonging the survival of the most barbaric regime in history?--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

How did Baltic Waffen SS personnel prolong the survival of the Soviet regime? --Sander Säde 17:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, the Latvian Legion and the temporary Latvian government (of sorts) operating in Courland saved countless Latvians fleeing for their lives rather than face Soviet "liberation", given the first year of Soviet occupation. Holding off the Red Army until the bitter end—the Latvians could not anticipate they would receive no help to save their homeland because FDR and Churchill had already sold them out—allowed as many refugees as possible to flee to freedom--that is, all those whose boats escaped Soviet air bombardment. As for "barbaric", in terms of death toll, isn't it Mao and Stalin atop the leader board?

And as long as you started me on "barbaric", before we get into Stalin's "brilliance" as a military strategist "liberating" his neighbors from the yoke of Fascism, I'll just head that one off with the thesis that his "success"—via horrendous Red Army casualties, not just in trying to stamp out the tiny Courland Pocket—was owing to the lack of value of human life in Stalin's regime. If the entire chain of command is willing to submit to the order "shoot anyone who retreats"—and, recall, Stalin had already shot a plethora of generals, then the 1% chance you have of surviving going forward is better than the 0% chance you have of surviving if you retreat.

And, last but not least, Stalin's push to Berlin was not for the glory of battle or for the propagandic claim of liberating 100,000,000 Eastern Europeans but to get to German records of their work on the rocket program and weapons of mass destruction before the British, French, or Americans got there.

I would think you have better sense than to post this sort of ultimately low-brow ethno-bashing insult on my talk page. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 18:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Frankly speaking, I have no illusions about my ability to persuade you in anything. Therefore, I see no sense to respond to you here, because my responce will have no positive effect. To leave the posts that will be seen by you just as additional insults is not my goal. Therefore, I'll save my time for discussing of the articles' content on the appropriate talk pages.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A positive response will always garner a positive reaction on my talk page. As with most things in life, you get out of Wikipedia what you put into it. Do let me know how your characterizing the Latvian Legion dreaming of saving their homeland from the Soviet catastrophe to come (having already suffered one already) as "protecting the withdrawal of the German troops and prolonging the survival of the most barbaric regime in history" is anything but, as we are speaking frankly, an acrimonious and provocative load of национально-патриотическое фекалий? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It has also been my experience that persuasion is not necessary for a constructive dialog between opposing viewpoints. It is in the absence of attempted persuasion that the debate over a topic makes clear the differences in position, the focus being on each position achieving clarity so as to be as informative as possible to both participants and spectators. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

A positive response will always garner a positive reaction on my talk page. As with most things in life, you get out of Wikipedia what you put into it. Do let me know how your characterizing the Latvian Legion dreaming of saving their homeland from the Soviet catastrophe to come (having already suffered one already) as "protecting the withdrawal of the German troops and prolonging the survival of the most barbaric regime in history" is anything but, as we are speaking frankly, an acrimonious and provocative load of национально-патриотическое фекалий nationalist-patriotic crap? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean under "positive responce"? A post where I agree with you?

Re "Do let me know how your characterizing the Latvian Legion dreaming of saving their homeland from the Soviet catastrophe to come" They believed they were just saving themselves from the catastrophe, however, they de facto defended themselves at cost of prolonging of the survival of another, even more barbaric regime. That is the fact, and I do not want develop this theme if that will not lead to any positive contribution to Wikipedia (and, taking into account that this discussion is totally unrelated to any article, it will not). You are not comfortable to read that, I am not comfortable to type it. What is the need to continue?

And, last but not least. I fully understand that you are able to read and write Russian. However, I found your habit to use Cyrillic alphabet exclusively for writing something that has negative connotations inappropriate and offensive. I suggest you not to do that in future. In addition, your Russian is simply grammatically incorrect. --Paul Siebert (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

@Paul, you vastly overstate my skills in Russian, I did know my grammar was incorrect but I was in a rush so I just put it together without figuring out proper declension. As I have no desire to offend, I have stricken mine above and provided the English. Moreover, I will at least attempt to remember to use "Ja, ja, ja" not "Да, да, да" in the future when rhetorically expressing my disagreement with the nationalist-patriots. (Feel free to save a diff and remind me if I forget.)

Our discourse here rather points to our differing perspectives. Working backwards:

• "Even more barbaric" — Well, at least we agree they were both "barbaric"; arguing over which one was worse rather loses sight of the main point, don't you agree?
• "Prolonged" — The Courland Pocket didn't impede the end of the war; its net effect was that the Soviets suffered massive casualties for a stalemate while Latvian civilians escaped to live for another day. Had Stalin not insisted on taking the Courland Pocket, there would have been far fewer casualties. In any event, the battle over the Courland Pocket did not prolong the war.
• "Believed" they were attempting to save themselves — As the "de facto" result was Latvian citizens being able to flee the Soviet re-invasion to safety, there's not the issue with belief versus result. The catastrophe did come, and for those brave souls who held the line so their fellow Latvians could escape, their reward was being shot as traitors (for being citizens of the Soviet Union who sided with the enemy) while the Germans merely got marched off and trucked off to the interior.

And so, to underscore that my use of Cyrillic is not derogatory, and reflecting that self-described "anti-nationalists" (not you) define their position as being diametrically opposed to mine, I sign myself, respectfully, Националист-патриот ►TALK 20:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Re "I will at least attempt to remember to use "Ja, ja, ja" not "Да, да, да"" I doubt it would be less offencive. At least, I will see that as an insult of Germans, and will react accordingly. Did you consider a possibility to use "Yes, yes, yes" in English Wikipedia?

Re "Feel free to save a diff and remind me if I forget." By contrast to some Siebertologists who seem to read all my contributions, I do not monitor your activity in WP, and have no intention to do that in future.

Re "at least we agree they were both "barbaric"" who was arguing against that?

Re "The Courland Pocket didn't impede the end of the war" Are you sure? In addition, I am talking about the contribution of Baltic nationals as whole, starting from Narva, ending with Germany.

Re "their reward was being shot as traitors" Frankly speaking, I am not sure it is true. I mean, I totally agree that some of them were executed, however, in many cases, real collaborators (you are right, it would be incorrect to call Latvians "traitors"), even Vlasovtsy were punished much more mildly then imaginary "enemies of peoples". As far as I know, most vlasovthy were sent to Gulag for 10 years, so I do not think the Latvians were an exception.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I should have typed "Jā, jā, jā" to make it clear I actually meant Latvian. Siebertologists... I like that! It's got a much better ring to it than Vecrumbologists (science of) or Vecrumbitis (affliction). Well, as for extending the war on the Eastern Front, the net effect was probably nil since both the Soviets and Nazis conscripted the Latvians to the point where there were entire Red Army units that had to be sent elsewhere because Latvians wouldn't shoot Latvians; since both sides used and abused the Latvians, I would tend to net that out. With regard to the Latvian units that wound up retreating all the way to Berlin, it wasn't their intent to defend Hitler's bunker, it was more getting caught in the cross-fire, as I recall. Besides, at that point, there was no force that could turn the tide, obviously. Soviet military historiography on Courland is that it was a bunch of Germans stuck on a piece of land which was inconsequential to the drive to Berlin, so no effect there (or so it is said). You can take my word on the shooting, citatIOns were in the Courland Pocket article until someone mass deleted a source they didn't like. The Legionnaires later forcibly repatriated from Sweden were luckier, they got the GULAG for 25 years. Националист-патриот ►TALK 00:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

What did you expect? This is everywhere [11]. Biophys (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:3-Occupations-Waffen-SS-conscript.png

Thanks for uploading File:3-Occupations-Waffen-SS-conscript.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 07:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Pēteris, Perhaps you should upload that image to Commons. Perhaps in a better resolution? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 21:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Good idea on Commons. That was a Ebook publishing conversion from a MFA doc, I may be able to manually extract a higher resolution. Paldies! Националист-патриот ►TALK 00:57, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Took a pass at a higher res but haven't had a chance to move to Commons. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Request for participation

Dear Vecrumba: Hello. This is just to let you know that you've been mentioned in the following request at the Mediation Cabal, which is a Wikipedia dispute resolution initiative that resolves disputes by informal mediation.

The request can be found at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor.

Just so you know, it is entirely your choice whether or not you participate. If you wish to do so, and we'll see what we can do about getting this sorted out. At MedCab we aim to help all involved parties reach a solution and hope you will join in this effort.

If you have any questions relating to this or any other issue needing mediation, you can ask on the case talk page, the MedCab talk page, or you can ask the mediator, Steven Zhang, at their talk page.

Possible help?

By any chance do you or any editor you know have access to this [12] I should like to know what it has to say regarding communist terrorism, Thanks. The Last Angry Man (talk) 19:04, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes and it does. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:29, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for looking, is it possible should I activate email onwiki that you could send me the relevant section? The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I have responded to your mail, thank you. The Last Angry Man (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Although I am now going to be unjustly blocked again for sockpuppetry I would appreciate if you would still send me the article we spoke of, it would be a useful reference source for the book I am currently writing. Thank you. The Last Angry Man (talk) 12:16, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I expect that if I wish you good luck I will be attacked for consorting with sockpuppets. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 15:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration

Hello Vercrumba: I saw your question on the Collaboration With Axis Powers talk page about scholarly sources talking about levels of collaboration. I don't think it qualifies as "scholarly" (even if it's published by the Praeger University Series), but historian Hugh Seton-Watson wrote "The East European Revolution." At the beginning of Chapter Six (pages 106-107), he lists five levels of collaboration. I can type them up if you can't get ahold of a copy. In any case, I would guess his other work might be somewhere to look for a definition that suits your needs. Best, IWTH (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Why, thank you indeed. I'll see if I have access, if not, I might impose on you. Best, PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Actually, since I will be working on articles on Yugoslavia in WW2, I would like something like this on WP as well. It can be replaced when something better is found. The relevant paragraph is about 400 words, but by getting rid of extraneous examples, I have a 245-word quote that retains the original author's meaning. That's under the 250-word limit that the Wikiquote:Limits_on_Quotations page gives. I assume that means that copyrighted works have a 250-word limit, while non-copyrighted do not? Also, is there a WP rule on ellipses? IWTH (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Holodomor

I saw your comments in mediation. I think main point of contention there is the deliberate nature of the famine. One should not really answer "yes" or "no", but simply give some "arguments", pro and contra, as provided by good historians. Not sure if you read the book "Harvest of Sorrow" by Conquest (see pages 326-329). The deliberate nature of the famine was supported by the following arguments. (1) when Stalin started the excessive requisitions of grain in 1932, he already knew that similar policies resulted in the famine of 1918-1921. (2) the Russian-Ukrainian border was blockaded to prevent entry of grain to the Ukraine; orders were given and enforced to prevent food, legally obtained being brought to Ukraine from Russia (3) When starvation and death began and that became known to Stalin, the requisitions of grain still continued, (4) bread rations were established in cities, but not in villages; (5) grain was available in stores in the famine area, but not released to peasants; (6) the destruction of Ukrainian cultural life and religion and the slaughter of their intelligentsia was conducted simultaneously with the famine; (7) Stalin considered peasantry as the bulwark of nationalism. Hence the ultimate solution of peasantry "problem" was the way of dealing with Ukrainian nationalism problem. Biophys (talk) 02:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I believe yours is a fair and accurate summary. It's pointless to argue unintended versus completely premeditated as neither of those are accurate positions. The key is, as you indicate, that once specific actions were taken to single out the Ukrainians to perish, it was only the result that matters. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 03:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Think about this poetry. Is not it about Holodomor and even about people in wikipedia? Biophys (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi there both of you, this is just to say that I left a related message on Biophys's talk. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 03:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Responded. Biophys (talk) 04:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Perhaps you do not realized it, but when I was sanctioned (R-B case), that was done by dispatching several SPAs who behaved deliberately ridiculous: claimed me to be a terrorist supporter, promised to meet me in Moscow, and made ridiculous edits in articles and reverted me when I tried to fix them. I do not think some of the guys even believed in something they said at talk pages. In a normal situation, some of them would be quickly blocked as disruption only accounts, but in the present situation one of them (with nickname of an automatic weapon) was not sanctioned even during the arbitration. The only way of dealing with them in present situation is not pay attention, whatever damage they will do to wikipedia content. Biophys (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I do remember that serious bit of over the top ugliness, outing attempts, and all. SPA editors pushing overt agendas come and go, that is to be expected when Wikipedia is the top internet search engine result regardless of topic. What makes it challenging is when such editors trade on the good will and involvement of editors in particular areas of interest to get at least an initially sympathetic ear. In the end, reliable and reputable scholarship does seem to win out—if one has the patience to be in it for the long run, with periodic mental health breaks! PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest to avoid political discussions at user talk pages, and only discuss what sources tell at article talk pages if you wish. Otherwise, someone will always talk with you about Nazi, images of hanged man, and so on [13], only to look at your reaction. Biophys (talk) 16:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. Rather than open dialog with a new editor, which was my hope, all I've accomplished is to provide someone a forum to hurl abuse to the extent that it has (my perception) degenerated into little more than hate speech. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 17:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your edit comment: I am glad you finally realized the fact, that politics and content does not mix very well, since politics per definition is POV. On the upside, that would give you more time on content for let's say less controversial topics, eh? ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 18:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

While a lively debate can hone logic and critical thinking skills, the downside is that one or both sides descend into polarized screeching invective--for which "rhetoric" is far too civilized a term. I've got a ton of work for my own sites, and there's the history of Riga and other articles (Hanseatic League relaunch) to dust off, which aren't controversial as far as I'm aware. I do take pause to ask, is it controversy that attracts me or that I attract controversy? Given that race and intelligence attracted me during my downtime, perhaps a bit of both. "Controversy" after all also means "merits closer study and investigation"--at least in my mind, if not the minds of those who prefer to present matters only in colliding extremes. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Has it ever occured to you that most editors on Wikipedia seems to be adolescents or students in their teens or early twenties? What kind of critical thinking were you expecting in the first place (especially with participants from countries with little or no traditions in this field)? Sorry to "burst your bubble", but Wikipedia is not exactly the place to look for scholarly ping-pong at a higher level. As you know, all that is required to participate is reading and writing skills a tad more advanced than of a chimpanzee (i.e. "monkey see, monkey do"). ;o) ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:09, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

No, whoever he is, he is not young because he tells "we Soviets", and this country does not exist for a long time. These two users sound almost identical ([14] and [15]), even though they probably came from different geographic locations. Biophys (talk) 22:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There are other parallels to (other editors) past contentions that Baltic peoples are Nazis, a penchant to quote and ridicule Conquest sarcastically, etc. When new editors are quick to the attack, I can't help but think deja vu all over again. It is what it is. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 01:44, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Random thought segue from above

Actually, I have a solution to the whole occupation admission thing. Russia, having chosen to be the legal successor of the USSR, does not recognize the Baltic states as continuous and finds itself needing to play the whole "joined" card to denounce demands for reparations as null and void. It would mean giving up any future demands for reparations (like those are ever going to happen), however, if the Baltic countries refused to recognize Russia as the legal successor of the USSR, that would free Russia to acknowledge occupation as it would have been released from any obligation as successor, as the Baltics would have explicitly recognized occupation as an act of another regime. To reconcile the irreconcilable, diplomacy must achieve a perfect balance of plausible and implausible. Just a wild, half-baked thought, hangover from a 5:00AM conference call the other morning. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I could not care less about international relations, but it's useless to explain to someone who tells "we Soviets" that Soviet system and Stalin did greater damage to Russian people than Nazi. As Rubsov said, "Nevozmozen dlja nas s toboi razgovor-spor. Dlja tebja on Otets rodnoi, dlja menja on ubiitsa i vor". Biophys (talk) 05:29, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm reminded of Stalin's penchant for pictures with children, no? (Rubtsov, yes?) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC

You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here!--Pharos (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

AE

I saw your last AE comment. He demonstrated that he came from this IP: [16]. Among all banned pro-Soviet users, his daily activity cycle coincides only with User:Cognition aka User:172, see edits by the latter (you can check yourself using this wikitool). This is not enough for asking checkuser at this point.Biophys (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There are some similarities to User:Vlad fedorov (here), but I don't believe the behavior quite fits. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:59, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

(I usually do a preliminary analysis prior to submitting SPI cases). He made too few edits so far to establish his daily activity cycle. It looks like almost constant activity during 24 hours (meaning no sleep, movements between different time zones, or a collective account). Biophys (talk) 17:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Style guide for the Baltics

Sander has started a draft style guide Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles to enshrine the current editorial practices and style in Baltic articles, perhaps you may want to contribute. --Martin Tammsalu (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Book reviews: Nick-D and Ian Rose look at Australian air power Op-ed: Buggie111 ruminates about WikiLife and WikiDeath

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:56, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

A bit of trolling?

In conjunction with a mildly amusing discussion I had on the ru:Latvia talk page, I gotta ask: so, what is the de jure date of Latvian statehood? --illythr (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Short answer

Not Lenin's decree.

Long answer:

Lenin signing a decree to recognize the (Soviet) Baltic republics in December, 1918, was an act of propaganda, that is, prior to Bolshevik-backed authorities even establishing full territorial control--rather like the treaty of mutual assistance the USSR signed with Finland, the propaganda of the time not mentioning it wasn't with the "real" Finland, but with the fake Soviet hoped-for bridge-head "Finland."

Ah, and the love of pushing viewpoints with titbits of Latin!

Manifestum non eget probatione. — Proof is not required. [It can only go downhill from here.]

Lenin's decree is certainly interesting, but it refers only to the Bolshevik-backed pretenders to sovereign authority who were ultimately rejected by the Baltic peoples, Lenin's decree having been issued upon the request of the Soviet authorities in Estonia. More specifically, the decree was not with reference to the authorities with whom peace treaties were ultimately signed (and which had declared independence prior, one week after the WWI armistice, so it was clear that they were not being recognized) which forever renounced Russian/Soviet claims of sovereignty over the Baltic territories. All that can be said is that Bolshevik Russia accorded de jure recognition to the puppet Bolshevik states it was seeking to establish in the Baltics. The failure of those states nullified Lenin's decree. One cannot recognize, de jure, that authority which no longer exists. Furthermore, no treaty formalizing the transition of power to the declared sovereign authorities was ever effected. (Nor did the ultimate treaty refer to Lenin's declaration, confirming, by such absence, its impotence).

Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus. — False in anything = false in everything.

and, embeded,

ne cui dolus suus, per occasionem juris civilis, contra naturalem aequitatem prosit. —

Let's start with the full quote (sparing the Latin), The reason why the praetor set forth this exception (that being exceptio doli generalis = plaintiff can raise the defense that the plaintiff has not acted in good faith) is... basically states that the court can grant relief where strict application of the law would be, i.e., produce a judgment, contrary to natural equity.

This appears to be little more than throwing legal Latin against the wall to see what sticks. Wrong in one wrong in all, well, yes, if you apply Lenin's decree in answer to Soviet Estonia to the Baltic republics which were eventually established (could that be where this is heading?). As for the more metaphorical application of observation of the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law, I can only take that to be WP:OR contending that while Lenin specifically granted recognition to the Soviet authorities in the Baltics ("letter"), he so fervently yearned for freedom for the Baltic peoples that his decree was the legal instantiation of that hope regardless of ultimate territorial authorities and applied regardless of ultimate territorial authorities ("spirit"). Nope, can't grant that interpretation, however creative (not to mention historically inaccurate), in or out of any court of law or of public opinion.

Jus publicum privatorum pactis mutari non potest. — The public right of private covenant cannot be changed.

What follows appears to be a lot of babbling on about the "different" Latvia (that is, not the Soviet one) not being different at all from the Soviet one and invoking the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty to make the case. Brest-Litovsk only recognized that Latvia no longer belonged to Russia. It did not recognize that Latvia was a sovereign state, only that whatever was determined by Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire would be a matter determined between them and the Latvians. (Needless to say, neither was interested in granting Latvia independence, but that's another topic.)

So, do I get to say "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus"?

In (my) summary and response to "grammatica falsa non vitiat chartam" (poor wording/punctuation does not render writings/laws ineffective, typically, False grammar does not vitiate a deed—taken as "property title", not "deed" as in an act by a person), truly a fine WP:OR summary contending that where international jurisprudence is concerned, neither the request for the decree coming from Soviet Estonia, nor the wording of Lenin's decree and the authorities it applied to, nor, indeed, even the wording of the Brest-Litovsk peace treaty need apply to this unique interpretation of when the Baltic states gained de jure independence from Bolshevik Russia.

As for subsequent tidbits, such as

• "... In the course of the liberation of the Baltic from German occupation and after the abrogation of the Peace of Brest at the end of 1918 there came to be, historically, the first Latvian national state—the Soviet Socialist Republic Latvia ...." (hopefully close enough), unfortunately the Latvian national congress beat the Bolsheviks to the punch by a month; and
• arguments along the lines of Soviet propaganda which still lives on today that Bolshevik Russia was "the first to recognize" the Baltic states—well, that would have to legally be the case (!) as long as it was under circumstances where Bolshevik Russia formally ceded sovereign territorial authority (that recognition even in Soviet propaganda is not Lenin's decree, but rather the peace treaty signed August 11, 1920)

these only seek to affirm some sort of Russo-Soviet- Frankensteinian juridical version of events by claiming that as it is RU:WP then Russian language interpretations of international jurisprudence take precedence.

Bolshevik Russia de jure (and permanently) ceded sovereignty over Latvian territory to Latvian authorities on August 11, 1920. The international community (in the person of the Great Powers) recognized that transfer of territorial sovereignty (and formally voided German and Austro-Hungarian claims pursuant to Brest-Litovsk, if not already) on January 26, 1921.

Bolshevik Russia de jure ceded sovereignty over Latvian territory at Brest-Litovsk. Having failed in its subsequent attempt to conquer Latvia, Russia renounced its territorial ambitions for all time in the treaty of August 11, 1920.

In the meantime the Great Powers had (long since, as demonstrated by the extraordinarily punitive Treaty of Versailles) decided that the Central Powers, having been defeated, did not deserve to "win" on their eastern front. Accordingly, and in consideration of other factors as well, the Great Powers eventually granted de jure recognition to Latvia. That Russia had signed a peace treaty was convenient, however, that treaty did not entail a transfer of sovereign authority. It was the de jure recognition of January 26, 1921 which completed the transfer of sovereign authority:

1. Russia -> (i.e., Russia now out of the picture)

   ---

2. Central Powers ->
3. Central Powers (losers) stripped by Great Powers (winners) ->
4. Latvia et al.

Your anon IP must be studying international law with the esteemed Vlad Fedorov. :-) Good to chat, as always! PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess I should have been more provocative and not given away the origin of the question. The actual form is so long-winded, full of personal attacks and OR that I didn't bother reading through it all, and honestly didn't expect that anyone else would (particularly ru-0). Damn you, Google Translate! :-)

However, I find the basic idea curious and it is that that I'm interested to see refuted (or confirmed?): 1) A single country may have multiple, mutually hostile governments throughout its history, but it's still one country. 2) Latvia was first defined as a state with the declaration of independence, but, according to the prevailing contemporaneous theory, this was not enough: it required recognition from other sovereign states. In this case, the first such state was RSFSR in 1918 towards Soviet Latvia, making the latter the first de jure state there (the Brest-Litovsk treaty is only invoked preemptively against an argument that RSFSR was itself not recognized at the time). 3) While RSFSR and others eventually recognized the "other" Latvia in 1920, the first Latvian state, according to international law, was the Soviet one.

Having considered it a bit further, I've updated the sequence above. Lenin had no "recognition" to grant to Soviet Latvia as Russia no longer held sovereign authority. Not to mention that Latvia had already declared independence while Russia "recognized" a regime established by its occupying force. Good propaganda, though. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:07, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I might be RU-0 but I did study Latin for 4½ years and placed second in the New York Classical Club Latin high school sight translation contest, IV division (Virgil), held at Regis here in NY. My classmate placed first. The Latin called to me across the years. :-) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

And now for something completely different

On a totally unrelated note, I vaguely recall a discussion about ruwiki in general around these parts. There's essay on its history on Meta. It is rather lengthy and is not an adequate summary of how ruwiki differs from enwiki, but it does provides some insight into that and is a reasonably entertaining read (to me, at least). --illythr (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Continuing on the Lenin decree

That's still not it: the basic idea is that the recognition granted by RSFSR to SSLR fulfilled the criterion of international recognition, thus creating the first de-jure state on that territory. Recognition of the same kind as granted by the RSFSR to the Latvian Republic in 1920 and by the other countries in 1921. Nothing to do with transfer of sovereign authority of any kind. --illythr (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, technically the RSFSR granted de jure (from its standpoint) recognition to the SSLR. But in terms of international recognition, it's no more potent than the USSR later granting de jure (from its standpoint) recognition of the surrender of Latvian sovereignty to the Soviet State (although technically remaining "sovereign" under the Soviet constitution).

Lenin's decree can't qualify as establishing the first de jure state on Latvian territory as de jure sovereignty was vested in Germany per Brest-Litovsk. Under whom sovereignty over Latvian territory fell under international law does factor into things. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 16:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I described it wrong again - Lenin's decree did not establish the state directly (couldn't), but rather was the fulfilling criterion of SSLR's own establishment of sovereignty. So, the SSLR just sprung up "by itself" and was promptly recognized by a "foreign" state - the RSFSR. A strained technicality to say the least, by I'm curious if it can be just as formally refuted. --illythr (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I think I understand exactly what you're getting at, and what needs to be answered:

1. If heretofore unrecognized regime "U" on territory "A" declares itself sovereign, and generally acknowledged as sovereign regime "B" recognizes it, is it appropriate to describe "U" of "A" as a de jure state recognized under international law (by at least one state), BTW, regardless of no subsequent recognition by any other state?
2. What is the impact, under international law, on the above, of "B" having prior ceded, by treaty, de jure sovereignty over "A" to party "C"?

Other potential nuances aside, is that a fair summary? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

First point - yes, and whether this can be regarded as the beginning of "A"'s de jure statehood (that "generally acknowledged as sovereign" presents a potential problem); second point - out of scope, but nobody'll mind a separate reply. --illythr (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• One seems to forget that the RSFSR was not a recognised sovereign state until it was recognised by... guess whom? Estonia by the Treaty of Tartu on 2 February 1920. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

  We ignore this nuance for now. Or rather, we assume that the treaty of Brest-Litovsk is sufficient for the purposes of RSFSR's capability for acting as a subject of international law. --illythr (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Possible racism

I've revied your comment regarding the unfortunate nature of the Kyiv post, mentioning the owners name and saying that is why it might be anti-Christian. After looking up what the owners name actually is, I am appaled you would find that just because someone has a certain name they would be anti-Christian. I remind you that racism is not welcomed on Wikipedia.

--Ljudyna (talk) 02:19, 6 November 2011 (UTC)Ljudyna

Ljudyna, it is your post,

"The problem is that a lot of the article is taken from English language reports of people who are not as neutral as one thinks. The greatest source of information in this article is from the Kyiv post, which is owned by certain individuals abroad who are inheritantly against anything Christian, Ukrainian, or in general against any form of European culture."

which is the problem. You are the one making racist contentions—based on my having looked up the owner of the Kiev Post. I am only objecting to your racism. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 02:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You've deleted my request with no comment or further action. I again suggest you strike the comment I referenced. I'm puzzled that you accused me of your own conduct—and after your comment, which clearly indicates you already know who owns the Kyiv Post, why would you contend you had to look up who owns it and then misrepresent my complaint as a racist statement? Is there more than one person using your account and you got your wires crossed? PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 00:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; medal recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D analyzes three books from Osprey Publishing Review essay: Nick-D reviews the new Bundeswehr Military History Museum

To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Vecrumba, what is in fact "unacceptable" is the battleground mentality you are displaying in your aggressive exchange at User talk:Paul Siebert#Unacceptable. Knock it off, or you'll be blocked again. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:28, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I would simply like to participate in my area of some subject matter expertise without mud dredging and the wringing of hands that something that happened in the past contrary to an editor's liking was owing to a conspiracy as opposed to a failure to make one's case. I and everyone else involved have long since apologized for those aspects of EEML which resulted in on-Wiki consequences. My discussion with editor Paul Siebert is neither battleground mentality nor aggressive, it is merely insisting we move ahead. Paul Sibert is free to report me for enforcement action should he feel I have stepped over some line. Your interjection here with your threat would appear to encourage editors to dredge up the past with complete impunity; respectfully, that impunity encourages the so-called "battleground" to continue. Mit besten Grüßen, Pēters PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 20:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

In the future I will thank you not to address me in a manner which communicates you've already tried and convicted me of being a troublemaker. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 21:30, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Vecrumba: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University

Thank you for your prompt reply and for taking immediate action .It is appreciated. Just FYI. I see some random links after your reply, which seems like "spam:" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University:_External_link_section

Riveros11 (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I have disagreement with you on this one but let us be discussing on talk page.

Site in question is keeping best resource of third party academic papers on topic [17]. I am thinking this is not your special area and Brahma Kumar member above is just playing you. --Januarythe18th (talk) 03:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Vecumbra,

As you found out, this website is a personal website owned by an individual and not a group or organization. I have proof of that and I will be happy to disclose it.

The user complaining, "January 18" is an impersonation of many ids which have been disabled before by many admins which belong to the same individual.

That website (brahmakumaris.info) has violated some Wikipedia rules as described before in my link check question. Namely, it is non neutral material but very biased and it has been used to insult brahma Kumaris editors.

It is my hope, that you will be able to enforce what you found to be true. I can provide with all the details if needed.

Will respond on the discussion page as well.

Riveros11 (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Holodomor mediation issue two

Hi Vecrumba, this is a boilerplate message to let you know that we have moved on to issue two of the Holodomor mediation, victim estimates. At the moment we are accepting statements from all participants, so if you want to make your position on this issue known, then now would be a very good time to contribute. Your statement should be no longer than 200 words, and should include both your opinion on the issue and what you hope will be addressed in the mediation. We will be accepting statements until 00:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC), or until we have statements from all spokespersons. Please note, however, that even if you miss this deadline you are free to contribute to the mediation at any time. You can find the appropriate section on the mediation page here. All the best — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:46, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors – MHotY coming; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the Congolese Wars Review essay: Ian Rose goes to El Alamein Op-ed: DCI's call to revitalize WikiProject History

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

National Archives ExtravaSCANza

You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success! This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t 01:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC) 1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Vecrumba: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Vecrumba: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Radzymin (1920)

Hi there, you told me to let you know once the article is up for re-nomination. Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Radzymin (1920). Consider yourself poked :) BTW, let me know should you need any help with the Courland Pocket thingie, I'm sure I can be of some help. //Halibutt 21:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I consider myself poked. Thanks for the offer, first I need to get some additional info on the Courland Pocket online so we have more to work from. I also have a Rīga project I've promised someone that takes priority. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:34, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, Riga... It's been on my to-go list for ages now. I even visited the City of Riga Tourism Office here in Warsaw (yup, seems we have one here), but nothing came out of it so far. Perhaps next summer. Anyway, thanks a lot for your help with improving the prose. I got real rusty during my wikibreak and any help is appreciated. I found only a minor mistake in your copyedit (here).

On the second thought I'm not really sure about your rewording of the Battlefield section, specifically the part about the roads converging on Warsaw. IRL there were (and still are in modern times) a couple of roads converging radially on Warsaw's eastern borough of Praga, with at least three major roads mentioned in the earlier version of the article: road from the north running from Legionowo and Modlin (modern National Roads No. 61 and 630), along the eastern bank of Vistula; road from Radzymin (NR 8), and road from Mińsk Mazowiecki (NR 2, the only one with an article on English wiki). There's also the fourth road from Dęblin I did not mention in the article (NR 801). Check the map to get the general idea. Your version seems to suggest that there were a couple of roads converging somewhere along a certain line, not in Warsaw itself (unless of course I don't get it), and that the roads to Modlin and Legionowo are two distinct roads, whereas it was the very same road.

As to the other issues, I replied on article's talk page. //Halibutt 20:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing. Your wording reads From the north, Warsaw, which spans the Vistula, was effectively shielded by the Vistula, Bug and Narew rivers. The Red Army lacked modern engineering equipment, making crossing them difficult and also inhibiting a flanking attack of Warsaw from the west. This is mostly true, but the last part is a tad more complicated. Historically the Russians wanted to seize Warsaw from the west by means of a wider manoeuvre: towards Płock, Włocławek and Toruń. There they'd cross the river and strike Warsaw from the west and north-west, using permanent bridges there. They indeed managed to briefly reach Włocławek and Płock and even some cavalry patrols crossed the Vistula near Bobrowniki, but it was too little too late and by the time they gathered enough forces to assault the two bridgeheads in force it was August 18 and the battle for Warsaw was pretty much over. So, in all, Warsaw was not that safe from the west. No idea how to word that though. //Halibutt 20:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll make further observations there. :-) PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 22:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

The Baltic

I have my moments for example see talk:Courland Pocket where we exchanged comments with others back in 2008. -- PBS (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Vecrumba: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/02 October 2011/Holodomor

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Steven Zhang, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 12:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your Poland-related contributions

I'd invite you to officially join our project, and you may want to participate in the interview. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I think I've already joined. :-) I'll be glad to participate in the interview. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 19:06, 7 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) 02:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Swedes

i saw your discussion opinions of the swedes article talkpage , it seems to me that the discussion ended too abruptly , can you please continue it i will support you if i must 95.199.10.103 (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Re: Former governments in exile

I created that category for governments that used to be in exile but not longer are, either because they came back from exile (as is the case for the Estonian government in exile) or because they ceased to exist. Maybe the category should be renamed Governments formely in exile or Governments historically in exile. What do you think?--Cattus ^talk 22:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

"Former (governments in exile)" can be read as "(former governments) in exile". "Governments formerly in exile" implies they were but aren't now. "Governments historically in exile" implies more/longer in exile than not. Perhaps "historical governments in exile"? That seems fairly benign! Best, Peters VєсrumЬа ►TALK 02:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Paldies

Paldies Jums par padomiem!Fermmyt (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! VєсrumЬа ►TALK 21:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Review

Please be advised that the Arbitration Committee has now opened a Review of the background relating to the Request for Amendment at which you submitted a statement. A Review is a streamlined version of case, with a short window for presenting evidence.

The Committee invites any evidence you may wish to give directly related to any of the following matters:

1. Is Mathsci engaging in improper conduct in respect of Ferahgo the Assassin?
2. Is Mathsci being harassed by socks?
3. Should Mathsci be pursuing socks in the R&I topic?
4. Are the contributions of Ferahgo the Assassin and Captain Occam, outside of article space, functionally indistinguishable?
5. Should Ferahgo the Assassin be site-banned coterminously with Captain Occam per WP:SHARE?

Evidence should be presented on the review evidence page and should be posted by 26 March 2012 at the very latest.

For the Arbitration Committee

Mlpearc (powwow) 16:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Want to talk about something over a beer? Is there some article we could work on together? Perhaps something about Latvia; Latvian articles are neglected, while all kinds of hot political topics get too much attention and energy. Nanobear (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Given our conflicting perspectives on geopolitics and history, perhaps a biography?

• I've gotten interested in the Sergei Magnitsky case, but as that doesn't reflect well on the current regime...
• I had obtained a biography of Pyotr Tkachev some time ago, that was another article I was interested in and have done a bit of work there; then again, takes credit away from Lenin for original Marxist thought...
• I'm digitizing a brief biography of Fricis Briedis and have done some work on that article; of course, the Bolsheviks executed him and expunged him from the Soviet version of Latvian history...
• a larger effort is that even though there would be a fair amount of overlap with the current Russian Federation article, there really should be a separate List of orders, decorations, and medals of Imperial Russia, I have a good source there; with the modern awards and dates there's no telling the original date of origin; not on my list of priorities...

...so, that all said, I am most interested in creating a biography article for Russian anthropologist Ludmila Terentyeva (most often appeared as L.N. Terent'eva in scholarly articles in the West, not to be confused with a chemist by the same "L.N." initials). She was a brilliant and widely respected scholar. One of my projects is to digitize some of Ludmila Nikolaevna's research and writing on the Baltics. I have a scan (not the best quality) of her obituary in "Советская этнография" (now "Этнографическое обозрение"), Nr 5., 1982 courtesy of the Institute of Ethnology & Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences. If you're interested, I can OCR it (and post to article talk) if you don't have access. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 15:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops, was editing and left out the Latvian connection. One of my projects it to digitize her essay on Latvian farmers and farm life in Семья и семейный быт колхозников Прибалтики (Family and Family Life of Baltic Farmers). She had a career-long interest in the Baltics, even learning Latvian. VєсrumЬа ►TALK 01:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Hawkeye on Wikipedia collaborating with the AWM

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:48, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

AE request

Inline with your interaction ban violation I have reported this to AE at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Vecrumba. Russavia ^{ლ(ಠ益ಠლ)} 15:17, 25 March 2012 (UTC)