User talk:Nug/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Hi, could you please set an e-mail (Special:Preferences), so that you could be contacted. Thanks.

As for Occupation of Latvia: considering the fact that the third opinions [1], Request(s) for comment [2] have not calmed down the Soviet POV promoters, I think Arbitration must be started. But I can join only on next week. And I do think that adding a neutrality dispute tag is considered vandalism, in case no sources are given on the talk page Constanz - Talk 11:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Occupation of Latvia

As you see, this is a hopeless case - I mean to argue with such users. The whole talk page is full of proof why Latvia was occupied, and proof that the side which says L. wasn't occupied ... has no sources. I'll try Arbitration. Constanz - Talk 07:34, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration regarding Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945

I hereby notify you, that I started the arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Occupation_of_Latvia_1940-1945. Constanz - Talk 10:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it would make more sense arguing on arbitration page, or, when there's much to say, on corresponding talk page. Latvia article talk seems to be useless. Best regards, Constanz - Talk 09:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


As I wrote, I would welcome the acceptance of the case by the ArbCom although I suspect if the ArbCom will restrict the case to the user conduct the only party that may be punished will be Constanz himself for the fierce revert warring and incivility. But as for me personally, I have a very thick skin and much higher tolerance than many, so this is not my concern.

I came here merely to give you an advise in connection to your comparison of myself with the hypothetical Holocaust deniers in the Holocaust article. The Holocaust article achieved the current stage through the participation of the multitude of editors. If the denier is faced with the multitude of users convinced in the lunatism of the denier's stance, his position will be indefensible and he will have to either desist or be blocked for revert warring.

The problem with this article can be solved by attracting the outside observers. Such observer brought in by the article's RfC also suggested the same thing I was suggesting all along, to rename the article into the History... " title as the first step.[3] You flatly refused the proposal from an unbiased observer though. You should attract more people to gauge the consensus, preferably from different regions of the world. You may want to wait for more visitors generated for RfC or you may want to contact editors who have interest in historic articles directly.

That you instead rant and compare your opponents to the Holocaust deniers is counterproductive and will not help you achieve your goal. Happy edits, --Irpen 20:59, January 27,

I am somewhat surprised by the slightly intimidatory tone of your "advise". Your threats against Constanz are meaningless to me, I do not know him nor have I corresponded with him.
I wasn't comparing yourself personally to Holocaust deniers, but the implications if your well crafted technique to exploit WP:NPOV were to be utilised by Holocaust deniers. It is incumbant upon the individual placing a POV tag to provide some citations to reliable sources of the implied alternative POV when challenged. Chronically failing to provide cites to published sources to support that position when challanged, particularly over a considerable period of time, must be construed as vandalism. Let's face it, you have admitted you preference to deleting the article all together, and you admit the difficulty in that approach, so it only adds to the perception that you have resorted to an alternative means to eviscerate the article.
By the way, I reside in Australian and was a casual observer with no particular emotional stake in the article. I came off the fence recently when it became apparent that two or three people were abusing the spirit of WP:NPOV to push their revisionist agenda Martintg 11:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


Hi, thanks again for your contributions. However, I recommend caution, while talking with arbitrators (about voting). The line between just a notice and canvassing may sometimes be thin - and I'm sure our opponents would take advantage of absolutely every chance they'd find! Esp. as the tide has turned, so to say. Regards, Constanz - Talk 09:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making me aware of that link. There is a lot to learn in regard to the Wikipedian way. My intent was to notifiy of changes, my apologies if anyone was offended. Martintg 11:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia


An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

So it's open now. I hope you can help bringing this seemingly insolvable 'dispute' to an end. I have to warn though that I myself will probably not be able to participate from Sunday (afternoon) to Wednesday afternoon. Hopefully you can settle the problem, anyway.Constanz - Talk 09:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I hereby award you the Exceptional Newcomer award for your tireless contributions explaining the Baltic history and for your bold efforts to combat tendentious editing. Great job! --Constanz - Talk 12:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The parties identified in the decision as having acted poorly in the dispute regarding Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 are admonished to avoid such behavior in the future. That article is placed on probation, and any editor may be banned from it, or from other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, inciviilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and the right to review the situation in one year, if appropriate. The parties are strongly encouraged to enter into a mediation arrangement regarding any article-content issues that may still be outstanding. If the article is not substantially improved by continued editing, the Arbitration Committee may impose editing restrictions on users whose editing is counterproductive or disruptive. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

on Bonner words

Hi, yes your comments is about V-Day, Soviet Union and Baltic States. But it is not direcly related to the Broze Soldier events. Beatles Fab Four 10:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Soviet occupation denialism

You might be interested in a recently created article Soviet occupation denialism and ongoing debate in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soviet occupation denialism. DLX 06:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)


Please participate in Talk:Estland#Do we want to keep the article together or make it a disambig? Alex Bakharev 00:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

re CheckUser

Point taken, although releasing the relevant information would at minimum require User:3 Löwi's consent as well. It is apparent to me that I could be wrong about this. I will ask for someone more knowledgeable about CheckUser to take a look at the issue. ··coelacan 14:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As the very first thing, now that I am block-free, let me thank you for vouching for me in the meantime. I owe you a Wiki-favour now, --3 Löwi 20:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


I suggested the defenders of the article to start working on a reasonable artice, in this place:User:Biophys/Nashism. No one botherd to do this. I wrote several times that I do not deny the validity of the topic. However unlike many voters-keepers here, I usually put my words where my mouth is and yesterday I started from verifiable historical events at the origin of the term. Let me repeat again: I started collecting facts, not speculations of some home-brewed politologists. And in my honest opinion, other than in reference to the three mentioned political organizations, the term must be discussed only as a cute Russian neologism for a wide range of already well-known tribalism phenomena ranging from nationalism to racism, rather than a special political movement or a new kind of "ideology". `'юзырь:mikka 15:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Judenfrei

Unfortunately, when you added your comments, it overwrote other people's comments. I reverted your addition to bring them back. Feel free to re-add your own comments. -- Kesh 02:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


Thank you so much!!! I really appreciate it. -- Jac roe 17:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC/U on Petri Krohn filed

Somehow Digwurren forgot to note you... You might be interested to know that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn has been filed.--Alexia Death 21:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Lauck's publications

Has "Poisonous Mushroom" actually been published in multiple languages? The site seems to say that he's trying to get more translations but hasn't yet (for want of translators, I imagine), but that other works are available in multiple languages. That said, I might've just been clicking on the wrong links. It's not exactly the kind of site I want to spend too long at :) BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't hang around that site to long either, but it clearly said it publishes a newpaper in 12 languages. If he already publishes a newspaper in multiple languages, presumably he has sufficient number of translators on board. The site did mention that there were a number of translations of the "Poisonous Mushroom" were currently being worked on. At the very least there is an English translation and obviously the original German version. As there is an Estonian translation, then likely there would be a Finnish one too, and Russian as well if this translator is over 40. Being the USA, I don't think a Spanish version would be difficult to come by. Seems to me the reason that the Estonian version is highlighted on this site was because of the fact that it had drawn the attention of the Estonian Police, not because it was uniquely available in the Estonian language as implied by the Wikipedia article. Martintg 06:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Could well be (and well argued, too - I was just going on gut feelings). I've updated the article to reflect that he was at least planning more translations and linked that to the site. Someone's bound to poke around there one day to see what else he's offering, so I daresay the other translations will get mentioned when they're for sale. Is Estonian really that close to Finnish as you say? The only Finns I've known can't understand more than the general gist of Estonian texts. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
The languages are reasonable similar, probably closer than Dutch and German. I believe more Estonians understand Finnish than Finns understand Estonian, probably in part due to older Estonians listening to Finnish broadcasts during the Soviet occupation and partly due to Finland being the preferred destination for young Estonians seeking work, hence the motivation to learn the language. Martintg 09:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I see. Out of curiosity, do you have any recommendations for books on the Baltic region (particularly Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania)? I'd love to know a bit about the histories of those countries, but I can't seem to find much. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is a good collection books on the Baltics [4]
Thanks for that one, mate. Amazon was giving me no love beforehand, so I'm glad to see there's more than I'd thought. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you (also) my sock puppet?

Greetings, it seems that you are also one of the Tartu (!) sock puppets, at least in the poor minds possessed by demons of ultranationalism. See [5] and [6]. E.J. 07:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't know Tartu is located in Australia. Perhaps these guys are confusing nazi-skeletons-in-closets with this [7] Martintg 04:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


In Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_18#Estophilia there has been pretty much green light given for recreation of the article with more content. Digwuren has put his sources on his talk. I was hoping you could take it up and do it, perhaps first in your userspace and then when shown to admins in the right place. I try to help but I need to keep my head down a bit in the light of recent events.--Alexia Death 17:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I will let the DRV run its course. My preference is that Estophilia is undeleted so we can use that as the foundation. Martintg 20:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Reply about Estophilia

First off, I want to say how much fascinating stuff I have learned about Estonia in the last week or two! It has really been educational for me. I consider myself somewhat of a news junkie, and yet I haven't seen a single mention of the controversy going on in that part of the world in Western media. It's been very interesting if nothing else!

With that in mind, it looks like I may have indeed goofed on this one. I was thrown off by Digwuren's timing... he created the Estophilia article just as the AfD for Estophobia was getting really intense, and I though he was trying to make a point of some kind. It appears I was mistaken about that, and in fact based on the sources provided by yourself and Digwuren, as well as the historical context, it looks like this one may have a better chance of surviving AfD than Estophobia did. Sorry for my failure to assume good faith, and best of luck! --Jaysweet 16:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

While trying to source Estophobia, I noticed that Estophilia was much easier to source online. Thus, instead of fighting for Estophobia now, I concentrated on an easier article, and decided to shelf Estophobia until the autumn, when libraries work again. That's all there is to it. Digwuren 05:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

"Allied occupation of Europe"

The concept was an WP:POINT invention by User:Petri Krohn, to construct an aura of moral equivalence over the Soviet occupation and the deeds of the Western allies by synthesising Allied occupation of Germany and Soviet occupation. References regarding Soviet occupation fit better into their appropriate articles -- such as Soviet occupation of Baltic states -- than here. In fact, I would suggest removing the artificial structure from this article, and WP:AFDing what remains under WP:POVFORK and WP:NOR; unfortunately, if it would be presented to WP:AFD with the artificial structure intact, too many people would suspect There Might Actually Be Something To It -- especially now that Wikipedia's mirrors have upped the Google result count from two digits to over 4000. :-( Digwuren 05:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that in its current form, an WP:AFD based on original synthesis claims would succeed? To me, it seems any challenges and associated removals would only make the article look better right now. Digwuren 11:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The article in its current form seems to be nothing more than a collection of links to other articles, with a contradictory synthesised introduction. How can liberal democracies in Western Europe be "occupied"? Seems to be a POV fork. Interest in WW2 topics is wider than the circle of our usual friends, so an AfD may succeed. Martintg 19:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your assessment. Accordingly, I have nominated the article for deletion, and possibly stumbled upon a bug in TW. Digwuren 01:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the category is nominated separately, although both nominations reference each other. Digwuren 13:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for adding a lead to History of Estonia! Reinistalk 12:37, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

While on RC patrol, I noticed that the Estland article (that you'd previously redirected per talk discussion) was reverted. Instead of engaging in an edit war with a subject I was unfamiliar with, I thought I'd drop you a note to let you know, and perhaps you could take care of it properly? Thanks! ArielGold 12:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I reverted it. The article is now at Estland (disambiguation); the reversal introduced a content fork.
I'm not too happy with this arrangement, for reasons that are obvious and probably the same as those of the reverter, but I'm not, at this time, sure the consensus can be improved. Digwuren 13:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Digwuren, honestly I'm completely unfamiliar with the history of the article, or reasons it was redirected, so I can offer no thoughts on it. I simply noticed that Martintg's explanation was consistent with the talk page, and therefore it flagged that his redirect was reverted. I'll let him and the others involved sort it out :) ArielGold 13:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks guys. That's what happens when living in a different timezone, I am tucked up in bed snoozing when all the fun is happening :) Martintg 19:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Essay on how 3RR hurts the project and a proposal to fix it.

Hi! I would appreciate it, if you could give me your thoughts on this essay: Accusations of collaboration: 3RR hurts Wikipedia --Alexia Death the Grey 09:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alexia! I'll certainly have a look at it and put my thoughts on the essay talk page in the next day or two. Martintg 21:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do anything to avoid edit warring

I have blocked the second user (User:RJ CG)who repeatedly added dubious sources and POV phrasing to the Bronze Soldier article, and is a possible sockpuppet of the first; both appear to be single-purpose accounts adding the same tendentious material to the same articles in the same voice. However, the most important thing is to avoid an edit war. Please see what you can do to avoid this (WP:NOFEEDING), such as by asking the other user to suggest controversial changes on the talk page first. ProhibitOnions (T) 09:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren


An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ArbComBot 00:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


Martin you ask me a question which i have already answered it. What if you discover an intrusion attempt from let's say Colombia exactly at the time you'd have blocked someone from Colombia? And then you hear about an issue related to a certain group of editors from Colombia being accused of "TartuColombia". Obviously you'd think about the blocked user if not than someone from his group. The important is that the ArbCom verify it and see who is the owner of the IP and why that happened and what action should be taken. He can be innocent as he can be guilty. We'll see. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So basically what you did was take a routine firewall alert, failed to assume good faith, and started screaming its Digwuren? And you don't see anything wrong with that? From a programmer Id expect more understanding of networking... Really.--Alexia Death the Grey 05:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Pet troll grooming

You might be interested to read through User talk:ProhibitOnions#Accusations of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR where, basically, Irpen harasses ProhibitOnions over blocking RJ CG. Ironically, ProhibitOnions' rationale for that is exactly the same that FayssalF's rationale for blocking RJ CG was, yet there's no evidence of a similar "discussion" between Irpen and FayssalF. Digwuren 11:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


We need evidence of specific edits. Fred Bauder 16:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Singing Revolution

Some time ago I taged a sentence "Lithuania was the first of the Baltic States where the movement now known as the Singing Revolution appeared." in Singing Revolution article with {{when}} now I see that you have replaced this by a reference. Good, however this is not what was needed - please clerify what date exactly it was, if it is given in your source. You see the article states that in Latvia and Estonia it started in 1987, for example, first open protest in Latvia took place on 14 June, 1987, but first Lithuania-related year mentioned there is 1988 -- Xil/talk 17:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawal for Termer's award support

Just wondering why...--Alexia Death the Grey 10:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[9] Sander Säde 11:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I see. A disagreement over article split. You have to agree, current title wasn't best. The only problem I see here is the fact that it lets likes of Irpen claim that the second half of soviet occupation wasn't occupation. Perhaps theres a middle ground name/split possible. Soviet occupation of Latvia perhaps? --Alexia Death the Grey 11:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was quite shocked and over reacted. Despite this, Termer has made a great contribution in the past and deserves the award. Martintg 12:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Estonia star.

Old version was better. The dark star fit well with the COA. :) Suva Чего? 21:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've reverted it back to the older version. Martintg 21:47, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Casualties in smear campaign

Very sad but true picture. Few notes: Halibutt's message about leaving the project: [10]. A useful illustration column to add would be graphs with edits in time for all users, showing how they dropped or stopped contributing: [11].-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


Barnstar-lightbulb3.png What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
This move is brilliant! And not only does it adapt the article's topic to Wikipedia; it also fixes a strategic blunder I made. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Not quite enough to save it but I think I do have a formula that will work. I was zooming at work and now I forget who it was who explained why my AfD proposal was too limiting and the lightbulb went on, needs a bit more work, will put something up in my userspace. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 01:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


I think you can withdraw the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Soviet_Republic_of_Naissaar nomination. The problem has sorted itself out. Sander has merged anything worthy int Naissaar article and made that one a redirect. --Alexia Death the Grey 20:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I did a non-admin close on the AfD, as I think we reached a consensus. Thank you for bringing the article to AfD, it has been bothering me for ages, but I did not dare to do anything about it, or the usual "Nazi revisionist" screamers would have attacked me instantly. There are about 15..20 WP:WPET articles that could use similar treatment, all created by Bloomfield, his puppets or puppetmaster. -- Sander Säde 03:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • How much does the CIA pay you? :) Ostap 21:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Bloomfield: Rulers of Estonia

Sorry that I haven't made you the list of articles needing cleanup, I've been incredibly busy lately (I was sick for 2 weeks in October and still did more then 130h of work) - however, see Rulers of Estonia as one. Also, discussion here and articles created by User:Mister X... -- Sander Säde 20:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And one more: Danish Estonia, created by User:Warbola who may or may not be sockpuppet of Bloomfield (Warbola is still semi-active), and edited by several known Bloomfield socks. In any case, as you probably noticed yesterday yourself, the article needs sources and cleanup. -- Sander Säde 20:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Two more: Commune of the Working People of Estonia and Autonomous Governorate of Estonia -- Sander Säde 10:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Estonian counties

good move! Have you been reading my thoughts?:-) Anyway, I've been working on one, planning to make one with all the major strongholds, also including Latin names and notes in English etc. But now since one is up there, I can take my time with this. Just that, hope you don't mind once I'm done with much more detailed and hirez map if I replace the one you've made? Of course I'd show it "for your approval" before replacing anything. Or have you planned on making one that is more detailed by yourself? just checking to avoid double work. Thanks!--Termer 05:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was actually planning on a more hirez map, I'm not happy with the look of the current one, but since you are already making one with all the major strong holds, etc, I'm happy for you to upload yours as a new version. Martintg 08:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Salted redirect trick

Marting, please be aware that the "salted redirect trick" (an article move artificially made irreversible by giving the resulted redirect some history) is considered disruptive and may be a reason of block. It usually also gets reverted on the spot. Finally there is no need for move if a WP:RM process is ongoing. The whole point of the WP:RM is to avoid move-warring. Please do not do it again.

BTW, I agree that Estonian vikings is a better name than Estonian pirates and voted accordingly. Alex Bakharev 00:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Too bad you didn't read the debate, because if you had, you would know that the discussion had moved beyond the title Estonian vikings, so your vote is quite meaningless. Polling is not a substitute for discussion, but you were never involved in the discussion. As far as I was concerned, I believed that after quite extensive debate, there was an apparent concensus for a compromise title [12] and moved the title in good faith. Martintg 05:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would have gladly put this behind but you are just not letting it go

Martin, you may deny your trick move all you want since the diffs are available to anyone, especially to admins who can check the original complaint against the deleted versions of the page that they can see [13] [14] [15] , but you can't continue accusing me on making it up and pretending you don't understand what it is about. Now, that you have done so at the Moreschi's talk page for the I don't know which time, [16] I am forced to bring the issue to some conclusion.

I would not have pressed this any further since I am sure you've got the message and everything is absolutely clear here but it is you who just not let it go and even dare to use this incident as an example of me throwing around unsubstantiated accusations. This two-days-old issue would have been in the past but since you resurrected it today at the Moreschi's talk, [17] accusing me of "routine assumption of bad faith", let's get the picture straight once and for all.

The chronology of the events was the following:

  1. you move the article
  2. you blank the resulting redirect immediately after 1
  3. your restore the redirect immediately after 2

Here is the exact versions of the Estonian pirates page that are deleted, a snap shot from Nov. 4, 18:57 (all times GMT), right after your move:

You said that you "made a bit of a mess" by "geting confused with capitalization" [18] [19] in one place, you said that "messed up in good faith" in another place. Let's just look at these three lines together and clarify, what exactly the sotry is with those two 18:57 edits. What can "capitalization confusion" can possibly do with blanking and restoring the exact same versions (including the same capitalization)?

Here is the assessment of an editor who, as an admin could see the deleted versions, and is totally uninvolved with any issues with you or me. Qoote:

Martintg moved, blanked the redirect, and recreated precisely the same, all within one minute after moving, and he did the same thing, systematically, on two separate moved pages. That does look like he knew very well what he was doing, and it certainly had nothing to do with the confusion about capitalisation.

Of course you can again give an evasive answer, not answer or wait for Termer or Sander Sade to show up trying to deflect the issue away. This all was done and can be done again. However, if no straight answer to the question about 18:57 edits is given by you, I hope I would at least not hear any more accusations that I made something up here.

I would like to say again that I am not at all happy to be banging on that even though you persisted with evasive statements and assertions that you did nothing wrong. But since now you resurrect this again yourself, [20] I would be happy to allow you to clarify this and move on. --Irpen 05:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue for me is that you claimed in the first line of the original statement to ANI: "Martintg has moved the Estonian pirates into Estonian viking expeditions amidst the WP:RM discussion that did not seem to go his way. This statement is an assumption by you that I moved the article in bad faith. If you would have followed the debate, you would have seen that while I initially proposed Estonian vikings, the name started evolving as it was already clear by October 30 that there was no concensus on that original proposal, here I suggest Viking Age in Estonia [21], then after more discussion I agree to another compromise Ancient Estonian Seafaring Warriors on October 31 [22]. Termer then suggests on November 2 Estonian Viking Expeditions and then I suggest Viking Age Estonians as a possible alternative if Berig objects[23]. Other agree that Termer's suggestion is best [24], [25], [26]. At that point I believe that consensus is achieved [27], move the article [28], remove the RM tag [29], and Berig confirms his agreement [30].
I guess my mistake was not withdrawing the original move proposal already on October 30, when it was already apparant that there was no concensus for Estonian vikings, the other mistake was messing up the move in a way that would probably look suspicious if someone was not follwoing the debate. You obviously wasn't following the debate closely, so when you saw the name changed you were surprised. I think your mistake was not checking first on the talk page before submitting an ANI report. As I said to Alex, send an email or ask on the talk first if something does not look right, before going to ANI or reverting a move or whatever, and this goes both ways. If we can agree to this, then we can put this behind us. Martintg 06:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Martintg, Don't be provoked by Irpen. We are all entitled to making mistakes and Irpen is trying to do anything to make the smear stick to you failing grossly at assuming good faith. Anybody with half a mind will see that. Ignore him. Thats the best way.--Alexia Death the Grey 11:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Martin, you pointedly do not answer the question which was not about your justification for the move. This is a matter of judgment and it is OK to disagree on that. This is not what I was asking for.

I ask for the umpteenth and last time, what is the story with the move being immediately followed by the redirect's being blanked and restored? --Irpen 15:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Long overdue

SpecialBarnstar.png The Special Barnstar
A barnstar for diligence and staying calm through harassment and provocations. -- Sander Säde 06:16, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sander! And thanks Alexia for you wise words too! Martintg 10:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN regarding Template:Soviet occupations

copied from WP:AN

Martintg, just formally do a requested move next time this happens and establish official consensus through the Wikipedia process. This move warring has to stop and as I've participated in the dispute once I'm not going to protect it from move. But if you go through proper channels, this won't happen again. Keegantalk 06:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, to modify that, you need to work things out with User:Dojarca in a forum other than the template talk space. I'm going to be bold and move protect the page after reading some more. Any admin may revert. Keegantalk 06:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Dojarca is the only one supporting the other version, see here. -- Sander Säde 06:37, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Military history Baltic states task force

please take a look at this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Baltic_states_task_force --Termer 17:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The task force is all set up and ready for sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Baltic_states_military_history_task_force#Participants --Termer 06:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Trainmoney = Bloomfield?

I have no doubt about it and I have idef blocked Trainmoney even before you posted me a message. Renata (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Working Man's Barnstar

Working Man's Barnstar.png The Working Man's Barnstar
For tirelessly assessing articles for WikiProject Estonia, I award Martintg the Working Man's Barnstar.--Termer (talk) 10:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Termer! Martintg (talk) 19:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Apostolic Lutheran Church of America

I see you have been reverting the edits as well thanks, someone or a group of people have been adding the same thing to multiple pages. Smith03 (talk) 23:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Nominated Alfred Käärmann to DYK

I took the liberty to nominate Alfred Käärmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to WP:DYK here, I hope you don't mind. If you have a better "hook" then what I gave, don't hesitate to add additional hooks to DYK nom. Great work with the article - you should think about DYK on We Lived for Estonia as well, after expanding it a bit. -- Sander Säde 06:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I added a bit about how his partner waited for him all those long years. An absolutely amazing and moving story. Martintg (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

fascism in estonia

If you suggest that Vaps was not fascist organization, then I suggest to delete this redirect altogether, because neonazism is not the same as fascism and better not propagate confusion. `'Míkka>t 23:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The sources I've seen seem to suggest they were not fascist, so I agree with your suggestion to end this confusion. Martintg (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On 24 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Alfred Käärmann, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Aksi_great (talk) 19:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK nom

Updated DYK query Did you know? was updated. On 3 December, 2007, a fact from the article Oeselians, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 04:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For the wise comment at the ArbEnf page. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Fair use of images

Definitely not. These pictures were only here for cosmetic purposes. Using a logo on the club's page is something, using it as an icon when you mention it is definitely unacceptable :). -- lucasbfr talk 00:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kidsunited

Hi, it has been suggested that User:Roobit is also connected with this Bloomberg troll, that is, that's another sock puppet. Note however that Roobit is apparently from st. Petersurg and is living in the US; Kidsunited i.e bloomberg seems to speak Estonian well: [31]. (talk) 09:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Sulev Vahtre, "Muinasaja loojang Eestis", "Eesti talurahva ajalugu", etc.--Kidsunited (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The other client states

During the World War I the German State helped to create or created on the former territory of Russia next client, puppet, or satellite, but nominally independent states:

Merry Christmas!

--Kidsunited (talk) 00:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting the attack against my user page, and Happy Holidays!--Termer (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Piotrus and friends, in the midsts of Wigilia, wish you to enjoy this Christmas Eve!


 Done, I semi-protected both of those articles.   jj137 01:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


You suggest Bishonen's use of the Bishzilla (talk · contribs) account was somehow in violation of Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. Could you please clarify how you came to this conclusion? Picaroon (t) 17:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Replied to Picaroon here [32] Martintg (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
That's just silly. Martintg, why are you in a hurry to delete user accounts? —Viriditas | Talk 22:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
What's just silly? and why do you think I am in a hurry? Martintg (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
She just left! And, how does her alternate account fail to comply with Wikipedia:SOCK#Legitimate_uses_of_alternate_accounts? Don't you think Wikipedia has more pressing concerns? —Viriditas | Talk 03:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)


"In what way inflammatory you may ask? People like us Kirill, who were brought up in comfortable USA or Australia where images of Che may be considered mere t-shirt art, need to be sensitive to the fact that many people suffered under communist rule in Eastern Europe..."

Given my background, I would hope that I am not entirely ignorant of those sensibilities, all things considered. ;-) Kirill 00:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Well ofcourse. Since both Australia and the USA are basically built on the backs of immigrants, we all originally come from somewhere. :o) Martintg (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject European history

Welcome and thanks for joining. We are undergoing a reorganization after a substantial period of inactivity and a loss of membership followed by renewed interest and the organization of Wikipedia:WikiProject History. We have recently merged the even less active Polish History Project into Wikipedia:WikiProject European history/Polish history task force, please consider joining that as well or maybe it should be expanded out to a broader "Northern Europe" or "Baltic" history task force - just thoughts. Please discuss any ideas you have at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European history (nobody will be looking if you post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject European history/Polish history task force).--Doug.(talk contribs) 12:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Red Alert

Hi there; I suggested archiving the page, but did not do so. I am therefore in a poor position to answer your question. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 21:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. My comment was correctly positioned, being made before that of the archiver. A comment from him in the right place would have been appropriate. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 16:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Auvere lahing (Auvere battle).

I had previously removed this as the "battle" refers to the rather small action by a single Estonian battalion at a very small village, and not the entire Narva bridgehead operation.--mrg3105mrg3105 07:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you happen to have more information on the Estonian units that were present during the Narva combats? --mrg3105mrg3105 11:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I have the english edition of "Estonia 1940–1945: Reports of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity", which lists the most of the units involved from both sides. I was just thinking that it would be useful to list them in the article some where. Martintg (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If its just units, then it would belong in the OOB, which is in a different category. If you don;t mind listing them in talk for now with full source, and someone else who is editing this article will incorporate it in the future content, ok?--mrg3105mrg3105 11:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that. There was a bit of a misunderstanding though. The Estonian units I had in mind were those fighting with the Waffen-SS, not the Soviet Army. The Soviet Estonian unit was only Estonian in name and its commander by this time. Its two divisions (initial) were formed in the Urals (7th,249th and 19th Guards), and the Staff were created from the 22nd territorial Corps which was decimated in 1941. I know this because of research into the 3rd Shock Army for an article.--mrg3105mrg3105 12:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for the misunderstanding. I've added the Estonian units that fought on the German side. Martintg (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Estonian Air

Nuvola apps important.svg Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Estonian Air, you will be blocked from editing. RJ CG (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Also please revert your errorneous edits to source-supported version. TIA. RJ CG (talk) 20:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Many people consider templating the regulars is uncivil. Martintg (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


Martintg, rather than wage an edit war on the battle outcome at Narva, I suggest this matter be discussed on the article's talk page. While I understand the German defense enjoyed a large amount of success, the events of July 26, 1944, were rather conclusive in terms of who controlled Narva. However, a discussion on the talk page would probably shed more light on events. Cheers--W. B. Wilson (talk) 20:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Check the article talk page first, I already started the discussion before you left your note here. Martintg (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
You may want to read this essay guide I wrote--mrg3105mrg3105 23:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I have sent this (below) out to several other people a few days ago (Kirill including), and overall have received favourable replies so far, with some provisos.
Your input on the article structure I have developed would be appreciated. It is intended for the series of articles dealing with Eastern Front operations. I am particularly concerned with the introduction section vs the opening paragraph. The opening paragraph is supposed to be a brief summary of the entire article, but :I have found way too much information inserted in them in other articles, duplicating information in 'campaign boxes' and repeated in the introductions that follow Contents.
Below is a suggested standard structure for article taxonomy based more on the military terminology, and incorporating a way of describing an event that follows a more military event structure.
  • ‘’’Introductory briefing’’’ (unnamed) – a short, one paragraph of no more then seven average length sentences, description of the article addressing the question when, where, who, why, larger context, significance, and outcome.) Using Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Essays/Describing conflicts would be helpful here.

+Contents (here)

  • Role in the conflict – describes role of the event in the larger conflict. A war also has a context in a larger conflict since it usually evolves from non-armed forms of conflict such as social, cultural, political and economic conflicts.
    • Campaign situation – this describes the event in terms of a war's theatre campaign.
    • Strategic situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the campaign where an operation is the event
    • Operation situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the operation where a battle is the event
    • Battle situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the battle where an event describes a part of a tactical battle
  • Decision making – after assessment of the situation comes the decision-making process that seeks to change the existing situation through securing of initiative by offensive action.
    • Goal of the operation – to change the situation one needs a situational change goal
    • Objective of the battle – at the tactical level the goal is called an objective
    • Side A intelligence – the first step is to gather understanding by the attacked (A) of the defender’s (D) capacity to resist
    • Side D intelligence – usually anyone suspicious of an attack will also gather intelligence on the likelihood of an impending attack
  • Planning – after the intelligence is gathered, planning starts
    • Side A – description of planning should begin with a) organisational description, b) logistic arrangements, c) personnel availability and abilities, and d) technology to be used.
      • Forces involved – organisation of forces and their structural description (in modern times described as tables of equipment of organisation and equipment) need to be given
    • Side D
      • Forces involved
  • Description of the Campaign/Strategic operation/operation/battle – this is the core part of the article. All military events have phased sequence that can be divided into:
    • Initial attack – describes initial execution of the plan
    • Progress of the offensive – describes success or failure of the plan
    • Decisive action – describes the instance when the plan has the greatest chance of success or failure, or the attempt to correct the divergence from the plan
    • Final commitment – any attempts to secure success or prevent failure of the plan
    • Outcomes – comparison of end result with the planned result of the event plan
  • Consequences – the impact of the outcomes on events that follow, but which are not part of the above-described plan
    • Immediate effects – immediate effects that include changes in a) organisational description, b) logistic arrangements, c) personnel availability and abilities, and d) technology to be used.
    • Effects on future planning – describe effects on the planning in the larger scope of events
  • Myths – often popular rendition or beliefs about the event that are either partly or completely false, or presented for the purpose of propaganda
  • Memorials – a means of post event commemoration of the event
  • Popular culture – depiction of the event in popular culture and media
  • References – page reference in an authoritative source used to research the article content
  • Footnotes – explanatory notes for points made in the article
  • Bibliography – sources used for the compilation of research on the article
  • See also – other Wikipedia articles related to the event
  • Online resources – other online sites that relate to the event or its larger context
  • Further reading – other sources not used for the research of the article but recommended to the reader
The purpose of the article structure suggested above is not to straight-jacket the authors and editors, but to enhance consistency of presentation throughout the project’s assortment of articles to the reader, and to enable the future editors to be more focused in the editing process by providing more focused sections in the article structure.

Thank you--mrg3105mrg3105 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a specification to be followed, but a guide. If you think it can be improved or changed to suit the editing you are doing, please do so and point it out to me so I can incorporate your suggestions in other articles in future. Thank you--mrg3105mrg3105 04:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Patriarch Alexius II

I have made a suggestion at Patriarch Alexius II#Propose Protecting this Article that I think is workable. It changes the rules a little and should significantly reduce conflict. I would like to invite you to review the proposal and participate in the creation of a great article. It will stop edit warring by restricting work to the talk page in part because reverting another editors comments on the talk page is counter to WP:TALK. Jeepday (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ei ela ma majas, ei tänaval, mu aadress on NSVL

Can you take a look at this and this. Oth (talk) 10:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

People from Estland

As of late I have been categorizing biographies by historical state and/or province (primarily at Category:People from former German states). It seems misleading to have pre-1918 biographies categorized as "People from Latvia", for instance, since that state did not exist before that time. So, I created Category:People from Livonia and Category:People from Courland. I raised the issue of how to deal with Estonia at Wikipedia talk:Baltic States notice board#Categorization last week, since modern southern Estonia was historically part of Livonia. Unfortunately, there was no response to my proposal. I chose "Estland" since it was a historical term which has been used in English and Category:People from Estonia would too easily be confused with Category:Estonian people, IMO. Alternative suggestions would be appreciated at WP:BALTIC. Olessi (talk) 08:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Livonia/Courland/Estonia are the most common designations in English, which is why they are used in the title and are the primary terminology used within articles. The subdivisions of Imperial Russia had no official designations in English (AFAIK), however, which is why there is such a prevalence of different terms. Livland/Kurland/Estland have certainly been used in English, and the MOS mentions the inclusion of alternate names in the introduction. Olessi (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to conjecture as to how the governments of English-speaking countries referred to the provinces. I've seen a variety of terms for both the type of subdivision and the name of the individual territories. If 19th century writers often used a term, we should note that, just as we should do the same for 20th century writers. Regarding the categories, I will initiate WP:CFDs for them. Olessi (talk) 03:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Many of the links are not suitable for an encyclopaedia such as photo websites. See the Links normally to be avoided section. including "Links to blogs and personal web pages". Those links which I deleted do not satisfy "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material". Michellecrisp (talk) 02:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

ok, those other ones can stay! thanks Michellecrisp (talk) 03:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

90th Anniversary of Estonian Republic

Updated DYK query On 23 February, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 90th Anniversary of Estonian Republic, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 07:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On 7 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Operation Priboi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Daniel Case (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


Updated DYK query On 7 March, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Operation Priboi, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Operation Priboi

I enjoyed reading this article. However, in the introduction, you mentioned the high death rate of the deportees, but no figures are given in the "Aftermath" section. Also, it would be interesting to know how many of the deportees were repatriated to the Baltic states in the post-Stalin era. Cheers, Caknuck (talk) 20:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Biru's RFA

Still, I am somewhat interested how would you characterise this particular response to a concerned party. Especially compared to something like this. --Illythr (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Irpen's editorial style when it comes to commenting on comments can be a bit over the top. He's rather taken me to task on occasion for "vicious" attacks, for describing a situation as "schmutz" and all; meanwhile, when there's an editor he supports, he deletes that editor's unfortunate comments regarding the mental health of other participants. (I can find the diffs if you'd really like to see them...) I think your former example is a positive instance of Biru dealing with an overstated reaction with a bit of humor (based on a working relationship with that editor) as opposed to lecturing that editor on their reaction. Despite Irpen's not supporting the RFA, that he characterizes his working together with Biru as a generally positive experience speaks volumes. —PētersV (talk) 14:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
"Speaks volumes" - exactly. I think Irpen could've been reasonably convinced to at least withdraw his oppose. After all, although Biru does sometimes exhibit the symptoms and have nightmares, I am yet to witness an actual transformation into a big green-shirted monster.
That particular... odd comment by Neil provided an excellent opportunity. Husond's post demonstrated what kind of behavior I would expect from an admin in such a situation. The contrast is not in Biru's favor, unfortunately.
Also, no matter what style Irpen employs (or is perceived to employ), he's not the one being scrutinized by the community in that RFA. Should any such style be judged subpar by the community, that will be a problem of Irpen, not of the guy I decided to nominate for once and who happily goes about convincing the doubters that he's as evil as they fear he might be! With a bit of humor. Grr. --Illythr (talk) 15:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Could you check your email, please? Relata refero (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


Really "Russification only occured in the late 19th Century" and how you call then the 50 years of communism? Russification has been here with waves - during the period Estonia has been annexed or occupied by Russia, USSR, and some areas by the Russian Federation still are. The Name Estonia in the Russian Empire should be changed - as this title shows the voluntary belonging into the empire.Karabinier (Karabinier) 10:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

RE:Soviet Holocaust

Holocaust with a capital H can refer only to the German stuff, so there can be no such thing as "Soviet Holocaust". Most of the google book/scholar hits that have "Soviet Holocaust" are hits line "The book of Soviet Holocaust memorials remains to be written", "Soviet Holocaust historiography" i.e. sentences with the Holocaust as a adjective being qualified by "Soviet" (e.g. Holocaust memorials from the Soviet Union, Soviet historiography about the Holocaust), and the rest can't make up their mind about which series of killings they wish to style "Holocaust" (c/f "British Holocaust", etc). The redirect serves to purposes other than to push a a highly OR and probably in practice Russophobic POV. The only acceptable purpose such a link could ever have would be to describe how a hand-full of people have used such a term to refer to various mass-killings perpetrated by the Soviet Union, but it cannot be masqueraded as if it were a generally accepted term. Anyways, my decision was good, took into account the extreme policy violations it perpetrated, so you'll need to go to deletion review if you wish to push such a term. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The proper term is "Soviet Terror" with respect to the invasion and subjugation of the Baltics et al. Holocaust (capital H) is only for the Shoah. The use of the term "Holocaust" has been falling out of favor in Jewish scholarship because of its over-use in other contexts. —PētersV (talk) 16:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

March Deportations

Why don't we make this page simple redirect to Operation Priboi? It is the same event, after all... And I'm sick and tired of editing Estglish and illiterate repetitons out of March Deportations. RJ CG (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Some articles

You have been here longer than me, do these seem familiar: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Estonia#Resurrected_articles? Oth (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Polish Foreign Ministry

Template:Polish Foreign Ministry has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 04:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suvalkai Region

Thanks for taking interest in this discussion, do note my reply. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:25, 20 April 2008 (UTC)


Hi, Martin. I would consider protection except that I both lack the appropriate button and think that the protection of Bronze Night has already demonstrated a poor result from this. If it keeps going I may ask for the page to be protected; but for now I wait with amused anticipation - Peripitus (Talk) 21:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


Do you know that Digwuren case is debated again by Arbcomm [33]? Biophys (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:Clairifcation for Category:Foreign volunteer units of Nazi Germany

Hi Martin, the problem is that there are afew (if not quite afew) notable examples where the units included in this category are quite controversial topics where different views are expressed, eg some were not (ostensibly) subscribers to the Nazi ideology, some through anti-bolshevism, some through nationalistic ideologies. I felt the clarification is more to the fact that the participation was not to the Nazi ideology. I agree that other categories exist (eg, Category:Foreign volunteer units of the Wehrmacht etc) and frankly I am not happy myself. But inclusion of a particular category will be seen by many as assigning or confirming a particular view, hence I felt it might be more appropriate to leave the clarification, as each individual category may stand in isolation. rueben_lys (talk · contribs) 06:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

3 revert rule

As no consensus - which you point out- has been reached, I suppose this rule go for yourself as well. Or are you above the masses? User:Maracana

As you agree there is no consensus for your changes, please stop adding them. Martintg (talk) 23:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Au contraire. You have no consensus either. User:Maracana
As you can see on my talk page and on the administrators noteboard, other admins are disagreeing with your fact-denying disaproval of my contributions. User:Maracana

Estonia article

Do you approve the full scale restructuring of the article - where sections are removed and added with a headlines which have a wide specter - a la overview of the sectors? I believe the current chapters and chapter section give a good or close to good overview of the country without asking question um what does this section mean etc. Also I have gained the "last warning" which I find unjustified and literally "wtf" A warning about... which must be thanks to Turkuun great lobby work he has been doing. I have been explaining my position with the following text. Yesterday I started to overview the hole article in order to find and remove such copyviolated text parts - to make them not copyviol. I managed to o some of these edits but currently I am unable to continue. I hope you bother to respond to this very unadult problem which is going on in the Estonia article.Karabinier (talk 10:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. If all material published by Estonian government is free to use, then there is no problem. However, the procedure in that case is that you first show that the material is free to use and then insert it, not the other way around as that will lead exactly to the kind of reverting war going on. If the material indeed is free to use then everything is fine. Cheers JdeJ (talk) 09:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll make some inquiries over the next few days to clarify the issue. In any case I think this involves several paragraphs at most, so I don't know if a massive revert is justified. In the mean time, while awaiting a reply from my contacts, I will analyze the text and re-factor any contentious passages. Martintg (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I've responded on my talk page, cheers. BanRay 22:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Ive been busy little bee with the clean up from the copyviol. stuff on article as BanRay restored the last stable version and gave me a green light to clean up some mess. Its half way done though at the moment. Please review the current article and the problematic section. The history chapter could be bit smaller - especially ww2 and the soviet occupation - although they are very important for the countries history they are nevertheless not the most important events. Some small up summing shoudl be made with the these 2 sections there - less all kind of dates what where the soviets did and more about generally what that ment and caused. I added 2 new templates - holidays and international rankings - they can be closed and opened - i figured that this might save some space as the article is already over 100kb long. Talk 15:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Good job for getting the green light for those passages, thanks! JdeJ (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


In case you might have missed this: there is an arbitrator activity in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FDigwuren.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for recusal



Martintg (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Martin. Please see my response there. Thanks. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Copyright of Estonian Government websites

Thanks for taking your time to clear up the things Martintg! BanRay 12:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Copyright concerns at Estonia

Hello. I am investigating a copyright matter listed at the copyright problems board on June 27th in connection to the article Estonia. I have requested follow-up information at the article's talk page so that I can determine if the ticket should be closed. Since you have expressed an interest in potential copyright issues at that article, I am notifying you of this request in case you are able to or wish to provide further information there. Thanks. :) Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

a cinema task force

Hi Martintg , would you take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force and see if it's just me who thinks it's a strange approach naming task forces after 20 years of the Soviet collapse so like it is done over there. Perhaps it's just me who thinks it's weird? Just checking. thanks! --Termer (talk) 02:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Coren (talk) 22:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


FYI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Revert_Wars_on_List_X-Americans and Wikipedia:ANI#Threat--Termer (talk) 05:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


Since Bulldog123 has dared to suggest that Martintg is an alternate account of Termer, I've initiated Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Termer--Termer (talk) 06:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, in case you consider the check user case compromising your privacy like suggested at the talk page, please let everybody know so that I could withdraw my request. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A note on AE

My experience is that once a threat is getting long and/or has been hijacked by critical editors/tag teams/etc., the outcome will most likely be archival w/out any decision. Further discussion is just a waste of time and results in additional stress. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus_2/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Martintg will be much more useful (as arbcom evidence is much more difficult to disrupt, unlike AE evidence). Perhaps AE would work better if it was structured more like regular arbcom, and less like a free-for-all noticeboard. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 01:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

May I ask on what ground on that very section you chose to call me a Russian ultra nationalist given that I am only one of the three. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 19:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
It was a quick first draft, i'm currently refactoring it now. Martintg (talk) 20:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Well I hope you will remove both labels in due course, fyi I voted out of personal views, and not due to someone meatpuppeting me. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 20:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Petri Krohn

Hi, I saw somewhere that you were discussing about the possible comeback of mr Krohn once his block ends. Unfortunately, what we see when checking the recent edits he has been doing in the meantime in the Finnish Wikipedia, no change in the editing pattern of the poor soul is likely to occur. He has been preparing his fringe theories there and is likely to continue furthering his extremist POV once he is let to return here. just to be prepared ;-) (talk) 18:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion please

You did some work on Soviet political repression which bares a striking simularity to a version of Human rights in the Soviet Union. Are these two articles really the same topic? Bobanni (talk) 08:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Good idea

[34].--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:15, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Harald Siiak

If he is a signifigant figure in Estonian music, why can't I find anything about him in Estonian Google? We need something besides primary sources, and a book about him is a primary source. Finally, I am certainly *not* an administrator. If you think he's significant, please feel free to recreate the article, making very sure you include multiple sources. After all, I appear in two books and a comic strip, but I'm certainly not important enough to have an article. -- Amused Repose Converse! 21:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

It's that time of year again

I've created Soviet repressions. Currently, it is just a stub, but it's an important and well-documented topic, so it should have no trouble at all.

You've been working on related topics before — perhaps you'd like to help? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent removal of link

a spam link to was recently removed from your page, you might be inclined to check it out - do not, it is a trojan site that will attempt to hijack your browser. Regards --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Operation Priboi

Please indicate the source for all the statistical table in the article. Thanks, Renata (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies that have been adopted are as follows;

(A) That discussing an issue on IRC necessarily excludes those editors who do not use IRC from the discussion (and excludes almost all non-administrators from the discussion if it takes place in #wikipedia-en-admins), and therefore, such IRC discussion is never the equivalent of on-wiki discussion or dispute resolution;
(B) That the practice of off-wiki "block-shopping" is strongly deprecated, and that except where there is an urgent situation and no reasonable administrator could disagree with an immediate block (e.g., ongoing blatant or pagemove vandalism or ongoing serious BLP violations), the appropriate response for an administrator asked on IRC to block an editor is to refer the requester to the appropriate on-wiki noticeboard; and
(C) That even though the relationship between the "wikipedia" IRC channels and Wikipedia remains ambiguous, any incidents of personal attacks or crass behavior in #wikipedia-en-admins are unwelcome and reflect adversely on all users of the channel.
  • Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will open a general request for comments regarding the arbitration enforcement process, particularly where general sanctions are concerned. Having received such comments, the Committee will consider instituting suitable reforms to the enforcement process.
  • Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will convene a community discussion for the purpose of developing proposed reforms to the content dispute resolution process.
  • Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will publish guides to presenting evidence and using the workshop page.

Please see the above link to read the full case.

For the Arbitration Committee,

Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry XMAS

Merry XMAS from User:Piotrus. 12:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


Just a request, would you mind not WP:STALKing me and my edits. Is your life that boring that you have to interfere with articles I am working on in my namespace. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 22:29, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

As you have taken the above as being uncivil, I will reword it and expand. Can you please refrain from WP:STALKing my edits on WP. As you can see wikistalking is a form of WP:HARRASSment, and if it should continue, I will present the necessary evidence of stalking by numerous editors against myself and will ask for sanctions against the lot of you. Take that how you will; I write it as up until now I have not asked for sanctions against anyone as I see it as a form of childishness, and will take things in my stride, however, as the stalking by numerous editors now appears to be co-ordinated (right or wrong assumption, who knows), I will no longer be accept being harrassed as a normal thing, and in future I will not be willing to accept that. I am not part of any cosy WP:TEAM, I am here to edit in peace and I have not, and will not, engage in WP:BATTLE conditions and have no desire to get involved the utter bullshit that is prevalent in this area of editing. If you have a problem with my edits, instead of shopping for blocks against myself, you are more than welcome to address concerns with myself directly on my talk page. --Russavia Dialogue 01:28, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
If this continue, one might submit an RfC about Russavia. We are not there yet, but this is certainly an option.Biophys (talk) 01:48, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
You are more than welcome to do fact, would you like me to start it Biophys? Of course, I would then introduce evidence of WP:STALK, WP:TEAM, WP:GAME, WP:TEND, WP:BLP, WP:OWN, WP:POV, WP:LAWYER, and a whole lot more. Please file it, I welcome it. --Russavia Dialogue 01:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but no thanks. We both have better things to do with our time. I simply noted such an option for you and Martintg.Biophys (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
Is there a reason you left out WP:NPA? Baseless accusations of all sorts of uppercased words are prohibited by that policy. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 13:04, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
If you want to open an RFC/U on yourself, feel free to do so -- you don't need anybody's permission for that. As for others ... I think many people would agree that there has been a whole lot of disruptive DR in the Eastern European parts of Wikipedia within the last two years. So, don't take it personally if your RFC/U will be paid little attention. It's not personal, it's just that people are tired of resolving non-existing disputes. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
And as I have stated Digwuren, I would appreciate being left out of the bullshit. However, these issues are not non-existent, you have not been around to see what has been happening, so I would appreciate it if you could just back off on that regard thanks. And that is my last word, anything leave it on my talk page, not here. --Russavia Dialogue 18:58, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


Enabled.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:09, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Martintg (talk) 12:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Regarding this Finnish blog I got an idea to-day: perhaps they should also invite Roobit to become a Team Member there? As Roobit can no longer troll here with his past intensity, and considering Roobit's Russian chauvinist Estophobia, he might find plenty of common ground with the 'estophobic' pseudo-antifascism of some crazy far-left militants. Regards, --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:36, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it's just me, but I've found it more sensible to classify most of the recent pseudo-antifascists as far-right militants, under the Right Wing Authoritarianism theory. Of course, there are exceptions. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems like this pseudo-antifascist blog partially mirrors the dissidenti blog. Holy cow, looks like they even believe the charming kid's story Horton Hears a Who is fascist propaganda. Martintg (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
They're not the first ones to find hostile hidden subtexts in that movie. Such is the plight of people who assume that the world is out to get them ... ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Info for yourself

I must say that the lack of WP:AGF in regards to my edits is not a good thing. At the bottom of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Biophys, you will see information which has been placed by myself on edits and/or merges performed by myself, which have been undone by yourself. Read the entire lot please, and especially take note of the very last part. I will let what I have written speak for me; the rest is up to you. Cheers, --Russavia Dialogue 03:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

IP editors at AFD

Hello. Just a note to point out that unregistered editors are welcome to comment at AFDs (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD). It's only really RFA and suchlike where registration is required. CIreland (talk) 06:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I would have thought it prudent to disallow this due to potential sock puppetry, shrug. Martintg (talk) 06:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Questionnaire

As a member of WikiProject Films, you are invited to take part in the project's first questionnaire. It is intended to gauge your participation and views on the project. At the conclusion of the questionnaire, the project's coordinators will use the gathered feedback to find new ways to improve the project and reach out to potential members. The results of the questionnaire will be published in next month's newsletter. If you know of any editors who have edited film articles in the past, please invite them to take part in the questionnaire. Please stop by and take a few minutes to answer the questions so that we can continue to improve our project. Happy editing!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

re estonia

Unfortunately the page does not fall under G10: its subject as defined by its title is this pejorative term, and hence its content cannot be "disparaging their subject". Please keep in mind that there are plenty of articles in wikipedia about pejoratives. But I agree that the article must be nominated for deletion, since it appears (google) a nonnotable occasional protologism. - 7-bubёn >t 01:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Putinland

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Putinland, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Putinland. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Russavia Dialogue 20:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

List of most common surnames

You have reverted sourced information from the List of most common surnames information which is sourced to RIA Novosti. Apart from the fact that your stalking of my edits is really starting to piss me off, your total lack of good faith with my edits here on WP is also starting to do the same. RIA Novosti more than fulfills the requirements for a reliable source, it is widely quoted and it has a reputation of fact checking. The article in question does not state a matter of opinion, such as PersonA is a nutcase, but it is stating a statistic. If you believe that RIA Novosti is not a reliable source, then instead of removing sourced information from an article on the premise you don't think it is reliable, which is quite tendentious in nature one must admit, then take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and ask the question there. We as editors are not reliable sources, and what you or I think on a subject means absolutely nothing. And if you even bothered to read the article, one will clearly see that it quotes Eesti Ekspress, which is of course an Estonian source. I have the Estonian source right here in front of me, and it is confirmed. For example, Kisseljov is the 287th most popular surnamed with 440 people; Semenov is 17th with 1,909; Kuznetsov is 11th with 2,339, etc. It lists 500 names. Will you now admit that not only have you stalked my edits and you are not assuming good faith with my edits?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Russavia (talkcontribs)

"Ethnic Russians account for about 30% of Estonia's 1.34 million population. Many have "non-citizen" status, which denies them a national passport and other rights, and prevents them from voting." is an erroneous and POV paragraph in the RIAN article and therefore the original Estonian source is better. BTW I was stalking Martintg. With best wishes. Oth (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Help with dealing a cultic subject?


I recently developed Hannes Vanaküla, based mostly on recent months' media coverage of the man. Unfortunately, as so often happens with cult circles, a follower of his has shown up, and is making disturbing assertions on the topic of WP:BLP. Unfortunately, I'm not really familiar with BLP issues on Wikipedia.

Could you take a look, and make suggestions on making sure that any legitimate concerns that might arise are covered? I know there is no point in dealing with the irrational concerns, but this kind of people are sometimes rather active in getting admins involved.

Thanks in advance. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


You were mentioned and thanked by Greg in his final remark (I just found about it today by accident). Read his post here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust in Estonia

Anon restored it as an article. While I don't support his POV, I do think it should be an article (we already have Holocaust in Lithuania, Holocaust in Latvia, Holocaust in Russia, and so on).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections other than this article is a total mess, and was then basically cut and past copy of various bits of articles like Occupation of Estonia by Nazi Germany#Holocaust in Estonia 1941 - 1944 (which I would rather see developed first, hence my redirect to that article) and Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia. If you think you can knock this article into shape, please do, we can then make this the main article and make redirects to it from these other articles. Martintg (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Express Your opinion, please

—Preceding unsigned comment added by ttturbo (talkcontribs)

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

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

20 SS Division

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

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

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

Fresh pigs on the Pigcam

You might appreciate [35]. It's got quite a number of pigs on right now. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 22:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Military history WikiProject coordinator election

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


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

??? Your "caution" comes almost three days after my last message on Russavia's talk page on March 18, in which I was attempting to resolve the issue of Russavia's increasingly strident editing. What are you doing here? Martintg (talk) 20:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I am responding to a request for sanctions at WP:AE. It has come out that you posted to Russavia's talk page after he asked you not to. That's a clear line we want to avoid crossing again. Thanks. Jehochman Talk 23:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Well your response is misplaced. As I said, my last comment on Russvia's talk page was three days before your "caution" and two days before someone else made a complaint about Russavia's continued unprovoked incivil behaviour in a report to WP:AE, to which you refer. incivility and personal attacks for which he was clearly warned previously not to engage. I have reopened the WP:AE report as I will be presenting evidence with diffs showing these attacks were unprovoked. Martintg (talk) 06:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Did you post to Russavia's talk page after he asked you not to? Yes or no? Jehochman Talk 14:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


Hi. Regarding this PROD removal:[36]. That link does not establish notability. Per WP:N, " If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." The link you provided ([37]) is not an independent secondary source, so it does establish notability. The topic of Estonia-Chile relation may yet turn out to be notable, but we need better sources. Yilloslime TC 04:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, however looks like some else is expanding that topic, let's see where it leads. Estonia-Iceland relations is definitely notable for the reasons stated. Martintg (talk) 04:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
Well i just AfDed it (here) before noticing that someone had come along and started working on it. Anyways, there are 5 days before the AfD closes, that should be plenty of time for interested editors to dig up sources, assuming there are good sources out there. Cheers. Yilloslime TC 04:31, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No Ethnic EPithets


you might have seen the discussion at [38]. Apparently, this sort of thing is surprisingly common on Wikipedia -- advocates of all sorts of weird ideas like to brand people who dare to counter them as being of "that other ethnicity". This kind of dog-whistle classification of sources into "good sources of unspecified ethnicity" and "evil sources of that other ethnicity" runs counter to the spirit of WP:NPOV and, since it requires the editors to research the source's ethnicity, also WP:NOR -- but it seems Wikipedia doesn't have a policy that would explicitly prohibit it. We should have such a policy, perhaps named WP:NEEP for 'No Ethnic EPithets'.

Do you think you could draw up a proposal? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 07:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

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


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

Pigs are both cute and tasty, and they never battle on Wikipedia. Are you sure you haven't made a mistake? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 10:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Sure, pigs are tasty (though maybe not for Risto Abdullah), my English sucks, I meant something else. I meant our beloved eliminationists. I seem to remember that "he has a history of treating Wikipedia as a battleground" sounded threatening some time ago, alas, the times have long passed, which, of course, doesn't make their activity here more acceptable. Well, I am not a very honest person either, so it won't be long before they eliminate themselves, given their track record of outing, edit-warring, POV-pushing and incivility. As to the pathetic propaganda, with such friends as финский ученый Йохан Бекман, who needs enemies? He is just a worsened mirror image of the "one-man disinformation bureau", who doesn't even emit ionizing radiation and is thus plainly boring if taken seriously. Colchicum (talk) 12:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I think shunning is the most appropriate course of action here, let it start, and it will soon take on global dimensions. If they try to start RfAr (let alone RfA, which one of them has long dreamt of :)), they'll get what they deserve. As to their edit-warring, there is no reason to worry, Sander's tool (the public watchlist, I mean) proved to be invaluable (is it updated?), and the WikiProject Estonia is still more or less on the wheels, as I see. Colchicum (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
BTW, you are most certainly wrong that the IP is not JB, but I won't insist on this, let's make the life simpler :) He is at work again. Ok, let's wait a bit. Colchicum (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[39] made on April 2 2009 to Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below.
The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

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

This [40] is the 4th revert for which you were blocked. If you self-reverted it, you certainly didn't mark it as such (you don't seem to be in the habit of marking your reverts with "rv": this is bad). Which one do you mean? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to my last edit in the article, in which I revert myself after I was informed on my talk of a 3RR report, I assumed this was at issue. The article in question was subject to an intense BRD cycle, so I don't see how the first alleged revert was in fact a revert. I am surprised at the block, given the apparent consensus amongst the other editors, even Russavia, that there was no violation. In any case I have not edited the article in over 24 hours, so is this block punitive? Martintg (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't see how the second and third alleged reverts are related. Martintg (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

My only concern is that the facts of the case do not seem to support a block. A 24-hour block enacted 24 hours after the supposed 3RR violation seem to be unwarrented here. Though he may have technically violated 3RR, it is also clear that he disengaged from the article after he did so. His clock is 7 hours off, so it was only about 23 hours between last revert and block, but since a) the 3RR block is supposed to stop edit warring and b) the edit war was not active (it had stopped at 22:06, April 1, 2009 and this block was made at 21:36, 2 April 2009). I would support and unblock here with the stipulation that we acknowledge 3RR was violated; the unblock is made in good faith that the user intends to not re-do the same edit again once the unblock is made... 01:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
I've been generally pretty careful in the past. Obviously I realised there was an issue at the time of the report, hence I stopped editing that article when I did. I would have appreciated it if the reporter had at least given me the courtesy of warning me on my talk page first before reporting me. But I don't have a thick skull that I need to be given a 24 hour block some 23 hours after I stopped editing the article. I'll certainly be more vigilant in the future. Martintg (talk) 01:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

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

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

I commented yesterday on the proposed blocks of Colchicum and Martintg in regards to Johan Backman article. Those reports were clearly in bad faith. So, I am currious what was this one:
  • a succeful campain to throw mud at Martintg until it sticks (didn't stick in Backman report, sticks in this article)
  • the unyielding character of Martintg backfiring ?
Someone with more experience should analyze Martintg's recent contributions to WP. If there are signs of radicalization and abuse of the rules against the spirit of WP, a serious warning must be issued to Martintg (and the accuser must be given credit). If he is the victim of a smear campain, then a serious warning should be given to the smearer (and Martintg should be cleared). Dc76\talk 09:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Baltic states

Iran and the Holocaust are a bit different, because Iran wasn't directly involved in the Holocaust. And I'm not trying to side with the Hiberniantears. However, if necessary, God help me, I do have a copy of the Soviet Encyclopedia around here, which I can use to verify if the claims are made there, and I think they are. Also, Hiberniantears seems to be indicating that he sees some of the sources provided by Dojarca as reliable. Certainly, the link to the Kononov vs. Latvia case he just added seems a good one. ArbCom like I said is now getting a wee bit more active in resolving intractable disputes, partially because, I think, that's the only way some ever will be resolved. Certainly the Macedonia case I'm peripherally involved in now seems to be going toward a similar ending to the Ireland place names case. As an outsider in all these conversations, I don't really mind seeing that happen, but I doubt I'd think that way if I were more directly involved. John Carter (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

John, your threats of ArbCom action is really quite unproductive, I'm a veteran of several past ArbCom cases, all cases related to the issue of the Soviet fabrication/interpretation of history. If you want to wheel out the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, be my guest, I'd like to see you argue it is a source independent of the topic. Martintg (talk) 00:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Pardon me for being honest here, sir. If we are discussing things which are "unproductive", I find your seemingly intentionally misstating the concerns of others in the clearly and obviously prejudicial way you just did to be possibly the most unproductive things which have happened in this conversation. And, of course, your vast experience over time clearly in your eyes takes priority over more recent developments? Really? And for what it's worth I only mentioned the soviet encyclopedia because I see it in the university library virtually every day. I am sure that it does however point toward other sources, and, even if it doesn't, it doesn't have to be independent of the source to establish the opinion of the Soviet Union in the matter, does it? I've been through quite a few arbitrations myself now, and am actually peripherally involved in two active ones now.
Of course, I do know that there are several editors who learn very slowly if at all. Based on what I have seen, I can't say you aren't one of them. That may not be to your benefit, of course. It certainly hasn't been to a lot of the parties who have been invovled in a big way over time in the various cases I do become involved in. Of course, your experience, or at least conclusions, which are more subjective, may disagree. Good day. John Carter (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)