Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:26, 17 June 2012

This user has a zero tolerance policy towards trolls on Misplaced Pages.

Governorates vs. Duchies

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

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

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

3RR at Party for Freedom

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

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

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

Thanks for translation

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

Lake Peipus

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

Far-left politics

Hello Estlandia,

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

A kitten for you!

For your work related to Estonian topics on English Misplaced Pages.

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

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

Talk:Far-left politics#Edit warring

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

ARBCOM Notice

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

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

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

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

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

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

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

Copei

Hello Estlandia,

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

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

HI

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

Dispute resolution survey

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

Highbeam

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

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

Your HighBeam account is ready!

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

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

Thanks for helping make Misplaced Pages better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 20:41, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Socialist Party of Serbia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Islamophobia

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

Edit war over Eurabia

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

Seventeen Moments of Spring

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

You last removal of POV-tag

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