Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:00, 28 May 2007

Welcome!

Hello, Digwuren, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

Regarding reversions made on May 1 2007 to Bronze Soldier of Tallinn

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Alex Bakharev 14:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, no more reverts. I counted six straight reverts in the last few hours, one after my warning Alex Bakharev 15:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

More than a day has passed since. During the time, I have explained the reversal in questions on the discussion page, and received no comments. I believe I'm now justified in reflecting the documented consensus on the main page. Digwuren 17:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Stop reverting my articles! (by Redstar1987)

Instead of fueling lies, you should have watched the movie and see what it shows. I have watched it and it can clearly be seen that the police car is breaking through demonstrants in a relatively high speed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redstar1987 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Stalking and personal attacks

I am reverting your personal attack from Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn (See: ) What you are doing is stalking, and will get you blocked. Please do not re-introduce the material. You are of course welcome to discuss the individual issues in the proper context. -- Petri Krohn 20:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Your accusations are baseless. Digwuren 22:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that I had to do this, but I have reported you at WP:AN/I. -- Petri Krohn 00:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Fourth Wall, the report and the deafening silence that followed has since been archived at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive236#User:Digwuren. Digwuren 19:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous edits from 194.182.142.5

Form your edits it seem likely that you are the same person who contributed from IP 194.182.142.5. Can you please confirm or deny?

Yes, I made them. The address belongs to some sort of public ISP operating out of the Copenhagen International Airport, and I was anonymous because my laptop didn't have my Misplaced Pages account's password, and I didn't have a way to retrieve it from my desktop.

I would have added the confirmation under the statement to that effect on the discussion page, but my statement has already been archived. Digwuren 18:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, what is Challenge 24? -- Petri Krohn 10:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

, of course. Digwuren 18:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please do not call good faith edits "vandalism" as you did here. -- Petri Krohn 05:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The edit I reverted there is obviously not a good faith edit; it's a reversal to a misrepresentation of what the source says for POV-pushing purposes. Digwuren 05:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Stalking

It seems that you have started a personal edit was against me. In this undo you reverted my minor edit that removed an extra newline from an image caption. Please stop! -- Petri Krohn 05:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You are mischaracterising your edit. It changed "At its original location before May 2006" into "... in May 2006". This is clearly inaccurate, as the statue had been fully relocated by the end of April, and thus never was in its original location in May. Digwuren 05:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears I mixed up the year numbers. In context of 2006, I'll withdraw my objection. Digwuren 07:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Bronze Soldier of Tallinn

I reverted your edit including a YouTube link, per WP:LINKS. If you believe this wasn't right, please contact me on my talk page. Jmlk17 06:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a perfectly good explanation to me. As I said in my entry on your talk page, if you were unsure of my reversal, but now I know I was in error. Thank you for the explanation, and happy editing! Jmlk17 06:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove referenced inf.

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did to Estonian SSR, you will be blocked from editing. Please, notice, that removing referenced information as you did here, is considered vandalism (see "Blanking" section there). For edits in such a style a user can be blocked.Cmapm 15:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

"Denialism"

That's my first delete vote in a long time. There's an important line between an article where the author's POV is evident, but could still be cleaned up within the framework of the existing article, and an article so thoroughly POV, and about such a sensitive subject, that it actually frightens me to think that people may read it and be influenced by it. Some buildings are in bad shape, but you can fix them up with a little work; others are in ruins and if a person tried to fix them up they could be killed by a structural collapse. Sometimes you have to bring in a bulldozer and start over from scratch. Misplaced Pages should cover the viewpoints of people who hold positive and negative views about the Soviet role. What it absolutely should not do is present it in some form that compares one side to Holocaust denial (which is appallingly ironic, considering the circumstances). An article that approached the topic from the right perspective would be fine, but that particular article will never be anything more than a propaganda piece. Everyking 11:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

3RR block

The duration of the block is 48 hours. Here are the reverts in question. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

The reverts listed in Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Digwuren reported by User:Petri Krohn (Result: 48 hours) revert vandalism of the abuse of tags type, as defined on Misplaced Pages:Vandalism#Types of vandalism. Specifically, they revert Petri Krohn's repeated additions of the {{totallydisputed}} tag into the article Jüri Uluots without any mention of what the dispute would be on the talk page. (See also Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:Petri Krohn reported by User:DLX (Result: Blocked 24h) for a list of the reversals.) As explained in WP:3RR#Exceptions, such obvious vandalism is not covered by the three-revert rule.

       * Furthermore, the stalking accusation is baseless. It should be pointed out that Petri Krohn has in the past already attempted such an accusation without being able to back it up; see Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive236#User:Digwuren.

Decline reason:

Abuse of tags vandalism refers to "Bad-faith placing of {{afd}}, {{delete}}, {{sprotected}}", etc. as is clearly stated in the policy you cited above. Whether an article should be tagged {{totallydisputed}} is a content dispute, one that in this case you edit warred over. -— Selket 21:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The block has been shortened 24 hours now, since there is no conclusive evidence that you were wiki-stalking. Nishkid64 (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you my sockpuppet?

Good morning - as I just found out, you are "likely" my sockpuppet - see and Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/DLX. I am willing to have my IP history to be shown there, as I have nothing to hide - would be nice, if you'd to the same. I presume your ISP is Elion as well? DLX 05:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Beef!

:) I know, i dont remember the link but ill place it tommorrow or in the morning.

---

I don't know Illythr personally, but have known him on WP for the last several months. I guess (which is simply my impression from different discussions, I have not been told) that someone older in his family was an officer in the Red Army, and came to Moldova when transfered to civilian life (suppositions) He protested when I once introduced edits about the "guests", but was absolutely fine with them when I explained the cathegory in more detail. He also seemed to me very interested in the Continuation War (Finland; 1941-44), esp. in one part of it - who won and who lost. I don't know about some party membership, but I'd doubt it. I might be mistaken, who knows. I tend to believe that his reasons for opposing the article are personal.

I don't remember that song's melogy, but I think it's notable. And since we are at it, I'd suggest also "Uvezu tebia ia v tundru". There is an old edit that is at the core of Illythr's "obsetions" with "personal attacks". I have an mp3 of this one.:Dc76 23:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Denial of Soviet crimes

As I predicted, it depended on whim of the closing admin. Someone more historically knowledgeable (and perhaps less prejudiced - see his edit history) would have probably renamed the article (note that closing admin had issues with the name of the article, while unable to show how the article was POV - so far none of the deniers have managed that). In any case, I have article (as of 08:13, 23 May 2007) in my user space - User:DLX/Denial of Soviet crimes. I propose we invite others, who were active in editing, there it as well - such as Staberinde, Vecrumba, Marting and others who are capable of staying NPOV - and re-write the article to fit current name. Every claim referenced - preferably double-referenced, no neologisms, no disputable claims... rock solid article. And when we are satisfied with the article, then we can move it to mainspace - I am quite sure it will be slapped with speedy delete, AfD, POV and TotallyDisputed within hours, but hopefully this time closing admin will actually be able to see the arguments from both sides... or lack of them from one side, as it was now. DLX 15:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of your copy. I still hope to get the latest version undeleted into my userspace, as I (hopefully) have applied on Misplaced Pages:Deletion review, though.

As an aside, Suva has expressed readiness to help, but he is strangely passive recently.

My theory on the WP:POVFORK issue that got raised is pretty much what I outlined earlier: Soviet crimes can be discussed in separate articles, but their orchestrated denial is best treated in a single narrative. I believe this issue needs to be worked upon, and a fully developed solution be offered for future.

I have been relatively busy off-Misplaced Pages for the last few days, and I believe there are no major contributions by me that are missing from your copy from Wednesday. I think the only two changes I have made since were a copy of the Holodomor issues from the relevant page, as a preparation for working upon it, and addition of Putin's own quote, as reported in . I do not know about other possible contributions, though. Digwuren 15:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I now remember Alexia Death fixed a problem regarding the MRP earlier today.

Furthermore, I took a look at the arguments and the policy, and I suspect getting the deletion reversed may actually be viable. Another question is whether we want to -- for example, with a new article, Irpen's threat regarding move won't apply because there won't be a move per se. Digwuren 16:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

_{edit conflict}I'd like to keep conversations in one place - so I moved your reply back here, I hope you don't mind.

Deletion review is a good idea, but I am unsure it will help. You didn't apply for a full deletion review, though, just temporary restore?

In any case, we must get non-Estonian/non-Baltic editors to the article as well - so that our favorite Estonian-hater couldn't come up with his silly conspiracy theories again (have you seen this? It is funny, how he never has any sources but calls ours "dubious", "biased" and so on. He likes fancy words). DLX 16:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope so. I'm not entirely sure for the procedure, but my understanding is that temporary undeletes to userspace are done through "deletion review". Digwuren 17:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. Somebody with that many delusions and borderline paranoia (remember this? Well, I've gotten two further stalking accusations from him, both just as misguided and baseless.) will complain *anyway*.

Instead, I'd just make sure formal warnings and, when appropriate, reports get issued as appropriate, for in a few weesk, the Misplaced Pages bureaucrats will likely be glad if they're nicely official and documented. (Have you seen yet?)

Another interesting issue is that of the category of 'Soviet crimes' which I created earlier today, in response to somebody's suggestion of creating such an article. Of course, there's already. I think I'll vote keep on it for now, but then create 'Crimes of Soviet regime' to replace it and address the somewhat valid criterion ambiguity issues.

Finally, should we bother about the Russian edition of Bronze Soldier? I checked it today, and it contained a number of inaccuracies, from a reference to the Law of Forbidden Structures as it would be valid, up to what I suspect is a reference to the statue having been unwelded at ankles (but I might be a victim of mistranslation on that one). Digwuren 17:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My Russian is rather rusty - and I doubt we could actually change anything before we get called "Estonian fascists" and banned. Go ahead if you think could make a difference... but consider that we get "best and brightest" to English WP - and they still include BFF and M.V.E.i.

As for Petri - yes, I have seen those. He has some personal petty hatred against Estonia, but I doubt we can do anything about it, just counter his (occasionally childish) claims with citing good sources. DLX 17:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am sorry if I intrude in a discussion that is not of my business. I just want to tell that unsuspecting you'd get it restored to user sandbox, I also asked Moreschi to restore it to mine. I would like to participate in the editing of the new version, as well, if possible. I propose to work it here: User:DLX/Denial of Soviet crimes, also because it has a good title, and to keep the one in my sandbox unchanged for reference, so anyone can compare the new and old versions. I agree with DLX about "rock solid article".

I realized after the deletion that I bear some share of guilt for not stopping re-replying, and thus inflating the talk. In that volume it was hard to discern the solid arguments from the non-sense talk, it gave the impression "controversy", "editors get personal and accuse each other". It would be nice if when the new article would be proposed for deletion (it will be), "keep" and "delete" be listed in separate sections. Maybe we can ask everyone to keep the comments on topic, and never to reply to anyone under the other side's section, but if there is an issue that merits a sentense of two, add it under your own initial comment.

To avoid accusations of vagueness in the future, is it possible to decide an approximate table of content from the begining? (That if I'm welcome to editing.) Anyway, thank you for saving it, and have a nice day.:Dc76 22:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to move my restored copy over to DLX's userspace, where currently the old copy is. Currently, there are multiple copies around, and this is bound to cause confusion.

I think it's useful to keep the history of the previous article, too, but not paramount.

My original intent was that the "list of typical claims by deniers" would be a rough TOC. I'm not sure how to implement it, yet.

Your suggestion for keeping the votes separate has some merit, but it is not feasible without heavy policing on the page, as the deniers *will* raise long threads about "You nazi!". I'm not sure what the policy on such policing is, but I would propose declaring in the beginning of the DfA an intent to separate the votes located in wrong section, and that any unrelated discussion will be moved over to the initiator's talk page. It might even be a good idea to propose this to become the general policy, if it works out. Digwuren 08:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right, we should keep working in one single place, while having somewhere a copy/history of the previous article. Unless told otherwise, I'll assume User:DLX/Denial of Soviet crimes is the working page, and that you (Digwuren) keep somewhere a history of the previous article for reference (occasionally someone might want to consult it to see what specific issues atract more controversy).

"List of typical claims of the deniers" is a good starting point for the TOC, but can be slightly improved, IMO. Look how this is done at Holocaust denial. Also, a good think to check is Denial of the Armenian Genocide, Srebrenica genocide#Alternative view, and I am sure there are more.

For example 1) to not respond at all under deniers' votes; 2) if x responds under my vote, I'd nicely move his/her respons under x's own vote with "(response/reaction to Dc76 arguments)" added in italic; 3) if I feel impossible to resist replying to x, add add under my own vote "(response/reaction to x's arguments)". If a group of 5-6 users use consistently such a policy, it would most certainly become "contageous" for that AfD. A slightly easier version of such a general policy exists when people vote for admins (RfA), so we are not inventing the wheel here. I'd support the idea to propose this to become a general policy if a group of users involved in the particular discussion prefer it.:Dc76 18:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I think article should stay in Digwuren's user space for editing. Not only did he start the article, he was also most active in developing and defending it. DLX 07:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm fine with any place, as long as we'll all work on a single article rather than each doing a fork. I have a slight preference for this particular *instance*, because this has the history, but I wouldn't mind moving it where the consensus suggests. Digwuren 19:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so I'll join you here: User:Digwuren/Denial of Soviet crimes. I will also keep the copy restored to my userspace by the user who deleted the article -- in case if someone tries to say we have no right to keep coppies of deleted articles in userspace and nomnate the usespace for deletion (I've been witness to one such case, and although it sounds totally crazy, it happens).:Dc76 18:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Backupping userspace into another userspace won't work. If this craziness would happen, there's nothing to restrain the censworshippers from also deleting your copy.

We should be taking offline copies every now and then. Digwuren 19:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Working in Digwuren's page is absolutely fine with me, I simply got confused by so many others. And that one indeed is the best by all standards. (I'll want to read around for a few days before contributing, though, in order to make myself an idea of what I can do; also I'm a little busy off-WP) Taking offline coppies is obviously a good idea. (I'll also do it from time to time.) But I'll keep the one restored in my userspace for a completely different reason - it has the signature of the person who deleted the article, so noone can accuse us of working (editting) stuff "decided to be deleted". You are absolutely right, WP is not a friendly environment, but rather than throughing away a stick that comes to my hand, I'd prefer simply putting it in the bag. :-) User talk:Moreschi also has evdence that we are not trying to push a POV, since he himself says there we are welcome to continue working on the material and come up with a better article. Anyway, thanks for saving the page and for starting the article.:Dc76 19:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of confusion to be avoided. :)

Better, hopefully.

Take all the time you need. We were in a kind of hurry during the AfD, to get the article into a persistable condition within the five days allotted for discussion. This rush is now over, and everybody can pay more attention to quality and less to getting-this-thing-out-of-door-soon.

I believe that the primary reason User:Moreschi closed the discussion the way he did was that he believed the content of the article did not fit the topic, and he may have felt the definition of topic was poorly sourced. The content issues were an artefact of my hesitating in renaming the article during the AfD, but User:Moreschi has now confirmed it should not have been an issue, and I checked the appropriate policy, too. The poor sourcing of the intro shouldn't really have been an issue, but as it was, it, too, was an artefact to constrain the article into a scope that wasn't appropriate. Both of these issues can be remedied.

What can't be remedied is that no matter how good this article will be, a number of editors *will* decry it. This needs to be considered; special care should be taken to avoid any appearance of POVishness. When we're at the place where every reasonable reader of the article will consider it obviously neutral, this alone will discredit the die-hard "You nazi!" screamers.

Oh, and one more thing. As it turned out, the AfD got canvassed on the Russian Misplaced Pages noticeboard, with a direct call towards voting for deletion. In interests of avoiding any reasonable-sounding claims of coverup, or stealth, in reintroducing this article, I suspect that when we do, we should deliberately announce this reintroduction on the same forum. It is unlikely that it will influence the AfD unless we really screw up, but it'll hopefully give the article a better and more open footing. Digwuren 21:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Soviet occupation denialism article

Userfied here: User:Digwuren/Soviet occupation denialism Herostratus 23:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It could be a rather good idea to not waste the good work and to use much of the text and references from this (previous) standalone article in other articles about the 1940 Soviet invasion of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and about the subsequent 1940-1991 Soviet occupation of these three nations. Cheers, --3 Löwi 17:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The talk page you also asked for has been userfied at User:Digwuren/Talk:Soviet occupation denialism. Let me know when you're done with it. AKRadecki 05:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Territorial changes of the Baltic states

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Territorial changes of the Baltic states. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

Also, please do not call other users vandals, as you did in this edit summary. -- Petri Krohn 12:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Congress of Estonia

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Congress of Estonia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. -- Petri Krohn 12:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethnocracy

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ethnocracy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. -- Petri Krohn 19:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor footnote: To "hold citizenship" certainly sounds better, however, to "possess citizenship" is not completely incorrect either. For a "legal precedent" (well, in fact, just the quickest Google result I came across) see, e.g., http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/02D0352P.pdf Compliments, --Klamber 21:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. Digwuren 06:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

re: Duplicate RfDs

No problem. You're welcome. -- JLaTondre 18:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)