User talk:Digwuren/Archive 2

Archive

1. User talk:Digwuren/Archive 1

Bulgaria vote

Might I ask you to put in the word Oppose, just so there's no confusion for the deciding administrator as to how you're voting? Thank you. Biruitorul 21:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out; somehow, I missed that standard voting customs apply in RMs, even though they're held on talk pages. Digwuren 22:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, great. Also, sorry for removing the Ceauşescu information rather abruptly, but it is indeed the case that the Romanian Orthodox Church uses the Revised Julian calendar, on which Christmas is December 25th. I suppose that's not so well-known, and you and K. Lastochka certainly didn't deserve Anonimu's customary personal attacks. Biruitorul 01:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grazon —SlamDiego_←T 07:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Socks and Feet

If you are a centipede, then you need many socks and are to be feared, but if you are a millipede then you need even more socks but are innocuous. —SlamDiego_←T 12:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Taken into account. Digwuren 13:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Pip Utton

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Pip Utton, by Hu (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Pip Utton seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Pip Utton, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 13:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't do that

Digwuren, please don't make any further edits like this. Users are within their rights to remove posts on their talkpages. If they do, it counts as evidence that he/she has read the messge, which is what it's for. Putting it back is not your business, whether or not it came from an administrator. Altogether, be careful and considerate when editing other people's user talk pages, please. Make sure you avoid user space harassment. Ask yourself: am I adding information that the user wants or needs? Because the only single legitimate use of the user talk page is constructive communication with the user. It's not a noticeboard for displaying stuff that you think other people need to see. WP:NOT a battleground. Bishonen | talk 09:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC).

Estophilia

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Estophilia, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ChrisLamb 15:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren, your creation of Estophilia seems to be a clear example of employing WP:Point tactics. I am certain the article will be deleted, as in English such term is almost never used (11 Google hits).

Making WP:Point edits can be fun, but in the end it is quite counterproductive, and it negatively impacts your credibility as a serious Wikipedian. Most people can see right through it, and they don't appreciate it much. Take my friendly advice, and never do things like this in the future. Balcer 19:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren, I did not understand your edit summary when you removed my prod of Estophilia. If I understand your summary correctly, it seems you are dismissing the WP:POINT guideline as being fundamentally incorrect. WP:POINT is very much accepted by the Wikipedia community. If you feel that the creation of Estophilia was not an example of WP:POINT, please clarify, because I did not get that interpretation from your edit summary.

I have created a section on the talk page to discuss this matter. Also note I will probably nominated the article for an AfD discussion soon. --Jaysweet 19:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm implying that you're reading into Estophilia ideas that are not there. Digwuren 19:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar of National Merit

The Barnstar of National Merit

		The Barnstar of National Merit
		For excelent contributions related to Estonia ChrisLamb 16:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Noe

Hi. Please avoid commenting at User talk:RJ CG at the time being. Let admins deal w/ that. Otherwise you'd be blocked according to WP:HARASS. Thanks. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean 'Note'. :-) Digwuren 17:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

To be done

Bronze Soldier of Tallinn

• part of the concerns presented in [1] are addressed by /Eesti Päevaleht April 30, 2007: Pronkssõdur on uues kohas!, edited by Aivar Pau/

• in the same context, /Postimees June 8, 2007: Riigikohus jättis sõjahaudade kaitse seaduse jõusse/ reporting a ruling of Riigikohus is also relevant

• Interesting details for Bronze Soldier of Tallinn are presented in /delfi.ee April 27, 2007 7:10: Pronkssõdur on ära viidud/

Estophilia

Draft

To be written.

Sources

'Georg Julius von Schultz (Dr. Bertram), 1808-1875. Possibilities and Limitations of Estophilia among the Baltic Germans in the 19th Century', by Johann Gottfried of University of California. Printed in 'Zeitschrift für Ostforschung'. [2]

'1710–1850. The Baltic Landesstaat. Emergence of national consciousness and Estophilia' by Estonica [3]

'F.R. Faehlmanni estofiilia: sihid ja retseptsioon' (Estonian for 'Estophilia of F. R. Faehlmann: goals and reception'), a PhD thesis by Kristi Metste: ERIS entry

How Estonian literary culture was born, by Ea Jansen of Estonian Institute [4]:

“ The era of the turn of the nineteenth century and its first couple of decades can be termed the epoch of "Estophilia",i.e. Estonian national awareness, and was imbued by the ideas of the Enlightenment. ”

The History of Estonian People, by Evald Uustalu of University of Michigan [5]:

“ An Estophil movement believing in the possibility of a native Estonian culture added fuel to the gradually smouldering national feeling. ”

Crafts and Arts in Estonia, by Estonica: [6]

“ By the time the Estophile Baltic Germans and later the first Estonian linguists and ethnographers began taking an interest in the old writings of the county people, they were often presented with 'popular' pseudo-interpretations instead of the genuine traditional meanings. Provided the scholars' 'new-way-of-writing' background and their informants' 'old-way-of-writing' background would have allowed for any reciprocal understanding at all. ”

Notable Estophiles

• Otto Wilhelm Masing
• Georg Julius von Schultz aka Dr. Bertram

Remarks

• It may be necessary to point out explicitly that due to the heavy German influence of the period, Estophilia is referred to as 'Estophil movement' even in English by some authors.
• Estonica lacks an article. It should be created, and pointed out that Tiigrihüpe was among its sponsors.
• Estonica's content is under a Creative Commons license. Some reuse may be possible.

Blocked for your tendentious editing an edit warring at Anti-Estonian sentiment

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Anti-Estonian sentiment is not a recreation of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estophobia. Rather, it's an attempt at new start.

First of all, it's created as a stub, and it does not incorporate the text from the deleted article. (I have specifically stated this as intentional in [3], by the way.) Secondly, the reasons listed for deletion under closure, WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, are unapplicable since the article does not contain any research-level content yet, original or otherwise. Thirdly, the consensus during AfD was that the concept exists and is notable, albeit presented problematically; by a fresh start, this concern is addressed. And fourthly, by avoiding the -phobia term in favour of a simple phrasing, the (misplaced) concern of WP:NEO is addressed.

The charge in the log differs from the charge listed above; the latter also claims edit warring at Anti-Estonian sentiment. Seeing [4], I respectfully disagree with this classification, and request an explanation.

As for the charge of tendentious editing, I believe I can refute it, but I would need to know the specifics. Digwuren 19:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

History of disruptive editing and edit warring. The AfD makes clear that the concept itself was held to be original research, barring reliable sources discussing the topic itself. Additionally, the stub was simply the lede from the deleted article, only changed to reflect the new article name. — Vassyana 03:59, 17 July 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.

I've only spotted two reverts at the article mentioned. What policy permits this block again? — Alex^(U|C|E) 20:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR does not require a "full" violation of 3RR. "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive." (emphasis in original) Vassyana 03:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The vote on the AfD was almost evenly split between keep and delete, so I don't see how you could say the "AfD makes clear that the concept itself was held to be original research" Martintg 03:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Consensus not numbers. Vassyana 21:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting piece

Sorry to see you blocked for so long, especially as your new article seemed different from Estophobia. Ah, well. Meanwhile, this article may interest you, particularly the description of Russia as "fascist". While this is an opinion piece, we should keep our eyes open for scholarly works also labelling Russia in this way, and perhaps incorporate that term into our articles on the country. Biruitorul 02:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in last week's Eesti Ekspress' op-ed by Priit Hõbemägi. It's titled Russia is a fascist state, and it's available (in Estonian) at [7]. If necessary, I think I can translate it; it's not too long. Digwuren 01:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a provocative (but apt) title. Do give us a flavour, if not the whole thing. Biruitorul 02:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"Ms. Tlisova's food was poisoned (causing a nearly fatal case of kidney failure), her ribs were broken by assailants unknown, her teenage son was detained by drunken policemen for the crime of not being an ethnic Russian, and agents of the Federal Security Services (FSB) forced her into a car, took her to a forest outside the city of Nalchik and extinguished cigarettes on every finger of her right hand, "so that you can write better," as one of her tormentors informed her.".

This appears to be a quotation of the article For the Sake of One Man by Bret Stephens from Wall Street Journal of Tuesday, July 17, 2007. Unfortunately, the whole article is not available, but the lead is here. Digwuren 01:19, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It is available (at least for me) at the link I gave above. Biruitorul 02:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Biruitorul, this is obvious. Nalchik means she is Cherkessian. Cherkessian, according to the domminant view in Russia now, means terrorist and wakhabist, or at the very least supports them. And terrorist and wakhabist means you can shoot, or at the very least extinguish cigarets. Everything is "logical".:Dc76\^talk 16:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It may be obvious, but not to some here, who importantly for the rest of us, appear determined to conceal the truth about Putin's Russia. Biruitorul 07:58, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

And more: [8]. The evidence mounts. Biruitorul 02:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Your RfC

Your RfC still needs work. For a start, you need to actually fill it in. Secondly, you need to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct otherwise it's unlikely to ever get any comments. --Deskana (talk) 17:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of that, and working to rectify this incompleteness. Digwuren 17:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)