User talk:Sander Säde/Archive 2

About your comments on User talk:Staffwaterboy

Hey, it'd be great if you could make sure not to bite newbies. Merely for the sake of information, it has been decided that it is okay to blank and not archive user talk messages. If especially disruptive, it might be questionable, but there's no reason to assume bad faith here. Gracenotes^T § 22:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It might be okay to delete regular chat - but warnings are there for a reason. Those should not be removed. DLX 06:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

They shouldn't? Eh, there was a proposal about that, but it was rejected. I think that Staffwaterboy hardly removed everything in bad faith; and there is no evidence that he did so. Gracenotes^T § 15:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, tbh I thought they should be there, esp. as he had filed a request to become an administrator... DLX 16:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Pronkssõduri artikkel

Kuna asun Kanadas ja meil juba öö käes, ehk hoiad sellel Petri Krohnil silma peal et ta vargsi jälle juba lahendatud asju ilma tsitaatideta revertima ei kukuks. Homme võtan jälle öise vahetuse. Unigolyn 06:33, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll try. As this is English Wikipedia, please use English in talk pages as well... DLX 06:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Will do, confused this with a U2U. Unigolyn 06:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi DLX. Please just take a look at [1] 213.219.81.61 06:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Reported to WP:ANI, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User page of User:Kuban kazak. Next time please do the reporting yourself, administrators will review incidents the same way if they come from anonymous editors. However, I recommend registering to Wikipedia. DLX 07:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Muutsin mõningaid Krohni isiklikke seisukohti ses artiklis. Aga olgem valvel!!90.190.56.10 08:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Rehabilitation of SS war criminals

Look, buddy, don't try to tell me that the Estonian government has never tried to rehabilitate SS figters, war criminals, Nazi lackeys...It is proven that they did. In 2004 the Estonian government opened a monument to Estonians who "fought" in Waffen-SS in the rural area of Lihula (which was taken down several days after). In 2006 the government opened another monument to "SS fighters" from all over Europe (Norwegian, Belgium, Neatherland, etc.). The Kingdom of Belgium sent a note to Tallinn, forbiding to raise Belgium's flag on the monument's opening day. Now let's dig in history. The Nuernberg Tribunal officially labelled SS and its spin-offs as criminal organizations. This meant (and still means) that every member SS is/was/will be a war criminal. Do you know the fate of SS "veterans" in Northern and Western Europe? They lived out their days in shame and disgrace! Forsaken by all, cursed by all, hated by all...

Now let's return to the present. A state does not put monuments in honour of criminal organizations (can you imagine the US building a monument to Charles Manson's cult?). The existance of the monument to Waffen-SS has only one explanation. And do you know what the explanation is?Dimts 12:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't believe Russian propaganda. Monument of Lihula was dedicated "To Estonian men who fought in 1940-1945 against Bolshevism and for the restoration of Estonian independence.", depicting Wehrmacht-like (not SS - and no visible German/Estonian/Nazi identifications) uniform. SS or Nazis are not mentioned or depicted. Also, note that there were no Estonians in SS-proper, only Waffen-SS. Government of Estonia has publicly condemned acts against humanity by both communists and nazis. Hopefully, one day, Russian government will do the same... then it might be more convincing, though, if two thirds of neo-Nazis in the world wouldn't live in Russia.

As for your second mention of "another monument" then could you please come up with some sources? I don't know of such monument nor does googling give me any mentions of that. Very likely I would have heard of this, so I am going to write it off as another shameful propaganda attempt by Russia. DLX 12:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It's located in some place called 'Sinimäe'.Dimts 12:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you probably mean a place called Sinimäed (plural, not singular). There was raised a small memorial with no Nazi/Communist/other symbolics whatsoever (well, excluding Christian, as it is a cross in stone circle) on year 2000 (not 2006), with simple dedication "For the fallen". It was raised there in hopes for it to become a place where veterans in both sides - Red Army and Waffen SS - could peacefully meet. I have no idea what is happening there now, but I know that on first few years Estonian veterans on both sides held meetings there - peaceful affairs where they put flowers on the nearby graves and sung wartime songs, all Russian, Estonian and German. I couldn't find a decent picture of the memorial, but there is one here, rather small, unfortunately. DLX 12:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The picture's fine. OK, I probably mistook Estonia for Latvia and got locations mixed up. Well, thanks for the new info. Good luck.

P.S Sorry, submitted an unsigned post.Dimts 13:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC) 13:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. By the way, would you be interested in helping me with the article Khimki War Memorial? DLX 13:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, pal, can't help you there. I've never heard about that memorial before.I'm from Denmark. I only remembered the whole monument thing because I saw the clashes between the police and protesters in Tallinn on Euro News.

P.S I mostly edit culture-related articles (fictional universes, fictional characters,etc.). Dimts 13:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Estonia hate speech

Hi, I reported it again. Hopefully User:Coelacan can't endlessly defend such people. 193.40.5.245 12:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure it is needed - although the admin in question... I do not agree with his decision at all. DLX 12:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

(after reading your reporting) Could you please tone it down a bit, no one like to be "yelled" in caps and red color, that is hurting your otherwise valid complaint rather badly. Always show yourself as calm and composite, that way your chances in these matters are always better. Also, create a user for yourself, anon IP's are not highly regarded. DLX 12:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Reverts on Khimki War Memorial

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.

You have made four reverts: [2] [3] [4] [5]. And threaten me with administration here: [6]. Lantios 18:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not "threaten", I merely stated the fact that 3RR needs to be reported. And that I did. Also, my first edit in your list was not a revert of {{POV}}, as you can plainly see. Threatening is something what Russians have done to me recently, "We'll kill you and your family, you nazi pig" (for speaking Estonian). DLX 18:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for violating 3RR on Khimki War Memorial. You may resume editing after the block expires, but continued edit warring will result in longer blocks without further warning. Kafziel ^Talk 18:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment Note, that first "revert" actually isn't a revert and rest are responses to User:Lantios reverts. See topic above ([7]) and also his message on my user page [8] where he accuses me of "threatening him with administrators", while my intention was to give obvious new user some breathing room before reporting him. He has not shown goodwill or been reasonable on talk page of the article in question. DLX 19:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't excuse your edit warring. If you wanted to set a good example for a new user, that's certainly no way to go about it. I suggest you read the WP:3RR policy: the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day. Reverts don't have to be identical; the first edit had the same effect as all the others: you removed the POV tag. The fact that you replaced it with something else you liked better doesn't mean it wasn't a revert. Kafziel ^Talk 19:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not "liked better", also that wasn't revert, as you can see. If I would have thought of it as revert, I would not broken 3RR, as you obviously think I did - I am well aware of the rule and carefully avoid breaking it. The "POV" tag (in any form) was totally unsubstantiated, ie no reasons given in the talk at all. See my messages on the talk page of the article and how I tried to make User:Lantios see that he has to give valid reason for the POV tag. As soon as some (although maybe not totally valid) reasons were given, I went along with the tag. In any case, I request blocking of User:Lantios as well, since he was breaking 3RR, like I said in my report of him. DLX 19:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you're "well aware" of 3RR, then you should know that you can break it even if you only revert 3 times. But you did revert four times here: the {{POV}} and {{totally disputed}} tags are essentially the same, and their removal has essentially the same result. Same result = revert, no matter how you do it. Kafziel ^Talk 19:18, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully you will assume good faith and be fair. In any case, wasn't I supposed to get warning before my (supposed) 4th revert? As you can see, I have never been blocked for 3RR (and only block I ever had was overturned), therefore I was clearly supposed to be warned first and the report is invalid unless it is done ("Administrators are unlikely to block a user who has never been warned."). DLX 19:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just wikilawyering. A warning is not required in this case; as you yourself say, you were well aware of the rule. You warned another user about it, in fact. No warning needed. Kafziel ^Talk 19:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am. I do feel that the block is unjustified - and it is obvious that you didn't check if I have ever been warned of 3RR or broken it before. Isn't being fair in wikiadmin "job description"? DLX 19:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, it isn't. But I am being fair here anyway. You wanted me to block a new user who was never warned. So either your report of him was in bad faith, or the fact that you got blocked without warning (when you clearly were aware of the policy) is more than fair. Kafziel ^Talk 19:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• shrug* Have it your way if you want, you have the power. Fair would have been to warn me, perhaps, especially as you can obviously see that I am an established (1000+ edits) user, who hasn't broken any wikipedia rules, ever.

Perhaps it is time to abandon Wikipedia or restart with a new user. Things like that take away all the fun from editing Wikipedia. DLX 19:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia can be fun, but it's not my primary concern. This is an encyclopedia first, and edit wars discourage new users and compromise the integrity of our articles. Remember: discussion should take place before reverting, not during a series of reverts. And discussion is a two-way street. Make a statement on the talk page, wait for a reply, reply to that, wait for another reply, etc. Edit summaries are for summarizing your edits, not for leaving comments to justify your fourth (or even third) revert in a row.

I am unblocking you now, because I think you understand. It's extremely rare for me to unblock someone, so please don't make me regret it. Kafziel ^Talk 19:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. My IP was apparently still auto-blocked, but quick cable modem restart helped with that. But I think I will still take a short wiki-break, at least from editing actively. Creating and editing Bronze Soldier of Tallinn showed me that willing Wikipedians can still create very good and NPOV articles, even when topic is as controversial and hotly debated, as that one was. However, pointless and silly edit war with Lantios reminded me how petty, bad-willed and unreasonable users can be, so I'll refrain from major edits until my normal sarcastic attitude has managed to restore itself. DLX 04:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I hope you won't be gone for too long. You seem like a good editor, and we actually have similar interests (I've written several articles about military statues and memorials as well). I know editing can be stressful at times, but just remember that there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. Everything will work itself out for the best if you're patient. Kafziel ^Talk 15:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I actually couldn't stay away from Wikipedia very long... you know how addictive it is  ;). However, to be on the safe side, I won't edit Khimki War Memorial for a while. DLX 15:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever thought of joining the Military history WikiProject? You could make some good contacts for input and advice in situations like this, and you might find gaps in our articles that you could fill. We do a lot of good work over there. Kafziel ^Talk 16:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll look into it - unfortunately I am unsure how much time I have for Wikipedia in near future. Last few days were relatively free for me, but going back to work tomorrow... DLX 16:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No pressure. I know Wikipedia doesn't pay very well. :)

Anyway, just something to think about. Take care! Kafziel ^Talk 16:24, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Restoration_of_Estonian_independence

Seems that one of our friends is up for his own interpretation of history [9]84.50.35.254 18:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, put it to my watchlist as soon as he created it. There isn't snowball's chance in hell that his article can ever become a part of mainspace, but it is interesting to watch and see how biased he can be. DLX 03:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edits in Dmitri Linter

Dear DLX, please provide your explanations on tagging Dmitri Linter article as POV on its talk page. I would like to note that your POV tagging in the article you don't like personally without any explanations could be considered as Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. Your position that only Estonian sources are reliable contradicts to Wikipedia WP:RS policy and may well become the reason for RfC on you. Vlad fedorov 12:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read what I wrote to talk page of the article, then. As of now there are several suspicious/wrong facts, see the reference to article in Den Za Dnjom that is the source for other Russian newspapers/sources and rest of my talk. I have explained POV there, you haven't rexplained your removal of the tag (you broke 3RR, by-the-way). Why do you want to have known lies in an article? DLX 12:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't break 3RR, believe me or just read 3RR noticeboard for your education purposes. As for your labelling of all Russian sources as unreliable you should really consult WP:RS policy. You over-generalization conclusions based on one Russian tabloid case are hilarious. Please explain on the talk page which sentence, word in the article is lie, provide neutral, reliable sources (translations if needed) and we would discuss everything like normal civilized people. But, please, do not trigger your edit machinegun. Believe me, if you would provide anything neutral and reliable, no one would disturb you. As long as you tag or edit without any explanations (I mean by explanations not your words or POV, but neutral and reliable sources), a lot of people would disagree with you. Vlad fedorov 12:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear DLX, please be very careful here. I personally had a lot of trouble in this regard. You may take a look here [10] and here Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Vlad fedorovBiophys 14:56, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also you may wish to consult Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Biophys and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:AN/3RR#User:Biophys_reported_by_User:Vlad_fedorov_.28Result:_24_hrs.29. You also may look at Biophys log of blocks. Vlad fedorov 15:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I left a long reply, fully cited, to article talk page. If you do not agree with it, then you must accept {{POV}} tag on the article, as it does not have both views to arrest of Dmitri Linter. DLX 15:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

DLX, just a quick word of advice. Planting templates at talk pages of the established users [11] is counterproductive and rarely achieves the result you want. People get ticked off when communicated with templates which brings only the further aggravation of edit conglicts. Please consider using a human language. --Irpen 17:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Another quote from Sonin

а хочешь, маленький эстонский друг, эти слова Сонина тоже поставим в статью? "В связи с происходящим в Эстонии варварством - и в части того, что происходит с памятником (я считаю, что даже если большинство хочет памятник снести, это обязанность хорошего правительства - найти решение, которое не оскорбило бы меньшинство), и в головах у эстонских журналистов (редакционная статья в популярной газете совершенно позорная), и в действиях полиции по отношению к демонстрантам - так вот, в связи с этим варварством предлагается много разных мер. Эмбарго, блокада, отказ от покупки эстонских товаров, ... Заставить их платить за нашу боль и гнев." http://ksonin.livejournal.com/90508.html Beatles Fab Four 20:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dont try to fool me

DLX, i have been there, i took part in the arguments so don't try to fool me. Your comments were really ennoying because they were full of lies you wrote to make you feel better about your nationality. He already became a good editor, he deleted lies you wrote. He fought against vandalism, because you writing lies in articles is vandalism. My sources are the most real sorces in the world, my family in which everybody fought for the USSR at The Great Patriotic War 1941-1945, and those who were under Nazi occupation and saw it all. M.V.E.i. 16:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Please, let us keep discussion in one place. I replied to your baseless accusations on your talk page, here: [12]. DLX 17:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you!

You wanted links prooving Estonians ans the rest of the balric states killed Jews? Some links are given to you by me on the Bronze Liberator of Tallinn talk page. M.V.E.i 18:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:MIRC scripts editor.png

Hello, DLX. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:MIRC scripts editor.png) was found at the following location: User:DLX. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:OmenServe.png

Hello DLX, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:OmenServe.png) was found at the following location: User:DLX. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not readd the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Just to let you know, your mediation case has been changed to open. Jac _roe 01:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully my dialog with Lantios has reached a point where he will come up with a fact or two to support his position. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 06:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in that discussion - as you can see, my recent edits to Wikipedia have been dealing with far worse people, then in that mediation. Although, it seems like a three-headed hydra - cut one head off and three more will spring up - see this, for example. Or this, this and pretty much every other edit by that user (my favourite is "Besides, USSR never killed Baltic people (Except at World War 2, but that were Baltic Nazis killed, there not considered people" - (my bold) shows perfectly with what kind of people we are dealing with). Just... makes me disgusted, sad and feeling hopeless. DLX 07:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Your quote is a perfect example. Lavrov's in the news again denonuncing Estonia and the Baltics for conspiring to rewrite history, sucking in the entire western world--when it was Lavrov himself who was negotiating on behalf of the central Soviet to acknowledge the illegality of Soviet presence in the Baltics (and then the putsch came, cutting that negotiation short). The problem isn't even the lies, it's that Russia has now so closely equated its self-worth to Soviet era (and specifically "anti-Nazi") glorification that to say anything negative about the Soviet Union is a personal affront to all people of Russian heritage. It's a geopolitical cancer.

    Never feel hopeless! I have been slogging it out for some time now over occupation, often feeling the same as yourself--and then folks like Martintg, Constanz (who has given up the fight, sadly), and you join in. (Nor is this just a Baltics problem.) My way of coping is to simply get away from the topic for a month or two (as long as there was someone in the fray holding up the anti-Soviet propaganda part of the argument).

    I have recently picked up some more reference materials which have citations going back to the League of Nations, etc., which should prove useful. I expect to finally go back and put in citations for the Occupation of Latvia article after the U.S. Latvian Song Festival (so, starting sometime toward the end of July).

    This is a battle for the long term--by definition, minimally, until Russia changes its official position on Baltic "non-occupation" and "discontinuity" of the Baltic republics. You did know you were in this for the long term, no? :-)  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree. Putin is currently trying to draw Russia together and boost their ego by glorifying Soviet Union - and its only really notable achievement, victory in WWII - while demonizing anyone who doesn't agree. Also, a good way to draw attention from things happening locally (censoring newspapers, journalists getting murdered, ex-KGB more then 30% of leaders and so on) to "enemies" of the Russia. Can you see parallels with another age and country, perhaps? DLX 06:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And sadly, even some editors who otherwise do good work (I am thinking of Petri K. in particular), who as far as I know have no Russian ties, believe that any denial of Eastern European liberation by the Soviets = hate talk, Nazism, Holocaust denial, etc. (not enough energy to do all the diffs...). After the Latvian song festival, etc. are done with (July), I am considering writing a fresh article on the basis for Soviet occupation of the Baltics in a point/counterpoint format. I've gathered enough references that I can probably cover most of the points. The only way to refute Baltic occupation denial is to get all the information out into the open. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

That article might be a good idea, especially if you have extremely good sources (not newspapers or articles - history books, government documents and so on). As for Petri K., I think he has a personal grudge against Baltics/Estonia. See his edit history, in other topics he is perfectly normal and good editor - but when it comes to Baltics, he pushes POV rather badly (usually ends with someone coming up with an indisputable source and he is forced to back down). DLX 16:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I have started an article on Soviet occupation denialism. Digwuren 13:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Where are you?

Maybe you didn't see my answer to you, then come in [here]. M.V.E.i. 21:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Ref. removal

You said the source doesn't contain the text I put in the Fascism in Estonia article. [13] If you read more closely from the middle of the second paragraph, you will find it. see --TheFEARgod (Ч) 11:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right, my bad. However, you just cannot copy & paste the sentence, that violates copyright - you must reword it. Also, the claim is somewhat dubious (see History of the Jews in Estonia), but Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. DLX 11:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ülo Jõgi

Hi there, Did Jõgi coordinate the resistance with (unofficial) assistance from Finland? Camptown 10:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

No idea, but see Kova sotilaskilpailu kantaa maineikkaan virolaisen tiedusteluryhmän nimeä and Saksa okupatsioon 1941-44 - both of them have some information about Ülo Jõgi. Also, this is a nice quote:

Ernalainen Ülo Jõgi kertoo saaneensa varmasti Suomen armeijan lyhimmän laskuvarjokoulutuksen. Lentokoneen ovella hänelle kerrottiin mitä hihnoja laskuvarjossa on ja missä asennossa sillä pitää tulla maahan. Koneen sisällä varjon pakkolaukaisuhihna kiinnitettiin seinälenkkiin ja osoitettiin luukkua lattiassa sekä kerrottiin, että kun summeri soi niin sitten mennään.

(I hope you understand Finnish) DLX 10:14, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Ehh... NO! :D BTW, practically all similar assistance from Sweden failed due to Soviet infiltration within the Swedish ranks. Maybe the Finns kept Moscow informed about Jõgi's doings as well... --Camptown 10:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Can't access wikipedia

When you say you can't access wikipedia from that IP, do you mean you are blocked from editing or that you cannot access it at all? --Selket ^Talk 18:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Not at all - I was able to access www.wikipedia.org, but not en.wikipedia.org or et.wikipedia.org. Pinging just gave me:

C:\Documents and Settings\Sander>ping en.wikipedia.org

Pinging rr.knams.wikimedia.org [145.97.39.155] with 32 bytes of data:

Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.

Ping statistics for 145.97.39.155:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 0, Lost = 4 (100% loss)

Same happened starting ~17:00 (4.5h ago) from my work. DLX 18:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... that is almost certainly nothing intentional on Wikipedia's end. You might want to contact the network group. --Selket ^Talk 19:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Asked co-worker to do tracert en.wikipedia.org (we are all connecting through the same proxy - which is the external address, obviously). Showing from 7th jump, nothing interesting before that:

7 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms noe-bb2-ae-0-0.ee.estpak.ee [194.126.97.241]
8 6 ms 6 ms 5 ms hls-b3-link.telia.net [213.248.99.69]
9 * * * Request timed out.
10 12 ms 12 ms 12 ms s-b3-link.telia.net [213.248.66.2]
11 13 ms 13 ms 12 ms cable-wireless-118901-s-b3.telia.net [213.248.67.174]
12 41 ms 40 ms 40 ms so-5-2-0-dcr2.amd.cw.net [195.2.2.49]
13 40 ms 41 ms 41 ms so-5-0-0-bcr1.amd.cw.net [195.2.10.29]
14 42 ms 41 ms 43 ms surfnet2.amd.cw.net [208.173.211.198]
15 44 ms 45 ms 44 ms v1-13-1-1601.xsr01.amsterdam1a.surf.net [145.145.22.101]
16 * * * Request timed out.
17 * * * Request timed out.
18 * * * Request timed out.
19 * * * Request timed out.
20 * * * Request timed out.
21 * * * Request timed out.
22 * * * Request timed out.
23 * * * Request timed out.
24 * * * Request timed out.
25 * * * Request timed out.
26 * * * Request timed out.
27 * * * Request timed out.
28 * * * Request timed out.
29 * * * Request timed out.
30 * * * Request timed out.

Trace complete.

Want to bet that if our external IP changes, we could access WP normally again - same as it was for myself at home? I have my suspicions, but as I cannot prove anything, so just more conspiracy theories again... DLX 23:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/DLX. Why engage in sockpuppetry? Can't you just edit like everyone else? --Irpen 05:01, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know of the checkuser - however, Digwuren is not my sockpuppet - or anyones, as far as I know. And don't engage in sockpuppetry - never have and never will. I just edit like everyone else. DLX 05:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

See my reply there. And I am waiting for your apology afterwards. DLX 05:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, my ISP is Starman. Digwuren 06:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

In that case it should be easy to clear this accusation, which smells... funny. Why would an administrator request checkuser out of the blue? I wonder if a certain Finn is behind this... I wouldn't like to think this about Irpen, who until now has seemed to be reasonable and good editor. DLX 06:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Likely. Selket is the admin who handled Petri Krohn's WP:3RR block; see User talk:Petri Krohn#Three revert rule. My best guess is that the latter complained about stalking in response of the block, and added the accusation of sockpuppetry, which the admin then checked out, this delusion possibly generated throught the idea that since you were the one to report him, you must have done so in revenge for blocking a sockpuppet. :-/ I have no other ideas, as this is the only place I recall Selket's name from. Digwuren 06:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to rain on your conspiracy theory, but no one was behind it except me. I did block Petri Krohn, bud I did not look at what he posted in response until just now. User:Trebor denied his unblock request. I got suspicious after observing some strange patterns on WP:AN3 about Jüri Uluots. Petri Krohn posted Digwuren who was blocked, then DLX posted Petri Krohn who was blocked, then DLX reverted the article. I noticed that there were a lot of shared articles in your recent edit histories, so I looked deeper. Eventually I felt I had enough to go to checkuser. The "likely" but not "confirmed" result I think leaves reasonable doubt. However, I would suggest going easy on the reverts in the future. Try not to use six reverts per day between the two of you -- for that matter try not to use four. Remember that 3RR is a wall, not an entitlement to a certain number of reverts. --Selket ^Talk 06:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Digwuren 06:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well. However, I removed tag from the article first and then asked for explanation on the talk page - after that I saw that my-non-sockpuppet Digwuren was blocked for 3RR. Looking at article history I saw edit war between him and Petri Krohn - with Petri having 4 reverts as well and Petri adding {{totallydisputed}} tag repeatedly without any explanations (which imo are most definitely always required. Would be nice to have some wikirule about that). Since I saw his reporting Digwuren for 3RR after he had done the same as rather unjust, I decided to report him. DLX 07:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

About "there should be a rule": my understanding has been that adding a "deniability" tag such as {{totallydisputed}} or {{npov}} repeatedly without explanation counts as vandalism of the tag abuse kind, as explained at Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types of Vandalism. It's even obvious for somebody not familiar with the particulars of the article, as required by general vandalism rules, so it should not count towards 3RR. Unfortunately, the admins did not agree with my theory, so further wikilobbying will be needed to increase success rates of future wikilawyering on this topic. Digwuren 04:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Undelete

The undelete has been done; as for now, we've got the whole history of the original article, but not the talk page. Should I request the talk page, too? (I kind of expected its restoration to be automatic, and I remember there were useful source links in there.) Furthermore, do you want the article to be moved into your userspace, to replace the backup copy?

I guess we shouldn't be using the article's talk page until we're sure we don't want the old talk page restored. Digwuren 04:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure... those talk page links would be nice to have, but nothing irreplaceable. Otherwise, talk page was pretty worthless, just "It is sooooo POV" trolling. And I think that article can stay to your userspace, but rename it there - we'll start editing it in your userspace. DLX 08:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I already did, to User:Digwuren/Denial of Soviet crimes (undeleted). If this becomes authoritative, I'll remove the extra qualifier, though.

I'll also move for undeletion of the talk page. Digwuren 08:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Eesti Iseseisvuspartei

• The Eesti Iseseisvuspartei is still in action. Look at the page.--62.65.212.9 08:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

That may be so, but the text you added was not suitable for wikipedia. DLX 08:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estland

Please stop! What you are doing is vandalism. ([14], [15], [16])-- Petri Krohn 10:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not. Note that AfD was closed, because Digwuren said "I, the original nominator, have converted the article Estland into a disambiguation page, and thus repurposed it into a useful article according to consensus. Consequently, I hereby withdraw the nomination for deletion.". Older version of Estland that you are trying to restore, is invalid unsourced stub - much better to have disamb. page there. If you want, expand articles Danish Estonia, Principality of Estland, Swedish Estonia, Revel Governorate. Like you said yourself in AfD, "It is extermely difficult to find on-line references to what Estimaa was called in the English language before 1900. Most likely it did not have a name at all, but was referd to by its German (or Russian) name. Also, there do not seem to be much pre-1900 English literature on Estonia, all the references listed in the EB 1911 article are in German, using the name Esthland.". So, an article about Estland clearly should have mentioned that it is an German/Danish/etc name for Estonia and then mentioned it as an area - which current version does, both. Trying to pass current Northern Estonia as Estland is clearly both POV and OR, so please stop that.

As for Eestimaa - like it was stated in AfD by Digwuren, "Estonian "Eestimaa" does not refer only to that North-Estonia administrative unit. Its is still actively used today like "Eestimaa Rahvaliit"="Estonian people's Union", "Eestimaa looduse fond"="Estonian fund for nature" etc. and always Eestimaa=Eesti(Estonia)". There is no one, who would say Eestimaa and mean non-existing administrative unit - Eestimaa is considered to be synonym for Eesti. However, Eestimaa kubermang would mean Revel Governorate. That way it has been for more then a century, see poem by Lydia Koidula, who was born what you would consider Livonia in 1843:

Mu isamaa on minu arm

   Mu isamaa on minu arm,
   kel südant andnud ma,
   sull' laulan ma, mu ülem õnn,
   me õitsev Eestimaa!
   Su valu südames mul keeb,
   su õnn ja rõõm mind rõõmsaks teeb,
   mu isamaa!
   
   Mu isamaa on minu arm,
   ei teda jäta ma,
   ja peaksin sada surma ma
   seepärast surema!
   Kas laimab võõra kadedus,
   sa siiski elad südames,
   mu isamaa!
   
   Mu isamaa on minu arm
   ja tahan puhata,
   su rüppe heidan unele,
   mu püha Eestimaa!
   Su linnud und mull' laulavad,
   mu põrmust lilled õitsevad,
   mu isamaa!

(from [17]).

You can clearly see that she uses motherland/fatherland (isamaa) and Eestimaa interchangeably. DLX 11:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, please see Renata's comment to the AfD, I suspect you missed it: [18]. DLX 11:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't point out 'Eestimaa Looduse Fond' and 'Eestimaa Rahvaliit', Staberinde did. But I fully support him in this. Digwuren 11:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad.. was skimming the AfD for quote that I wanted, didn't look at the author. DLX 12:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello DLX

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please do not delete content from wikipedia without citing the WP(WikipediaPolicy), that you used to determine that the content was inappropriate. I am specifically refering to your recent edit on the "website development" article, where you removed a link to an article on "website development". Please dont be disheartened by this comment, I reviewed some of your edits in wikipedia recently and I can see that you have done some very nice work. Thank you.Amitsoni9999 08:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please add your comments to the bottom of the page, in top you can see '+' sign that automates adding new section to the bottom. I moved it down now.

As for the link, it is to a blog entry, not article - and as for blogs, see WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper). Also, I think that it is your own blog - and therefore adding it as "See also/External links" source to Wikipedia is inappropriate. DLX 08:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

_update I seem to be right about the blog belonging to you:

   Registrant :
   Name: Amit Soni
   Organization: Fortune Space
   Address: 192, Surya Niketan, Vikas Marg Ext., Delhi -110092
   City: Delhi
   State: DE
   Postal Code: 110092
   Country: IN
   Phone: +91.9101121

DLX 08:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Religion and mythology

Hello. I notice that you recently reverted an edit I made to the "religion and mythology" section of the mythology article. Please see my concerns on the article's talk page. (I was in a middle of another edit when you reverted my previous edit, so my new edit caused an edit conflict in which I re-introduced the stuff that you reverted. If you really feel strongly about this, then feel free to revert my edits again. But please see the talk page first.) Thanks! --Phatius McBluff 20:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello - your edits were unsourced and used external link format (like this) instead of regular intrawiki (or wiki-link) format (like this). Please use intrawiki links whenever referring to Wikipedia articles - and also, always cite your sources (see also verifiability). As for the mythology article, I agree with you that it needs a thorough cleanup and at least partial rewrite. DLX 07:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Notice

As you got also added there I think you should know about this.--Staberinde 10:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me, but I already know about it. Good for laugh - especially that one where BFF doesn't get Lord Voldemort reference/joke. DLX 11:24, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Fromdistance

Could you please specify your reasons to call the mobile technology company called Fromdistance 'non-notable' and to suggest that its article should be removed from Wikipedia? Thank you! Psbehm 15:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, that works the other way: Could you please specify your reasons to call the mobile technology company called Fromdistance 'notable' and to suggest that its article should be kept in Wikipedia? Thank you! Sander Säde 10:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

(also, Fromdistance seems to be one of those "dime a dozen" mobile software companies and the article is written like an advertisement, possibly by the owner or workers of Fromdistance.) Sander Säde 10:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I see that the article has been deleted already and I'm not sure if my points make any difference anymore.
Somehow it's quite strange that one can delete whoever's acticle here in Wikipedia and the others have to start convincing as much people as possible in a fear of their article to be gone for good. What I mean is that is see similar scenario here as if you yourself would write an article about major Estonian company like the newspaper Postimees and I would delete it. How would you prove to non-Estonians that it is a 'notable' company? I think here has happened the same: everyone trusted you because why would anyone delete other's article just for fun. I did not write the article about Fromdistance but I did add there some paragraphs according to my knowledge. I happen to live and work in Estonia on IT sector - new media to be precise.
You asked for some references in deletion conversation and I notice that someone had given you some. Among those was a video about Mr. Anssi Vanjoki (Executive Vice President of Nokia) speaking about the company. If you stop to think about it for a second, then how many Estonian companies can you name that would have been included in Nokia's public presentation?
When it comes to references, I don't remember how many and which kind of references were mentioned before but there's many articles in the biggest IT and telecom newspaper in Finland. Unfortunately, those are in Finnish because the newspaper is targeted to Finnish market. These include 'Estonian device management for Nokia Communicator', 'Mobile blogging for music business', 'Everyday life of daycare center to parents through Internet' (same topic in English here) - to mention but a few. This daycare center project alone has received great amount of publicity on all the major (Finnish) television channels, as well in press.
I admit that there's not that many references available in English but I hope that you as an Estonian can understand the language enough to find out that we are not talking about some minor references in Finnish.
Yet, there are also some English articles as this one called Mobile blogging becomes professional reporting.
I remember that you mentioned elsewhere that video blogs cannot be used as a reference. Maybe news about the bands or companies using the solution are valid references? Here is one about Finnish solution for Nightwish and Lordi: Keeping fans hot between tours.
There's even some material in Estonian (which I presume is your mother tongue) but sadly it's part of a blog, so you won't classify it as a reference ;) Here it is anyway: 3G mõtet otsides ('Searching for the idea of 3G').
The article about solution developed for Nokia smartphones and Windows Mobile - of which Mr. Anssi Vanjoki talks about in above-mentioned video - is also available in English here as Fast Forward with the Finnish Mobile Video.
If only you could specify what kind of references you need to prove this company to be 'notable', then it'd be easier to revoke your accusations. --Psbehm 18:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

If you don't have time to check all those references, only one paragraph from one of them (Fast Forward with the Finnish Mobile Video) should be enough to solve this notable vs. non-notable discussion.

The brand new "Reporter" service by the Estonian Fromdistance will be launched to general public in Finland at the end of April 2007 in co-operation with Nokia, Helsingin Sanomat, MTV3 and YLE – the most important TV, radio, print media and Internet publishers of the country.

--Psbehm 22:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Firstly - why didn't you use some of that time it took to write this small essay to actually improve the article during the AfD? Like I and other editors said, we would happily have voted keep when notability is asserted and article rewritten (it did sound like a bad commercial text). If you would have expanded/rewritten the article using itviikko.fi sources, it would very probably have been kept. If you want, re-create the article in your user space (here, in case you don't know how) and move it to mainspace when you think it is ready. However, I hope you are not affiliated in any way with Fromdistance, ie not owner, worker etc - while that isn't forbidden by Wikipedia rules, it is extremely hard to stay objective and therefore not recommended.

Secondly - please note that I did not delete the article. I am not an administrator and not quite sure why you wrote this on my talk page, not AfD discussion. But, however, when you create an article, you don't own it. Anyone can edit it, anyone can post it to speedy delete or AfD. At least one of articles I've created has been deleted, another submitted to AfD but kept.

Also, I still must question if Fromdistance needs a Wikipedia article of its own. The company I work for is quite a lot bigger then Fromdistance, has been mentioned/had articles about in Estonian and Finnish press - quite a lot - but I'd still say it to be not noteworthy enough for Wikipedia.

Sander Säde 05:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that I was away on holiday when you were arguing about the notability. I have no bigger intrest whatsoever to have the article kept in Wikipedia. For me it just sounded weird that articles are removed so easily. You say it's not notable and there's 'dime a dozen' such companies. Then some people outside Estonia start to vote only based on your opinion. My part is that of course I was sad to see that my effort to contribute was removed in few days
When it comes to re-writing the article, I quite sure won't do it. As I said before, I just added some paragraphs according to my own knowledge. Maybe it would be possible to restore the original article and then the author of it could change it to be less commercial. Sure there's some tags to mark it in a way that if he doesn't do it, it would be deleted for good.
I fully agree that the original article could have been better but I don't remember it to be having any commercial aspect. Yet, I might be wrong as well! But isn't there other ways to inform about some lacks than by suggesting the whole article to be deleted? Don't remember when and by whom it was suggested but not by you at least - if I remember right.
The reason for the text to be here rather than on AfD is that when I came from my holiday, I realised that the article is deleted already. And I must admit that I wasn't sure if it makes any point to write there anymore afterwards. Hence, writing here seemed more logical.
I don't know where I got the idea that you are an administrator. Maybe from this Wikigate thing in Estonian media. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about ;) I didn't mean to claim that you deleted the article. What I meant is that your word had much to do with the article being deleted in the first place.
Nevertheless, as I said, I'm not that eager to write the article about the company but would be interested enough to edit it in limitation of my own knowledge. So, is it somehow possible to restore the article back?
In my opinion it's useless to argue which company is bigger than the other. Nokia Estonia has more-or-less 10 employees but I still think it might be notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. As you know for sure it's all about 'notability' not fame or popularity. It sounds that your company is quite notable, so I think it would deserve it's own Wikipedia article. And when I notice it or any other article about Estonian IT company, I'm sure that I will contribute those articles as well!
One thing stays a bit unclear to me: what were your original motives to vote the article to be deleted? Where do you draw the line of notable and non-notable? Personally, I envy the market share that Fromdistance has got in Europe. As said before, it's one of the most notable companies in Northern Europe. And I'm still happy to hear all the more notable IT companies of Nordic Countries or Baltic States working on the same branch (mobile device managent, mobile video blogging).
--Psbehm 10:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit busy right now, so my reply will be rather short - I'll try to do a longer one this evening or tomorrow.

You can ask any admin - but especially the admin who closed the AfD - to restore the article to your userspace. Usually they are very willing to do that, if you ask nicely and explain why you want that. Or you can list the article in Deletion review - but as a rule, unless you have really good reasons and arguments, the article will not be restored.

As for the "Wikigate", then that was waaaaay overblown, imho. Things like that happen in Wikipedia all the time, but usually things get resolved without much hassle - but I guess the mainstream media had nothing better to write about.

Sander Säde 12:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

You might want to say something here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Digwuren_and_Tartu_based_accounts --Alexia Death the Grey 11:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. I'll see tonight if my input/comments are needed. Sander Säde 12:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Doing a little canvassing, aren't we? After accusing yours truly here [19]? Are you familiar at all with prowerb about glass houses and stones? RJ CG 20:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, considering that I am one of those "involved parties" listed by Irpen, I find it more then little weird that he hasn't/didn't notify me. I wonder why.... Sander Säde 03:41, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Notifying an involved party about an Arbcom request is hardly comparable to asking a friendly admin to see see what "our Estonian friends" are up to... But well, your call.--Alexia Death the Grey 05:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt into your friendly chat, but the note was left conspicuously in the thread that you were both clearly watching. Regards, --Irpen 05:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. But the changes in that page are so fast, that it is entirely possible to miss a new development if you are away for a moment and apparently, Sander did not see it, so I saw fitting to leave him a note.--Alexia Death the Grey 06:16, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got no problem with that. --Irpen 06:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fundamental flaw in 3RR and a desire to fix it.

Theres a fundamental flaw in 3RR. It makes numbers matter and makes collaboration a bad thing. I'd appreciate your feedback on the matter as described in my statement at Digwurrens Arbcom request. Is this worth pursuing? --Alexia Death the Grey 07:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have written an essay Accusations of collaboration: 3RR hurts Wikipedia on the matter.--Alexia Death the Grey 20:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know - I read that very nice essay and agree to far most of it. I'll have some comments and suggestion - but after I've had some time to think about this. Is it OK if I comment on the talk page of that essay? Sander Säde 07:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Commenting in the pages talk is very Welcome. I'm waiting for your comments.--Alexia Death the Grey 07:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Would like to thank you for the barnstar. It's always important to know that your work is being appreciated. It's also a very good motivation to keep it up in the future. Thank you! -- BanRay 20:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Lately, every day I've opened my watchlist to see a long list of changes made by you and Walericaz to Estonian football articles - I can only wish that we will get such editors to other Estonia-related topics.

Speaking of which, perhaps it would be worth considering asking some help from Estonian Football Association - help as in asking them to allow using official player bios and images in Wikipedia, using official symbolics and so on? If wrapped in a nice "free promotion of players and teams" blanket when asking, they just might both allow it and get interested as well. Sander Säde 07:17, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring

I have blocked the user who repeatedly added dubious sources and POV phrasing to the Bronze Soldier article. However, the article history certainly looks like an edit war. Please see what you can do to avoid this, such as by asking the other user to suggest controversial changes on the talk page first. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 08:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have tried to discuss this on both article and his talk page. I really do wish Russian editors would discuss instead of warring. And that article could really now use a cleanup by an independant editor(s). Could you please also leave a message to the talk page of the article - ie about the block and warning to stop edit warring? Sander Säde 09:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

Hello,

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 00:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You've also been named as a party. Cbrown1023 talk 23:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Tagging of Power Hit Radio

I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Power Hit Radio. I do not think that Power Hit Radio fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because it asserts a weak claim to notability. I request that you consider not re-tagging Power Hit Radio for speedy deletion without discussing the matter on the appropriate talk page. You are, of course, free to tag the article with {{prod}} or nominate it at WP:AFD. Carlossuarez46 19:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Very well. I was afraid that if it is kept then every third-rate radio station in Estonia will start creating their own articles. I tagged the article with {{Unreferenced}} and {{cleanup}}, also created Category: Estonian radio. Sander Säde 05:40, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

User:IoptaBan

It appears he may have some meatpuppets in User:Chennan Zhua and User:Indoerchan, as well as User:62.181.58.254. Look at their contributions and you will see similarly misleading edit summaries (or none at all for the IP), and edits which involve adding links to nicekit.net. Perhaps an eye should be kept on them. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Add User:JacobMotecky to that list, too. this will prove helpful in the coming days, I would say. --Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 19:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

from Talk:Bronze_Soldier_of_Tallinn#Things_are_out_of_hand_again

RE:Termer, please not that instead of Wikipedia mirror, it is simpler to link directly to the relevant Wikipedia article, or in this case Waffen-SS. Sander Säde 07:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sander Säde I must be slow :-D, I only now got what you meant. But it's simply because jewishvirtuallibrary.org shouldn't be a WP mirror as I've personally added the facts from jewishvirtuallibrary.org to Waffen-SS, the facts that were not there before. Or am I missing something?--Termer 09:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they existed in previous incarnations of the article, until our "friends" deleted parts they didn't like? I have atm no time to search - but some other source would be good in any case. Sander Säde 11:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added other sources long time ago to the section and even if at one point the text at jewishvirtuallibrary.org did originate from WP, everything is according to the facts there, which is not the case with WP very often. Therefore there shouldn't be any questions if the source is a valid ref to use either on WP or anywhere else. In any case, once the text has been published on JWL, has gone through it's own editing, it is the position of the JWL on the issues that can and should be used for confirming any facts on WP. Therefore there shouldn't be any questions I think either JWL is a mirror site of WP or is an independent source that has presented the facts according to their own best knowledge.--Termer 15:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what Termer is trying to say is that even if Jewish Virtual Library used Wikipedia for insight, they didn't rely on it as a source, and used external sources to validate those insights. Giving credit to Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mean it was used as a reliable source, or that mechanical copying occurred. Digwuren 17:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Some more coffee!

File:CupofCoffee.JPG		A cup of strong coffee!
		I, Suva, hereby award you with with a nice cup of strong coffee for continuous work on cleaning up Bronze Soldier of Tallinn. Suva 14:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL, thank you. I need it, as we plan to watch all LoTR movies tonight, extended versions... and I've had hardly any sleep. Sander Säde 15:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

All LoTR movies?! Extended versions?! Good luck, I fell asleep after the first hour of first LoTR movie (extended edition)! :) Suva 21:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, 1.5 movies watched... so far so good... well, DLight with caffeine helps a lot, too... Sander Säde 22:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Estonian Americans

Tere Sander Säde, the List of Estonian Americans has been nominated for deletion. I thought perhaps you may wish to weigh in on this matter, as nearly every other American ethnic group is not listed for deletion. Cheers, ExRat 01:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. At the moment, though, it seems the article is kept as it is. Sander Säde 05:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Baltic States not part of Eastern Europe

Really? I always thought that they were. Can you explain to me why they are not considered part of Eastern Europe? I always understood Europe to end at the Urals.

--Richard 09:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I just read the intro to Baltic States and learned that they are Northern European rather than Eastern European. I learn a lot from Wikipedia. --Richard 09:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

They are often lumped together with either Northern or Eastern Europe. UN Statistics Division considers them to belong to NE, here. However, they do belong to Eastern Bloc, so perhaps that could be used instead of EE in the article? Sander Säde 10:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Estonia Star

		The Estonia Star
		For your outstanding contribution to Estonia related articles Martintg 10:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much! -- Sander Säde 19:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 21 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Haapsalu Castle, 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.

--Carabinieri 13:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Just an idea. I have noticed that at times you welcome the newcomers who are interested in Estonian topics with the standard template. Wouldn't it be better to customize it and add a link to the WikiProject Estonia? Colchicum 19:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea - perhaps post it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Estonia as well? What should the message include? -- Sander Säde 19:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Something very simple, like If you are interested in Estonia-related topics, you are invited to join the WikiProject Estonia. And perhaps a link to the new articles bot. I would also suggest to exclude links to some trivial WP policies to make the template more readable (IMHO notes concerning WP markup, WP:V, 3RR and copyright policies would be enough for the beginning). Colchicum 20:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend taking the standard Welcome template and adding WPE and some related notes to it. Maybe some flag or similar icon aswell to notice that you are actually welcomed by WPE member. Suva Чего? 20:50, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is one: {{et-welcome}}Colchicum 22:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:Apology:

Apology accepted, but one was not needed my friend. I've been called worse things and I wasn't offended in the least, as I didn't feels your comments were made at me anyway. I was just trying to get everyone to try and calm down on what is a trivial issue in the scale of things. Hope you have a great day. :) Spawn Man 04:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Articles

Here are two old articles to be reviewed by WP:E: Alvar and Nigula Nature Reserve. Colchicum 18:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for finding those articles. Alas, I did a small two-day trip on west coast of Estonia this summer - from Paldiski to Pärnu - but I did not take a good picture of alvars there. The best I have to offer is not that good - see this picture - if you think it to be acceptable as an example of alvar (I don't), then I'll upload hi-res version to Wikipedia. -- Sander Säde 18:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Maavägi

Tere! Kas saad öelda mida tuleb lisada, et seal seda kasti ei tekiks-oleks vaj Lingid, artiklid viited vms? Kuidas seda lisada siia? Ma paar päeva wikipedias olnud ei tea seda. Maaväe lehe aga loodan täna valmis teha:P User:Karabinier 14:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please use English in English Wikipedia.

You should read Wikipedia Manual of Style, it explains rather in-depth how to edit an article. Right now Maavägi is a total mess, I left a notice about it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history talk, hopefully someone more knowledgeable about military topics will help you with that article soon.

-- Sander Säde 11:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Response

First, the fact that he arrested leaders of the opposition. well, then what should be done to those who try to lead a minority to take the power? By doing that he protected democracy. And the "election fraud", just like in Ukraine, was a lie. I asked many people, and out of about 30 i asked only one haven't supported Lukashenko. Second, the rich houses you have seen in Minsk are of those who built them in the begining of the 90's, before he became leader. Actually, those who live far from the city live very good. Agrarian economy recives major help fron the government. I've been there a month ago. Shops are full of things, not only that, self-production things. The only ones who escaped Belarus are those who stole money before Lukashenko came to power. About repression of opposition, in music stores there are big posters of N.R.M. (and this band opposes to the government). M.V.E.i. 16:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. I like to keep conversations in one place, please. -- Sander Säde 18:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The idea is exelent, the problem is i dont have knowledge about it in a writing level. You need to turn to user Zscout370. He is one of the only users today creating major-scale Belarus articles here (he's a one-man Belarus WikiProject). M.V.E.i. 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I too like to keep conversations in one place, choose where, on my or your talk page? I dontr mind where so you decide. M.V.E.i. 18:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Let us talk on yours, as most of the discussion is there. -- Sander Säde 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

He agreed

As i promised, i told user User:Zscout370 about you, and on my talk-page he stated he will help in that project you proposed. So now feel free to talk with him on his/yours talk page:-) Good luck. M.V.E.i. 11:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, very good, thank you. -- Sander Säde 05:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful with Revert button

Dear Sander Säde. You removed sourced data about Ganin's attackers being Estonian skinheads. Please restore, otherwise I would be forced to report you for vandalism. Thank you in advance, RJ CG 18:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss your edits in article talk page. There were no "Estonian skinheads" involved, unless some Russian source has invented this. And you might be interested that they were defending the bar that Ganin along with other vandals attempted to loot. It is becoming increasingly clear that Ganin was stabbed by a fellow vandal. Thank you in advance - and over & out for today, as I am sick with flu and will go to bed now. -- Sander Säde 18:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the forensic tools employed by Estonian police are most likely not very useful in rioting situations, due to the overwhelmingly large number of people at the scene. Unless there's a direct video of the stabbing -- and it seems there isn't, or it would have been used by now --, the likelihood of identifying and convicting the stabber is relatively low. Which, in turn, means that the Cartel will want to present the fact of this unsolved murder in the sauce of insinuations against Estonian police for years to come. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 05:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Btw, I think it was actualy you who messed up timezones at Administrators noticeboard. All times seem to be given in Estonian timezone :P --Staberinde 18:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I fixed them yesterday. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 05:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that ones who revert should start the discussion, not ones who added original content. Otherwise it smacks of one side owning the article and issuing persmissions to add information. I kinda understand that living in a country which once deprived third of it's permanent residents of citizenship could give you an idea that one side in discussion has right to issue permissions and other side should quietly obey, but this is not the case on Wikipedia. Every bit of original content need not to be discussed BEFORE adding it. Onus is on one who removes sourced data to explain his/her actions. RJ CG 19:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, if I removed any meaningful NPOV content. However, it seemed that you just moved a portion of text without adding anything there. -- Sander Säde 05:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You failed the masquerade of neutrality where you, contrary to policy invocations by Jimbo himself, attempted to present the stable status quo as "one side". Well, you would have, except that you had done so about a thousand edits ago. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 05:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For this act of kindness towards Ghirlandajo. Clearly, you're a kinder person than me. ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 20:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but unfortunately I cannot accept this. I only said to Irpen, that he shouldn't call Ghirla a troll - as that is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines. Thinking that, as many Wikipedians do, is a totally different matter, since thankfully - despite editors who want to turn Wikipedia into USSR v2.0 - thoughtcrime is still not covered by any guidelines that I know of. -- Sander Säde 08:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I understand. Never the less, it's important for you to know that your approach is appraised approvingly by other editors. :-) Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 18:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Did you know

On 6 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Matsalu National Park , 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.

--Allen3 ^talk 23:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

DR

Did you know... ...that there's a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denial of Soviet occupation going on here?

Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 19:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Game Addiction Entry/Spam Blog

Hi Sander,

this is Re: your thoughts that the one game addiction blog, neilsclark.com is spam. I do admit to being new to Wikipedia, but as someone who is new to researching game addiction also, I found that blog to be a useful research tool. I've should say that I've started this wikipedia account as part of my New Media graduate course, so I'm not completely familiar with whether blogs are always considered spam, but my instructor has led me to believe that Wikipedia tends to promote research tools - especially those that aren't simply promoting one side of the debate. This blog (and its owner, in emails) simply acted as my best lead, even after having read a lot of the research sited on the wikipage. Please get back to me with your thoughts on this, and especially any tips that I need so I don't incur any more wrath. ;) Hawtgrrlirl 00:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello,

the problem with blogs is that they are not reliable sources. As the linked Wikipedia rule states, "Self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." There are specific exceptions to that rule, namely, as WP:SPS puts it: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.". I am unsure about the reliability of Neils Clark as an expert in this matter - Google Scholar does find three matches, but two seem to be short article drafts on his home page and third one is not in a peer-reviewed scientific journal as well, it is in Gamasutra.

Perhaps it would be best to discuss this in article talk page - post a short description of the blog, reasons for including it and notability of the author.

-- Sander Säde 00:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sander. I'll work on something the next time I'm in class.

As long as I forgot to sign my name, I appreciate your direction.

-Hawtgrrlirl 01:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC) (this is a cool way to sign your name)

Rein Lang

If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Rein Lang - please indicate exactly where I added commentary and personal analysis. I have repeatedly tried to neutralize the highly debatable POV statement that the controversy was artificial. The fact that Lang asked the guests to come in period costumes, appears in at least one of the cited sources. Deleting this makes entirely confusing the sentence beginning with "In additional note" because it is not clear to what this note was additional. I am not anti-Lang, I am pro-neutrality and pro-accuracy. This is also why I replaced the highly dubious statement about Lang's "open marriage" with "cohabitation". However, it seems to have been reverted by now :) -- 88.196.103.139 12:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole "period costumes" saga is false. What Lang did was establishing a particular dress code. I'm not expert in those, but I'd figure his proposal was slightly below white tie and somewhat above business casual. In other words, people attending would have been expected to wear suits, but not very formal ones. I suspect you're using mistranslated sources. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 13:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

_{(edit conflict)}"Artificial" has been talked repeatedly over and by several editors - it is artificially created controversy by Russian media, trying to portray Lang as Nazi for watching anti-fascist play. And "poverty, not uniforms" is stressed by several sources, including Rein Lang himself. While the wording could be improved, that fact should not be omitted from the article. -- Sander Säde 13:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The "additional note", by the way, was an addendum to the original invitations. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 18:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If Lang's proposed dress code was "slightly below white tie and somewhat above business casual", why at all would he mention in this context that the 1930s in Germany were characterized by poverty? The source I am referring to is Eesti Ekspress, by the way. As for the artificiality of the controversy - the controversy whether or not Lang is a Nazi is, I admit it, artificial, but the controversy whether this was a clever and resposible way to demonstrate his antifascist sentiments was very real. -- 88.196.103.139 17:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Could you please review the diffs?

Sorry about that; that's what I get for copy-and-pasting too quickly, I suppose.

As for the (remaining) diffs: the general problem in your comments (which you share with a number of other parties, obviously) is that there's a ubiquitous level of inappropriate commentary, particularly accusations, regarding other editors. Consider:

• "... our favorite Estonian-hater couldn't come up with his silly conspiracy theories again..." ([20])
• "I do wonder why he hates Estonia so much" ([21])
• "... that is how you and Irpen work when harassing others" ([22])
• "... nominator should be reported for gross personal attacks, knowingly promoting lies and ethnical hatred" ([23])
• "... your grudges against one ethnic group (I do believe it is called "racism")" ([24])

Can you really say that such comments are conductive to polite, civil discourse? Kirill 12:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I do apologize for them - but not for those concerning Dojarca. Please see his three deletion nominations: 1, 2 and 3. In all three his reasoning is "POV, because created by Estonians"; in fact he fails to give any other reason to deletion except this (note that I am not commenting on the content of articles or template here). I do believe that this behavior violates grossly everything that Wikipedia stands for. -- Sander Säde 12:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC) _{(longer version posted to Kirill's talk)}

Re: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence

You're allowed to add evidence as you wish, regardless of whether voting has started. Whether that evidence will actually change the course of the voting is a different question, obviously. Kirill 14:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Sander Säde 15:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Among the principles passed was At wit's end which states that necessary measures must be adopted by the Arbitration Committee in cases where repeated attempts to stop disruptive disputes have failed. As a result of the case, both Digwuren and Petri Krohn are banned for one year. There has also been a general restriction to all editors working on topis related to Eastern Europe and a warning to all those who may, in the future, attempt to use Wikipedia as a battleground that they may be banned when the matter is reported to the Committee. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

A general clean up

Hi Sander,

It's probably a good time for a general clean up. If you like, you could send me a list of candidates for nomination via email and I can get the ball rolling. Martintg 04:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Good idea - I probably won't have time for that today and I won't be near computer at all tomorrow. So I'll try to see about the articles this weekend. However, in many cases AfD is not needed, only bold editing and merging. -- Sander Säde 05:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, either way. Principality of Estland probably needs attention. Martintg 21:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as well as some other related articles. Termer has been going over these as well, I think. -- Sander Säde 04:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 26 October, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St. Nicholas' Church, Tallinn, 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.

--Carabinieri 13:34, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Template

I don't care. I no longer edit Eastern European history articles, and do not wish to be involved in any way. DrKiernan 07:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks DrKiernan for giving examples once again showing where exactly the boundaries of WP:Civil are!--Termer 15:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sad to hear that. Eastern European and Eastern bloc topics could use more editors, especially from other areas. -- Sander Säde 20:03, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Dammit, Janet!

Would you keep an eye on the Dammit, Janet! article? An editor appears to be revising the article to make it look worse (deleted material except "Rocky Horror Picture Show Regatta" information[25] adding inapprorpiate tags). Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 15:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is on my watchlist - however, I am unsure how much there is that we can protect the article against couple of dedicated editors disliking the song/article. -- Sander Säde 20:05, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Ivan Mueller

Dear Sander, can you justify why Ivan Mueller is a low priority bio? Thanks brian stormer 11:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Would you kindly make a new section to the bottom of the talk page when starting a new topic?

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Estonia/Assessment#Importance scale. "High: Practical tip: you know the subject and most likely would be able to recall it without looking at any sources" and "Low: Practical tip: most likely you will not recognize the subject". Ivan Mueller may be well-known among clarinet players, but by far most have never heard of him. And his relation with Estonia is rather weak as well - he was born in Estonia but moved away before he was twenty. If you consider him a high-importance person, please join WikiProject Biographies (or WikiProject Music) and raise the article priority for that project only.

-- Sander Säde 11:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Bloomfield

Hi, sorry for the delay. It is very hard to tell if this new user is a new sock... Definitely smells & feels like it is, but I cannot be 100% sure (assume good faith and all that). Anyway, I am glad someone is taking care of his mess. What I found out about him is that he is putting a lot of good information about extremely obscure subjects. The bad part about it is that he is using unreliable (often extremely outdated) sources, conducts WP:OR, and freely expresses his POV. And since the subjects are so obscure, it is really hard to catch, verify and correct his errors. Good luck! Renata 00:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. He isn't a new user, though - and I suspect he isn't the last Bloomfield sock still in the wild. See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Major hoax problems in Estonia history related articles... -- Sander Säde 04:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW, please include Rulers of Estonia among the articles to clean up. Renata 20:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, thank you. Martintg wanted to deal with cleaning up, I will leave a message to him about this. -- Sander Säde 20:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Michael Sittow

I suggest you compare the two on Google Scholar, noting the original languages of the references. Only the NGA Washington, among major English sources, uses Michel, but it is clearly normal in German and Estonian. You will be pleased to see we now have an article on him. Johnbod 19:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh - was writing to you before receiving this message. -- Sander Säde 19:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - there is a clear preponderance of "Michael"s in the scholarly refs of English origin. You are obviously used to thinking of him as Michel, but I am used, from English sources, to Michael, and this is the English WP. Johnbod 19:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I reply here - I like to keep discussions in one place.

There are several recent English publications that refer to him as Michel - for example, [26], [27], The Retablo de Isabel la Católica by Juan de Flandes and Michel Sittow (250 pages, Amazon), [28], [29]. Sources using Michael seem to mention him only passingly - and we have at least one scholarly source discussing him in-depth which uses Michel.

However, I don't think it is all that important - but could you please at least add a mention that most of the world knows him as Michel Sittow, ie. bolded name in the lede as it is done in cases such as this. Thank you for creating the article - it was on my to-do list, which seems constantly get longer, not shorter...

-- Sander Säde 19:40, 7 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 17:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, I would be happy to help out. -- Sander Säde 06:16, 12 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 06:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Musicians

Please stop your category changes to Estonian musicians. There is a long-established way of categorising musicians by nationality, instrument and genre - see WP:MUSCAT. Your alterations do not follow that pattern. In addition, speedy deletion of empty categories is only for where categories have been empty for 4 days, not 4 minutes! Bencherlite^Talk 07:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Also please read WP:OCAT#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth - one-member categories such as Category:Estonian classical organists are specific exceptions to the general rule that small categories should be avoided. Bencherlite^Talk 07:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting changes. Having categories with one entry - and no hope for additional articles in that category - is very much pointless and goes against the idea of having categories. Otherwise, every article could have a little category of its own. I am trying to make category tree more logical and easily accessible for users. -- Sander Säde 07:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you are the one whose changes to categories are against the consensus demonstrated at WP:MUSCAT. If you disagree with the prevailing consensus, then discuss the matter there. Alternatively, nominate these categories for merger at WP:CFD. Unilaterally depopulating and improperly attempting to delete speedily these categories is disruptive. Bencherlite^Talk 07:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And why is there no possibility of further articles in these categories, anyway? Bencherlite^Talk 07:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Because they are about Estonian organists - and there are no notable classical organists in Estonia, especially those who have been primarily organists. Even Rudolf Tobias was mainly composer - and is remembered as such, not as organist (he also played several other instruments, including piano, violin (he is better known as violinist then organist) and guitar, if my memory serves me right). And "classical" organist - inclusion of the genre seems to be extremely arbitrary here.

I very much think we should apply common sense here and avoid overcategorization, even if it means contradicting WP:MUSCAT - which, by the way, is not a guideline for Wikipedia, it is a guideline for a wikiproject. If there are additional articles to be added into those categories, then I am all for keeping those, but like I said, having categories with one entry is just creating pointless clutter and imho should be avoided. Categories are for grouping similar articles and should be used for that, not for telling that someone played organ or flute - that is what articles are for.

-- Sander Säde 07:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Classical" is not arbitrary and I'm puzzled that you think it is - it puts the category into the whole Category:Classical musicians by instrument structure, with Category:Estonian classical organists being part of the Category:Classical organists by nationality scheme, etc. If you remove these categories, then the utility of the overall category structure is greatly diminished. I am fully aware that WP:MUSCAT is "merely" a project guideline, not Holy Writ, but its approach has been applied across thousands of categories and tens of thousands of articles. If you disagree with this well-established approach, the onus is on you to take these categories to CFD. It is not up to you to decide that Estonia is to be treated differently. Please undo your category changes, then list Category:Estonian classical organists and Category:Estonian classical violinists at CFD for a wider input. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 08:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free restore the categories if you honestly really think it is useful to Wikipedia and its users. I do not see this overcategorization to be useful or needed, as I have patiently explained. -- Sander Säde 08:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope I have been equally patient in explaining my viewpoint; if I came over as too harsh in my initial comments, I apologise, but I was concerned when I saw speedy delete tags being applied when the criteria weren't met. Our discussion has assured me that you were acting in good faith in the interests of WP (even though our ideas of how to meet those interests differ...(!)). Regards, and best wishes. Bencherlite^Talk 08:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I should apologize as well - as an excuse, I have been lately overworked and rather stressed. Thank you for being patient in this discussion, very welcome change from "shoot first and ask questions later" users I have to deal with occasionally. -- Sander Säde 08:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Apology unnecessary. Thanks for your support elsewhere, too - an unexpected bonus! Bencherlite^Talk 08:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hopefully you'll enjoy your well-deserved admin tools. -- Sander Säde 08:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Bill Rebane

Small edits to the entry for Bill Rebane where undone, using an automated process, these are related to his new blog and to his new book. These are fact, I have spoken to Mr, Rebane in person as I live only 25 minutes from him and am the computer consultant in process of helping him get web sites set up and have read the text of the book now being printed.—Preceding unsigned comment added by WolfWindshadow (talk • contribs)

Please see the official policies - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and reliable sources. Anticipated events must be verifiable by a reliable source - and personal communication with someone is not an acceptable source. What complicates things further is WP:BLP - biographies of living persons - which requires all information to be sourced reliably, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Sources.

As of now, ISBN has no match in Amazon, so that info must be removed from the article - blog page is up, but registered to Michad Computer Consulting, not Bill Rebane. So unfortunately, that info must be removed again until there is some independent, verifiable sources about his book and blog. Feel free to add the information after the book has been released or blog started and registered to Bill Rebane.

-- Sander Säde 08:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For tirelessly assessing articles for WikiProject Estonia, I award Sander Säde the Working Man's Barnstar.--Termer (talk) 10:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Sander Säde 12:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My RFA (Random832)

Thank you, Sander Säde, for participating in my RFA, which passed 35/1/0. I look forward to helping out. If you have any concerns or suggestions/advice, my talk page is always open.—Random832 14:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 24 November, 2007, a fact from the article Alfred Käärmann, 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.

--Aksi_great (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sander, thanks for the nomination. :o) Martintg (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Vikiseminar

Tere, Sander!

Eesti Vikipeedia vikiseminar toimub 15. detsembril 2007 Tallinna Ülikooli uues hoones (Uus-Sadama 5/Narva mnt 25) ruumis U-238 kell 12–18. Vaata ka et:Vikipeedia:Üldine arutelu#Vikiseminari teade. Meil on kavas ka diskussioon eesti Vikipeedia perspektiivide üle. Ajakava on veel täpsustamisel. Palun ka teavita teisi siinseid tegijaid. Andres (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Tänan informeerimast, lisasin teate WP:WPET lehele. -- Sander Säde 10:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing the userspace

Sander Säde, please consider editing the userspace in a different spirit than you do.[30] You must know that Ghirlandajo would not choose to have this message sitting on his user talk. Don't restore it again, now. Don't revert Irpen on Ghirla's page. Don't wikilawyer. Don't follow the dictates of spite, and don't triumph. Surely that is not how you see yourself? Think about it. Please. Bishonen | talk 12:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen, why do you think you have a right to move non-trolling, non-abusive message left to another user? You - or Irpen, or any other Wikipedian - has no right to play psychic and delete messages left by another user. You are not a god. You are a wikipedian. Although apparently many administrators do think of themselves as almighty Wikipedia gods. -- Sander Säde 12:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean like these guys? Suva Чего? 12:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly - and there have been a lot of other cases like that lately. And Jimbo is making weird noises how nothing is secret, everything is open etc. -- Sander Säde 12:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are the Ghirlandajo, you don't dictate what he likes there and what he doesn't. Everybody has right to leave messages to users, and users have right to remove messages sent to them. Unless there is clear bad faith behind the comments or they are clear form of vandalism, you, Irpen or anybody else don't have the right to remove them. OTOH, I have to agree that editwarring on user talkpages is silly. Suva Чего? 12:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not pretend to be psychic. The only one that knows what Ghirla thinks is him. Do not harass people for resisting some bizarre buddy spirited censorship. You have not earned the right. I have right to an opinion just like you. And a right to express it where I like. And at this point, the team spirrited attempt to protect your buddy from my well wishes wherever he is, is rather silly.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, I have to disagree with the pics Irpen posted. I didn't notice Wikipedia changing into Black And White after Ghirla left. Quite the contrary -- After the conflicts calmed down the wikipedia is much more colourful. I can see previous opposing "cabalists" working together, and previous allied cabalists having and solving disagreements. Thus I see no point stirring things up again, and I would prefer Alexias comment remain removed, whatever the intentions were, it's unnecessary. Suva Чего? 12:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? All I said was truthful to the core... And, as it seems I stepped on someones toes. The page is protected.:D Its really weird to see people get their nickers in a roll all over some well wishes and truth. Oh well. Tomorrow I will be busy with real life again. But something IS amiss when well wishes are being removed from others user pages... Somebody is failing at assuming goodwill again...--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop trying to demoralize an inactive user (who is your content opponent) when others are attempting to the opposite, both of you. El_C 18:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Content opponent? No, see this. Just a liar and hate-monger. -- Sander Säde 18:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is the "liar and hate-monger" whom your refer to? El_C 18:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, I presume...? El_C 18:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

_{(edit conflict)}Sorry, apparently I misunderstood your comment. Can we now stop this silliness, please? Alexia's comment was maybe a bit flippant, but definitely not something that she should be threatened with a block. It was not trolling, it was not personal attack. -- Sander Säde 18:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you edit war, then yes, block warning is perfectly appropriate. And it was hardly a positive gesture, which you should not have edit wared to restore. As for the indignant insult, I'm not sure what there is to misunderstand (at any rate, whatever there may be, you are not making clear). El_C 18:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warred? One revert is now called edit warring? I did not restore the comment once it was removed again. Please - at least familiarize yourself with the subject before throwing accusations and starting to block users with clean block log. -- Sander Säde 18:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I read the revision history fine. You participated in the edit warring, and, clearly, your stance toward this user is venomous and not in our interests to allow to run uninhibitedly. El_C 19:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Our interests"? Who made you the judge, jury and execution squad? -- Sander Säde 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Such hostility ("Liar and hatemonger") is not, nor has it ever been, allowed here. El_C 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Does it mean that it is okay to insinuate that other editors are fascists, racism and personal attacks are allowed? Or is that something only Ghirlandajo is allowed to do? See linked ArbCom evidence page above about his behavior - and scroll up for further diffs about him. Stangely, he was not blocked. Anything I've ever said about other editors is not even close to that - which is naturally not an excuse. That is just an example of double standards. Oh, and what happened to warning(s) for incivility? How impartial... -- Sander Säde 19:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The one warning above was enough; you don't get additional "civility"-specific warnings. El_C 20:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Edit warring over negative comments to a user's talk page was bad enough; the "liar and hate-monger" is simply unacceptable. El_C 18:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

How am I "personally involved," exactly? Do you intend to back up this claim up? Because others may wish to see it verified. El_C 18:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You were the one who decided that Alexia's message was harassment [31]. Impartial behavior was Jehochman's behavior. Yours most certainly was not.-- Sander Säde 19:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I attribute Jehochman's behavior to him not paying close enough attention. Yes, in my capacity as an uninvolved admin., I did. And, five minutes later, in that capacity, I deemed your "liar and hate-monger" to be block-worthy. El_C 19:08, 7 December 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).

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

---

Request reason:

Blocking administrator is personally involved and not impartial, correct procedure should have been to warn or report to AN/I. While my comment may have been a bit out of line, I was already apologizing for that - and do so sincerely. As an excuse, Ghirla has caused very much grief to other editors - and I tend to get overemotional when he is involved. I will try not to do so in the future. -- Sander Säde 18:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Clear enough to me that your comment was bad behavior. You've apologized. That's good, but I still see no reason to unblock you immediately, this is not a long block, only 24 hours. Mangojuice^talk 20:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Addendum - I'd like to remind you of the result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. I considered but have decided against placing you on an editing restriction under that ruling, because of the contrition you have expressed already. Mangojuice^talk 20:25, 7 December 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.

Good evening. Could you provide some examples of the Administrator not being impartial? For example, links to AN/I threads (which you generally cite) which portray a lack of neutrality, a factor which is necessary in Administrators handing out Blocks. I'll be watching this page for your reply. Anthøny 19:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Evening - mine hasn't been all that good, though. [32] - failure to presume good faith, which still continues, see [33], [34], [35] and [36]. He accused me of edit warring [37] while there was just one revert where I restored Alexias message [38], as I saw removing a relatively friendly (although somewhat flippant) message as a censoring of another user. Overall, El_C could have handled this situation with far, far more finesse and impartiality. In any case, I believe that my "crime" and punishment are not balanced. -- Sander Säde 20:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I still fail to see how any of that makes me impartial. I'm trying to put an end to all the bad blood, but some simply do not know when to stop and go do something else, despite ample warning. El_C 20:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for getting you in trouble :(

Never intended to do that... I just wanted to tell Ghirla that even tho I will not be personally over joyed to see him active again I don't hold any grudges... And now its a bloody mess again. :( I hope you get unblocked, this is really uncalled for.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, Alexia, that your message was not meant badly - that is why I restored it. However, you know how it is when it comes to certain editors. Same as you, I am losing my faith in Wikipedia - while the idea is great, administrators are now behaving like they are infallible gods chosen to rule over mortals. There are good administrators - but an average administrator behaves nowadays like a [censored] on steroids - I presume you are aware of Durova affair and the whole follow-up mess? Maybe it is time for me to quit Wikipedia as well - although it is somewhat hard even to think about that after countless hours and almost ten thousand edits. -- Sander Säde 19:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Offtopic (since I cannot leave it to your user page): did you know that Putin got as much as 109% of the votes in recent Russian elections ([39]). Would make a great WP:DYK entry.

Sad to see a big country like that to the dogs.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

*wave* :)

Don't go where you are pushed, go where you want to go!

--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice of editing restrictions

Notice: Under the terms of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. Should the editor make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, he or she may be blocked for up to a week for each violation, and up to a month for each violation after the fifth. This restriction is effective on any editor following notice placed on his or her talk page. This notice is now given to you, and future violations of the provisions of this warning are subject to blocking.

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here.

Thatcher131 22:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't give up

We need users like you to make this project work. We cannot let trolls chase off good editors. Looking forward to your return, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 18:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also prefer you stay. But I wonder who is the troll according to Piotrus? --Irpen 18:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me just be even more frank, Sander. "I would prefer you stay" was too weak. I sincerely hope that you would stay on this project. If you need to take a break from this, it's fine, but do come back when you are ready. As for my comment on the second sentence by Piotrus, I would let it stay as it is. Regards, --Irpen 19:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe this, getting blocked for silly editwarring on an user talkpage who is not even active, is that's what's been going on in here? Sorry but, Sander and Alexia, have you guys lost your mind completely? Hope you'll set your priorities straight after returning since your absence has made fighting the real trolls like Bloomfield AKA Kidsunited really overwhelming to the few editors who care about the subjects. I wish I could say something supportive regarding the block but unfortunantely, I'm sure you'll see it by yourself once cooled down that the block was entirely justified. Nobody should stick their nose into somebody's talk page without having anything to say really and getting into an editwar over this is just so far out that...Well I'm just really p***ed that you guys got yourselves blocked for such a dumb reason and that you have made a favor to your opponents with this. And happy holidays, hope that in the New Year you guys are not going to jump into traps like that and are going to keep up with reasonable judgments, what's important and what's not. Your absence has impacted negatively the projects you were involved with, and that's the reason I came by in the first place. Take care!--Termer (talk) 10:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. I looked into it more closely, it seems User:El_C blocked you guys while being in direct opposition, meaning involved in the dispute with you? I don't think, if that's the case, the reasoning with Digiwuren's case and the use of admin tools to block you guys as his opponents was justified by User:El_C. So in that sense I need to withdraw "the block was entirely justified" line by me earlier, although getting into this dispute over a talk page was a bad idea anyway I think.--Termer (talk) 11:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

May it be noted that I did not get blocked for the nice remark I left for Ghirla. I Got blocked because I disagreed with El_C -s behavior essentially summing up to gagging that only aggravated the issue that I personally had put behind me and his use of admin tools in blocking Sander. He did NOT act like an admin. He acted like somebody on a bad power trip. And I manintain that position!--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 17:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Comaan guys! I hate to sound like lecturing but it seems like it needs to be spelled out. In any collaborative project in case you can't work together with other people, you're going to get fired sooner or later. Therefore there is no need to take anything personally here and incidents should be put to behind you. In case User:El_C misused his administrative tools by blocking you and Sander while been involved in direct dispute with you as his opponents , it's his problem. The guy definitely didn't show that much good faith towards Daniel Case accusing him of you were trying to provoke me, that you are holding a grudge etc. It seems User:El_C has some problems but these are his problems, I can't see the reasons why should you make it yours since in case the pattern of showing bad faith and blocking dispute opponents continues, the guy is going to get fired by himself one day anyway! The bottom line do you see your role here, you Alexia and Sander as leaving "nice messages" to userpages and getting into silly arguments or helping out with the project? I hope it's the second choice. thanks!--Termer (talk) 11:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

PS. And please always do follow my words, not my actions [40] ;-D --Termer (talk) 08:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)