User talk:Nixer/Archive3

Image copyright problem with Image:Ant4_1.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Ant4_1.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Further to this I see you've added a fair use tag, which seems to be appropriate to for the subject. You do however need to state the source of the image and who owns the copyright. It's a very cool image by the way. Thanks! The Land 10:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet

I think the sockpuppet notice should be moved as a notice to the talk page. There was just one sockpuppet, and he is no longer using them and he (the main account) was not indef-blocked. 72.139.119.165 20:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page move vandalism

Wikipedia has clear procedures on moving pages. Other than in exceptional circumstances all pages should be moved by following the instructions on the Requested Moves page. Unilateral moves can trigger edit wars, break links and cause a lot of problems. Please stop unilaterally moving pages, as you did with Kim Jong-il, and follow the correct procedure. I gather English may not be your native language; article names should match common usage in English, and not (for instance) a transliteration of the Russian version. --Reuben 21:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have already been warned about this in regard to Sanhedrin, and you agreed to stop doing it to avoid getting blocked. Well, please do stop. --Reuben 22:01, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amenia

Since you were one of the few regular users supporting me in the RfC, just wanted to say thanks. You have any advice on the best way to go about a next step? It seems so unfair that this little click can distort the borders of Europe--Caligvla 03:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I have reverted nationalist anti-Soviet propaganda, mass deletion and removing the mention of Nazi collaborationist war crimes in Participants in World War II about once a day. I have been blocked in circumvent of the rules by a POV admin. The article should be restored to the pre-edit war status

Nixer, you reverted that article four times. I have blocked you for only 24 hours, although your repeated 3RR violations would usually warrant more, as would your "POV admin" remark above. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking no position whether Nixer deserves a block for revert warring, I must note that 4 reverts accumulated in 36, not 24 hours as per this. Staying under 3RR is no entitlement in any way and general revert warring is subject to admin's discretion blocks. However, in such case the admin should be uninvolved, unlike user:ProhibitOnions who was one of the editors who reverted Nixer. Again, I take no position on whether Nixer should be blocked for RV warring in general, just noting that technically 3RR is not there and blocking by admin who participates in article disagreement is highly inappropriate in such case.

All this aside, Nixer, you should cool down finally. --Irpen 10:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three of Nixer's reverts were within 24 hours and the fourth was the following morning, which I reverted, but subsequently restored. Furthermore, I am not a recent editor of this article, and am not thrilled by the attitude presented by either Nixer or the editors reverted; if there had been any genuine discussion, they might have been able to reach a compromise, as they were both presenting opposing nationalistic views. Nevertheless, he reverted the article four times in a row without discussion, while User:Whiskey and the others did not. Sadly, he has a long track record of such behavior. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 10:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please look the talk page more precisely. The discussion is going and all sides present their arguments. I do not revert without pointing my arguments in the talk page. The first edit of my opponents seemed to me as vandalism because they performed mass deletion of valid info. The version I do protect stayed in its status for many months and users who perform mass deletion to a stable version should better explain their moteves in the talk page first.--Nixer 10:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ProhibitOnions, Holocaust Denial is not acceptable in Wikipedia. I'm appaled at the suppression of data about the crimes perpetrated by the Nazis and their collaborators. It is even less acceptable to abuse 3RR in order to block one's opponents. I advise all interested parties to move their dispute to WP:ANI, with a stern warning that Holocaust Denial will not be tolerated. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no holocaust denial, dispute is about the fact that was the participation in holocaust enough importnant to put it in article that is meant to be short overview or not. If Holocaust there actualy quite small amount of Estonian collaborators participated is mentioned then a lot more things that were at similar or bigger scale need to be mentioned and that would make article too long. Also Nixer's version has factual mistakes in it. (Staberinde 11:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I've already corrected the mistakes you pointed. If you know some things of bigger scale connected to participation of the Baltic states, please point them.--Nixer 11:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The murders and deportations of Estonians between June 1940 and August 1941 were much more numerous than Holocaust victims of Estonia, but in your opinion it shouldn't be included ([1])--Whiskey 22:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Estonian SS units participated not only in Estonia, you see? And Estonians murdered all 100% Estonian Jews. Do you think it is not worth enough to be mentioned? Holocaust victims were murdered, not just "deported".--Nixer 13:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was first to have commented here I will add extra two cents. If ProhibitOnions per his judgement concludes the Nixer was running a sterile revert war, the block may be justified. Lack of technical 3RR is not a foolproof defence. Even though 3RR is a policy for a reason and should be applied in most cases, some revert warriors permanently stay 1 step under 3RR and do nothing but reverting. This should not be allowed. If PO thinks that this is the case here (sterile revert warring technically under 3RR) he should NOT have said that the block is for 3RR but he should make it clear that this is a judgement block imposed by his own decision based on the evidence that Nixer was involved in a sterile revert war despite staying under 3RR. At the same time Nixer claims that he was not running a revert war but attempted a discussion at talk which was ingored by his opponents. Whoever studies this (or PO himself) needs to take a good look on all details.

However, Nixer is indeed known as generally a hot-headed guy, even though I commend his committment to add content to Wikipedia. He may be right or wrong but in any case he gets excited too much. Nixer, an advise. Do not revert any article more than twice in any 24 hours even if your opponents are "wrong" and otherwise "bad". I almost guarantee that by adopting this you will not be blocked for revert warring. Now, please seize attempts getting yourself unblocked. It is only 24 hours. Take a break and come back tomorrow chilled out.

Regards, --Irpen 15:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, thank you very much for commenting. In fact the users in this case do not ignore my comments (although it happens rather frequently in other articles), but their nationalistic POV seems to be very strong. Anyway I did not revert this article more than twice a day (by my local time).Nixer 17:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nixer, seriously, if you do not read what I write to you at talk page then please stop reverting my edits, I have better things to do then repeat everything 5 times. About factual mistakes I pointed out 4 of them(at 17 october, see talk), 1 of them you corrected immediatley, 1 you corrected with your last edit, so there are still 2 more factual mistakes. About things that need to be added if participaton in Holocaust(there actualy quite small number of collaborators participated) is added I wrote to you 07:34, 19 October 2006. So go and look those things up yourselfly. (Staberinde 15:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

First, the article in question is already 92kB long. If it needs anything it is shortening, not lengthening. There is also a common method to create an article where all relevant information is given (Military history of xxx during World War II), and it seems we need also ones for Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, as all of us notice, there is much unwritten about the issue, so we put all that stuff there and then we could trim this entry (it still contains too detailed information to that kind of listing article).

The sections in question not too large, dont you agree?--Nixer 14:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 103 country/territory entries, only 17 are longer than current Estonian entry. Countries like United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, France, Italy, Romania and Bulgaria have shorter entries than Estonia.--Whiskey 21:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second, is it nationalistic POV if balanced approach to the Crimes against humanity is demanded, as Staberinde and I want? There has been a history commission in Estonia (http://www.historycommission.ee) which has considered both Soviet and German crimes in Estonia and their Estonian collaborators-in-crimes.

This commission is a present-day re-interpretations by the Estonian authorities. If to present this POV, we shall also mention that veterans of the SS units in those countries considered liberators and anti-fascist fighters considered traitors.Staberinde himself said That how history is viewed in current day Estonia is irrevelant about article of Axis powers in WW II(which was 60 years ago) when I tried to add the relevant info into Axis Powers.--Nixer 14:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Commission was initiated by the president of Estonia, it's members came not from Estonia but other countries, just to provide neutrality into the highly emotional issue: Chairman is Finnish Jew and members consists Chairman of American Jewish comittee, former Danish Foreign Minister, Chairman of Russian Memorial organization and two professors from Germany and USA. This issue is not about the interpretations but facts: murder is murder however you interpret it. You can give numbers of interpretations about that, but the fact remains: somebody died and someone did the deed intentionally. --Whiskey 21:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third, the sources. Nixer continuously refuses to give any kind of sources. I repeat again that he clearly knows more about the issues here that your average history buff, so he has read a lot. But still, with sources his claims would have a lot more weight.

What sources do you need? About existance of Estonian SS? Or what?

About the controversal claims you entered to the article. Mostly those four mistakes Staberinde derided you. It is quite common, that widely believed issues will be proven wrong in the new or more detailed history research. Especially Western view of Russian/Soviet issues still contain numerous blind spots. If you make claim all by yourself against common belief, it is not believed as easily as if you can provide some research to support your view.--Whiskey 21:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourth, the Holocaust Denial. Nope. In the first edit I tried to amend Nixers edit with a little information about the Soviet actions ([2]) but first Staberinde reverted to his previous version and then Nixer to his version. In subsequent discussion I started to support the viewpoint that these issues should be handled elsewhere due to size constraints. --Whiskey 22:34, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These chapters do not contain much of the article.--Nixer 14:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you should recognize the problem in your own text below:"...is to be mentioned." You will be adding this and that to the article of Estonia, then because they were mentioned here, they or similar stuff has to be mentioned there... and so on. --Whiskey 21:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nixer, firstly, could you make one single post after the last post not 5 different posts in the middle of older text? It just messes up things and makes hard to read. About sources what Whiskey demanded he probably meant sources for those false claims that I simply called "factual mistakes".
Now you say that your edits do not contain much of the article. That is true but that is representing one certain POV and only relatively small amount of Estonian's participated in holocaust. So if you want to mention participation in holocaust then then there are a lot more things that are connected to Estonia and affected seriously bigger amount of estonians, so logically if participation in holocaust is mentioned then those things also need to be mentioned. Short overview of things that should be mentioned if holocaust is mentioned: (Estonians who were forcefully mobilised to red army, estonians who volunteered to finnish army, estonians who volunteered to german army, estonians who were forcefully mobilised to german army, tens thousands estonians who escaped the country before second USSR occupation, deportation to siberia by USSR, elimination of political economical and military elite by USSR, anti-soviet resistance movements during both first and second USSR occupation, atempt to restore estonian independece after end of german occupation, active elimination of political opponents during both german and soviet occupation, bombings of main estonian towns by USSR airforce). Can you now understand, that it would make article too long? So only logical choice for balanceing is to delete not to keep adding up things.(Staberinde 16:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Anti-Soviet resistance and participation in German army already mentioned. Interim government is to be mentioned.--Nixer 16:50, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are mentioned but completely inaccurately. Firstly anti-soviet resistance was voluntary and independent from germany, first men went to forest before barbarossa(at that time USSR and Germany were still big friends) and anti-soviet resistance continued long after end of WW II. Secondly participation in german army was partially voluntary(and some of those participated in warcrimes but clearly a minority, for example some members of estonian legion actualy were guards at nuremberg trials) but majority of Estonian Waffen-SS division was forcefully mobilised by germans(in violation of the international law of war) in 1944 and practically didnt participate in any serious warcrimes.(Staberinde 17:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I think we can mention that the resistance was voluntary.--Nixer 17:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, didn't notice that part earlier(main reason why you should not put new edits in the middle of old ones) :
""The Estonian SS units participated not only in Estonia, you see? And Estonians murdered all 100% Estonian Jews. Do you think it is not worth enough to be mentioned? Holocaust victims were murdered, not just "deported".--Nixer 13:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)""[reply]
Firstly, Estonians did not kill 100% of Estonian jews, that is stalinistic propaganda. Before war there were about 3000 jews in Estonia(btw they had cultural autonomy which was quite unique at that time), of them majority left the country before german occupation, remaining 1000 jews were killed by Germans, with help of some local collaborators. There were no serious crimes aganist jews on estonians own initiave. Also about Estonians SS units, main Estonian SS unit was 20th Waffen-SS division which was formed in 1944 at Estonia and did not actively participate in any serious war crimes(its main battles were on Estonian territory). There were some smaller estonian units that were formed earlier of volunteers but those units were small and only some of them actively participated in warcrimes. So as conclusion, number of Estonians who participated in German war crimes is relatively small.(Staberinde 20:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

WWII

Ok. I am going to add some info about Vlasov's army.--Nixer 15:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd sugest to reach consensus on talk page first, before editing article itself. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 16:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, ind you do not post anything in the talk. The last post in talk page is mine. Please stop vandalizing the article. Please exlain what dont you agree with--Nixer 16:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism, nazi propaganda and other fancy words do not make impression on me. If you want talk seriuosly, I can talk, if you want to play, I will not play your game. Pboblem with your edits are that almost every word is heavilly POVed. But even worse that your edits not based on sources, facts etc. And how you can explain the removal of Ribentrop-Molotov pact?Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 16:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's talk. Please explain what dont you agree. I did not remove the pact. Or show where did I so.--Nixer 16:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First: Lithuania had at first been hostile toward Nazi Germany over Memelland, which was part of Prussia for centuries before being occupied by Lithuania in 1923. It was returned to Germany peacefully in spring of 1939 before the war broke out, and re-integrated into East Prussia. That's Nazi propaganda, or at least it very close to it, it sounds like praise for brave Nazi Germans who freed PEACFULY (yeah giving ultimitatum "give us land or we will crush you" is very peaceful), lands occupied (!) by Lithuania. If that is not Nazi propaganda, then what is? And I would be grateful if you remove your unbased acusations of Nazi propaganda on my talk page Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 16:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that this is Nazi propaganda and completely irrelevant to the article. I have deleted it just before you did.--Nixer 16:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff about switching sides is pure literature. The Lithuanian partisans were fighting againts Soviet Troops till 1950. And not because they were Nazis, but because they were fighting for Lithuanias independence. If you not happy about my latest edits let me know.Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 16:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not insert this (this was done by my opponents). I support its deletion. Now your version is completely appropriate for me.--Nixer 16:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So I would be grateful if you revert "nazi propaganda" stuff from my talk page.Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 17:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy - marxist view

Nixer,

Like you I think the democracy article is missing a section on the socialist/marxist view of democracy. I had my section pulled, so I started a discussion on the discussion pages. I was going to leave your insertion, but there were too many edits and I'd rather put in a stub section and discuss it rather than getting the whole section pulled.

My original positiong was in the varieties of democracy.

I hope you don't mind!

--Mike 10:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalin

Hi,

As to your edit to Stalin. "The property and of the deported was mostly shipped to the new place of living with other property bought by the state. Each deported family was given a loan of about 9000 roubles for several years to startup in the new place". The problem is that if we speak about Lithuanian case, the fact is that people were deported with train normally used to transport cows and pigs, and their property mostly was not shipped into Siberia. And if by "new place of living" you mean baraks near Artic circle, and by the "a loan of about 9000 roubles" you mean labour in Gulag for free, you are absolutelly right. What is the point of white-washing stalinist crimes? Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 19:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Lithuanian case there were mostly anti-Soviet elements, it was not ethnic principle.--Nixer 19:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon? By anti-soviet elements you mean priests, teachers, farmers with their families and children (also anti-soviet elements?). Do you have any idea about magnitude of these repressions in Lithuania?.Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 19:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about Finnish repressions against Soviet elite in occupied territory?--Nixer 20:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what happend to Soviet elite in Karelia, and what has something to do with Lithuanians deported to Siberia, but I know what happened to hundreds of thousands of peoples of different nations. Take a good read here[3], maybe you'll find anything about interest free loans, because I see quite different picture. Or maybe I should find such article about every single deported nation and cite in Stalin article? I don't get - what is the point of trying to white wash those crimes? Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 20:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know why we should use articles in the media, produced in another country (strategical opponent of the USSR) when we have recently (in1990s!) declassified documents.--Nixer 20:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It always astonishes me when Russians try to support Soviet totalitarianism. Do you know what might be the reason for that ? --Lysy^talk 20:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I only do not like when people spread lies about the history.--Nixer 20:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[4] So all the witness lie and deportations, Gulag, labour camps were just mere interest free loan? Is that your position? Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 20:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the source - the resolution that describes and orderes the process of resettling Tatars and some other minorities from Crimea into Uzbekistan during the war.--Nixer 20:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you are trying to present all deportations as interest free loan opurtunity. Read how it happed in reality. I see you didn't bother to do it yet [5]. I'm pretty sure I can find similar witness accounts, scientifc articles, documents or whatever from Crimea. So don't waste your and mine time. White washing stalinism is deemed to failure, and you know it. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 20:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you so belive BBC? They are not ideology-neutral. In fact other deportations were similar (such as deportation from Caucasus after pogroms), there are many sources. But note that anecdotic evidence is not an acceptable source.--Nixer 21:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are not anecdotes, these are witness accounts. BBC is just easy to reach. I can present dosens of ACADEMIC souces for every deported nation, for every crime against humanity. And I will, if I'm forced. With every crime described to the grimmest detail, so your atempt to present Stalins crimes as interest free loan are deemed to failure I can guarantee you that. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 21:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, do it, but do not remove the existing info.--Nixer 21:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deportations are not so unknown subject that you could take some unknown document and start completely rewriting history. Btw, do you realize that many people actualy died during deportations? (Staberinde 21:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Nixer, I read that English source you provided, it says how deportation officially should be done BUT there is no proof that actual deportation was done that way. In reality it seems that actual deportation was completely different http://www.iccrimea.org/reports/tatardep2.html .(Staberinde 21:32, 24 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Yes. I can clarify if needed. BTW, your link does not work.--Nixer 21:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made small mistake with that link but i corrected it practically immidiately and now its working for me. (Staberinde 21:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Nixer, are those other 2 sources giving exactly the same information that this english source you provided? (Staberinde 21:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Im still waiting for answer, are those other 2 sources that you provided giving exactly the same information what that english source gives?(Staberinde 20:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Yes. Russian source contains the same Decree and the third source is a direct link to the archive. Russian source also contains a depiction of the resettling process and an official report afterwards.--Nixer 20:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does that "depiction of the resettling process and an official report afterwards" prove that decree was completely followed?(that question is to anyone who understands russian) (Staberinde 21:06, 27 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

It proves it was largely followed, but the source cannot be said NPOV. Anyway, I think it is improper to blame Stalin personally for those who (may be) did not completed fully his order. I read in a Tatar forums some users (of anti-Stalin bias) said that the loan was too difficult to pay back and that their family paid it until mid-1950s.--Nixer 21:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you that you were honest and admitted that its not NPOV source. Now decree itselfly does not prove how deportations were carried out in reality. There are completely different claims(im not saying that those claims are 100% true) about that how deportations were carried out http://www.iccrimea.org/reports/tatardep2.html . So unless there is really neutral source that proves that Stalin's decree was followed your's edit (which is already removed by someone else anyway) can't stay in article as it gives impression like Stalin's decree would had been strictly followed then in reality there are controversial claims about it. Finally(last but not least) deportations from crimea were only small part of all deportations in USSR so no point in describing them in detail. "I think it is improper to blame Stalin personally for those who (may be) did not completed fully his order" Writing nice and correct order doesnt mean that Stalin wanted to get it fully carried out. You seem to forget that nobody could simply disobey Stalin's orders during that time(people were executed for a lot smaller crimes then that), so logically those who disobeyed official order had Stalin's unofficial permission to carry out deportations differently then in official order.(Staberinde 21:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

First, in fact most government orders in the USSR carried out mostly precisely. Only one thing could affect it was continuing war. And I personally think this order was also carried out more or less properly. Anyway there were no any special crimes. It could be smaller sum in loan etc (that connected with war difficulties). Anyway the document is essentially relevant to the section and the article as whole.--Nixer 21:53, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article is in my opinion meant to be a short overview of Stalin not detailed description of that how one certain ethnic group was deported(especially then that description is disputed). There are no special details about other deported nations, so no reason to treat crimean tatars differently. (Staberinde 22:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

There are accusations that many of those deported dead or were murdered etc. This document shell provide the detailed view on how the deportations were supposed officially to conduct. This can be moved to another section (number of victims) if needed. Anyway the inserted BBC articles do not meet the WP:RS criteria and the may be just as biased as the Russian source. I see no reason to present in the article only one point of view.--Nixer 22:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are there similar documents about all deportations? (Staberinde 22:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

"I see no reason to present in the article only one point of view." Really? Lets see:[6]. You were the person who started adding POV(btw, your first edit was pure stalinistic propaganda) to article which was completely neutral, other's just reacted to you. You can only blame yourself for the fact that neutrality of section has dissappeared as a result of revert war.(Staberinde 22:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

"First, in fact most government orders in the USSR carried out mostly precisely," yes, often under a threat to one's own neck, and without the opportunity to point out whether "carrying them out" was physically possible.

So when factory managers were given an impossible quota of tanks to produce, they might manage to produce them anyway. If the transmissions would break down after 50 km, and not a single replacement transmission was built, the orders had still been fulfilled.

And when minor functionaries were given a quota of kulaks to arrest, in a raion where everyone who was rich enough to be a kulak was long gone, they just found some more "kulaks" anyway. When they were ordered to be shipped off to Siberia, they were shipped—counting the survivors of the journey was a minor consideration.

It's nice to quote precise orders. Saying that the orders prove how things would be accomplished in the future seems naïve. Ignoring the other realities of Soviet deportations is something else altogether. —Michael Z. 2006-10-27 22:53 Z

Anyway, the links to the order are much more relevant to the article than the links to BBC, which even do not meet the WP:RS criteria.--Nixer 07:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to add a link then article has "external links" part for that.--Staberinde 20:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

Nixer, if you hope that I'll not report your 3RR violation this time, you are wrong. Please stop this immediately. --Lysy^talk 21:11, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. You're not a first timer and you know what to do now. --Lysy^talk 21:43, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nixer, you've done it again. I've blocked you for 48 hours for multiple 3RR on Joseph Stalin. I've also blocked Encyclopaedia Editing Dude, though he's a first offender. ProhibitOnions ^(T) 22:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nixer, WTF is your problem? Do you think I or anyone else will be jumping at your defence every time you f things up? You know full well that this is not going to be happening as this was not happening before. Also, you really put all your compatriots in bad light by pushing the Stalin white-washing edits. Certain editors, like above, will immediately comment about "Russians supporting the Soviet totalitarianism". It was one thing when you tried to edit articles full of the Russophobic slander and attempts to minimize the role and sacrifice of the people of the USSR republics in ridding the world from the Nazi plaque. It is quite another thing to try to present Stalin as a benign leader. When your block is over, try to concentrate on productive activity. --Irpen 22:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not white-wash Stalin, but I see the fact: those people revome the reliable archival source and place a BBC article instead--Nixer 20:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it is, please try the following: devote larger share of your activity to non-controversial articles. Never exceed 2 (not 3) reverts within any 24 hour period (that is if you must revert as discussion and search of consensus is always preferred). --Irpen 18:23, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nixer, I just saw your name all over my watchlist popping up at talk pages of several users. May I suggest you follow on my advise instead? So something non-controversial. --Irpen 20:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it went as expected. Did not I warn you? Try to follow my advise when your vacation is over. --Irpen 20:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They now feel free to block me for anyrthing.--Nixer 20:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't break 3RR rule? (Staberinde 21:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I reverted those who deleted my comments from a talk page.--Nixer 21:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If other person breaks the rules it does not give you right to do the same.(Staberinde 21:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC))[reply]

We need your vote!

Hey there, just wanted to let you know a new revised statement is up for vote on talk armenia, It is not perfect but much better than the one that was there before. hope you have time to check it out --Caligvla 16:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

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).

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

Request reason:

I reverted users, who deleted my comments from Talk:Armenia

Decline reason:

There was some degree of consensus to archive the talk page following the closure of the RfC. This is not an excuse for a 3RR violation. -- -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:57, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

They not only archived discussion, but also deleted my comments. And please do not call "consensus" 2:1 situation.--Nixer 21:01, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3:1. I do see one comment missing from the archive (because of the way the other users reverted your reverts, not because they were trying to exclude it from the archives), but you could have added that in manually or re-added it to the main talk page. Again, I still don't see a reason to overturn the WP:3RR. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you asked all users? Why 3:1 (the third may be admin who blocked me)? And my comment was closely related to the branch of discussion the users tried to put in archive.--Nixer 21:14, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3:1 because of the comment by User:Caligvla. And again, there's a good reason that the 3RR exists, and you haven't provided any rationale as to why it should be ignored in this situation. I'm sure there are ways that you could incorporate your new comment into the discussion without reverting the archival (including linking back to the section in the archive that you're responding to). -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I promise not to continue revert-warring over the Armenia talk page, reverting archiving. Really it is possible to provide a link to the archived discussion

Decline reason:

Considering you've been blocked over a dozen times for 3RR, it's not as if you are not aware of the consequences of violating the WP:3RR and that it applies to all articles regardless of the content in dispute. I'm upholding this block because no further leeway can be granted in your favour due to your long history. -- Netsnipe ► 14:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

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

Request reason:

This block imposes double standards: my opponents not blocked or blocked for 1 hour while I blocked for a week.

Decline reason:

I imagine that has something to do with your extensive block log, which includes a number of prior 3RR blocks. Sooner or later, I'm hoping this lesson sinks in. -- Luna Santin 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

You fail to understand that on Wikipedia, no one should be your opponent. -- Netsnipe ► 01:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[7] made on October 27 2006 to Talk:Armenia

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 7*24 hours.

You're only just back from a 48h block and you start edir warring again. If you don't want to spend most of your wiki time banned, will you please learn to behave

William M. Connolley 20:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian National Unity

Please somebody, correct ther article. User:Fisenko continuously reverts my edits, placing misinformation in the article. Namely he places phrase that RNU is now "mainstream" and "conservative" which is not true. He rejects any discussions.--Nixer 07:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you are blocked

Nixer, don't be mad at me, but maybe while you are blocked, you might give it some thought: why is it that you are blocked so often, while other editors are not ? Do you think it is a coincidence ? --Lysy^talk 14:48, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because nationalists such as you reject any discussion--Nixer 16:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I wanted to help you out, but it's your choice of course. --Lysy^talk 16:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was very unfairly blocked--Caligvla 07:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite clear that you support him only because you desperately need any possible support in your attempt to make some unpopular changes in article about Armenia.--Staberinde 10:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not true, there was an Admin who disagreed with the block, he was trying to continue a conversation that was not part of the RfC, his remarks were unfairly deleted--Caligvla 19:21, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which admin? No remarks of his were deleted. An archive cannot be tampered with.--Eupator 19:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block reset

It became clear that you were evading your original block under the IP 203.187.235.106 (talk · contribs), so I've had to reset it. In the future, please sit the block out, or it will only be extended further. Khoi khoi 08:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not I am. Please use checkuser, do not falsely blame other users.--Nixer 20:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove that was him? --Caligvla 19:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caligvla, it was you who did these edits, wasn't you? And now they will block me if any user re-does my changes or reverts to my version.--Nixer 20:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you claiming responsibility?--Eupator 19:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, but as he posted above he asked for help changing that certain article, so maybe someone helped. I have often noticed a pattern here that people get blamed for things they didn't do, there should be a way to check with certainity.--Caligvla 19:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That someone also added Nixer to the list of participants of WikiProject Armenia[8]--Staberinde 19:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(to Caligvla): Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a legal system. Injustices are bound to happen for the benefit of the project, although let me tell you as someone who has been around here for quite some time, injustices rarely happen. When an admin.'s gut tells him/her that a certain user is a sockpuppet of another certain user - this usually turns out to be the case (they know things we don't, such as IPs).--Tekleni 19:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was often accused of using socks and I never have once in my time here, there were only a couple of times where I forgot to log in, but I wasn't trying to hide anything... So when I see another poor user getting punished for socks, it makes me wonder if anyone really checks to make sure. Anyway this is not my battle, I just feel sorry for the injustice of it all.--Caligvla 19:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are so lying, aren't you? Tell me, have you ever used an open proxy?--Tekleni 19:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO PERSONAL ATTACKS PLEASE OR I WILL REPORT YOU. I don't even know what an open proxy is...--Caligvla 19:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any personal attacks. Please stop falsely accusing users. Two admins have said you have used socks, are you calling them liars?--Eupator 19:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Two admins suspected I was using socks after you made countless edits claiming I used socks. I have never once used a sock other than to cover my foot.--Caligvla 20:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah right...--Tekleni 20:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Tekleni 19:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a peace offering? If so I accept...--Caligvla 19:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was a check. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nixer. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

correct me if I am wrong but it looks like that was an older matter. it doesnt look like it was confirmed he was 203.187.235.106 --Caligvla 22:18, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think I'm going mad. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC

It is not I. Please use checkuser. This is an American address.--Nixer 20:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I was falsefully accused in avoiding block using this addres:203.187.235.106. As these were not my edits I hereby insist to be unblocked and a denouncification record to be added to my block list to prevent other admins use it as precedent. Please use checkuser for proof if necessary

Decline reason:

Denied for now. You are still under the terms of the original 3RR block for now, whether this IP is linked to you or not. -- Robdurbar 22:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.

<<unblock|I was falsefully accused in avoiding block using this addres:203.187.235.106. As these were not my edits I hereby insist to be unblocked and a denouncification record to be added to my block list to prevent other admins use it as precedent. Please use checkuser for proof if necessary>>

I think there's good evidence that that IP was actually User:Caligvla, not you. I've mentioned this to Khoikhoi, we'll see where that goes. Mango juice^talk 12:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that he does not respond--Nixer 18:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked you. Even if the anon wasn't you, I'm sure you know that it's a bad idea to evade blocks. Cheers, Khoi khoi 19:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Nixer 00:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space trade

I have moved your userspace version back into namespace per the AfD discussion. So User:Nixer/Space trade is now a redirect to Space trade where the article is now located.--Konst.able^Talk 12:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC opening on Armenia

Given the complete deadlock on this issue, and the failure of the strawpoll, I think the time has come to take the dispute-resolution process to the next level by opening a request for comment. This will open the debate up to the whole Wikipedia community, and hopefully generate, if not consensus, then at least a majority view. I will invite all users involved in this issue to contribute to the RfC, which can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. I realise that you may now be a bit bored with having to explain your views again and again on different pages, but as an advocate I think this is the only way to finally end this dispute. Walton monarchist89 09:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this

[[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]] help out and make sure the borders are not abused.

NB This poll has now closed, it being Friday 10th November and about 10.30am where I live. The numbers are as follows:

Support 6 (although User:Hamparzoum's existence has been disputed by User:Tekleni.
Neutral 1.
Oppose 10.

As such, no mandate has appeared for making the requested changes to the article. As previously advertised, Caligvla and I are taking a break from this dispute for a week. After this, the case may be taken to the mediation cabal, although I hope to avoid this eventuality. Walton monarchist89 10:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False Cognate article—Stranno

Is Russian "stranno" really not related to "strange" (cf. Latin "extraneus")?

Yes. It is related to Russian "strana" (country), "storona" (side), "storonnik" (sider, follower), "stranitsa" (page), "prostranstvo" (space, room), "prostor" (open space) and English "stretch", "straw", "strategy", "substratum", "stratosphere" fom PIE sterve-, strov-, meaning "to spread" -Nixer 11:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Please see my talk page, regards, Grant65 | Talk 18:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Husnock under attack by Klingons

Check it out: this link. Thanks! -Husnock 17:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]