User talk:RJ CG

Your contributions to Rein Lang so far have been anything but constructive. You should refrain from disruptive editing in the future, lest the Mighty Hammer of Wikipedian Justice fall upon you with all its political gravity. Digwuren 21:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-delete3}} Digwuren 21:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bans did not teach you anything. It is you who repeatedly blanked sourced content I added to this page and replaced it with unsourced POV statements. Let's present both Russian and Estonian viewpoints here, shall we? By the way, if you insist on your illiterate statement about "Dozor", I'm cool with that. If you want to make it look like rant of illiterate politically motivated author, let's leave it as it is. RJ CG 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more question. Is opposition to Bronze Soldier's relocation and grave-digging a crime in your eyes, so you repeatedly mention it every time Dozor iz mentioned? RJ CG 21:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{agf3}} Also, do not accuse other editors of vandalism. Lysy's reworked whole article as you can see from history, he did not just remove material. And, vandalism accusations are considered personal attacks. Sander Säde 19:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best to assume it, but failed. Lysy (who very rarely participate in topics I am interested in) popped up on the "cyberattack" page hours after I changed Russophobia page not to his liking and started to remove the referenced and relevant info from cyberattack page. He did not add a single source, just rearranged existing data and carefully removed everything not in sync with the "Blame Russia" tone article had before. I can not see it as anything but vandalism. RJ CG 19:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

_{(Edit conflict with Lysy)}I don't know about your relations - and actually, I support yours/current version more. But his edits do not look like standard hit&delete vandal actions - it is pretty clear that he tried to improve the article. And s/he is an established editor, far more edits then you and me together. Accusing another wikipedian of vandalism - whether in notice or edit summary - is a very grave accusation and in case of established editors should never be made lightly. That is why I removed that warning - you should have used some of the "lighter" templates or just left a manual message - actually, I recommend that you should do that now, explaining your side of the reasoning as well.

With that I am off to sleep... which I should have done quite a while ago... Sander Säde 19:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RJ CG, I do not appreciate the unfriendly message that you've left on my talk page as much as I do not appreciate your POV pushing. I'm putting Cyberattacks on Estonia 2007 back on my watchlist now to make sure that your POV pushing edits do not pass unnoticed. --Lysy^talk 19:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So message reached the addressee. Mission accomplished :) In the future, would you be so kind to explain removals of referenced info? If you noticed, I kept your (and other's) edits almost intact, with small exception of the wording regarding hacker's statement. RJ CG 19:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I apologize for calling your edits POV pushing. --Lysy^talk 20:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize too. I was pretty angry at you for your initial edits, but you did right thing in the end by forcing me to rework the article. Cheers :) RJ CG 20:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All's good that ends good. Peace. --Lysy^talk 20:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{3RR}} Sander Säde 14:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attack of the Meatpuppeters? RJ CG

No, just replying to attack by estophobe, who pushes that all estonians are fascists. Sander Säde 14:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys preparing ground for attack against me in ArbCom or something with your constant baseless accusations of racism? You are shameless liar if you say that I ever implied that all Estonians are fascists. I really have no more comments on your unfortunate statement. RJ CG 14:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-vandalism4}} Digwuren 16:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is bad faith warning from repeated name-caller who had been exposed as liar by me. I am wondering how low can you guys (Korps!Estonia) go in your Homo Soveticus-styled attacks against editors who happen to disagree with your narrow vision of this world. RJ CG 17:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's say that your attempt to support baseless accusations looks as lame as your childish namecalling and outlandish accusations. Quote from obscure website still does not mention "anti-fascist". I cut you some slack in order to avoid edit wars. RJ CG 19:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-vandalism3}} Find a valid source - or even any source. Otherwise your claim does not belong to Wikipedia. Sander Säde 15:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith warning from person who is obviously aware of Estonian denial of automatic citizenship to the offspring of post-1940 migrants and tries to advance his politically motivated viewpoint by issuing false warnings.RJ CG 15:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{uw-biog4}} Digwuren 15:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:46, 16 July 2007 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I would like to see justification of the block, that is, if you don't count lies by members of Korps! Estonia as justification. Most of warnings of Korps!' members are not just in bad faith, they are plain lies.

Decline reason:

With a quick glance, I see you've reverted a HUGE number of reverts at that article, easily hitting or passing WP:3RR at least twice in the past week. Please take a moment to think of this as a wake-up call -- edit warring is very much frowned upon, we would much prefer that you build a consensus by the use of talk pages. Feel free to make use of Wikipedia's robust dispute resolution process; troublesome editors can be dealt with via the admin noticeboards and arbitration committee, if needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2007 (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.

RJ CG 16:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luna Santin made an interesting accusation. The way I see it he chose to forget about [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:SYNTH]] and [[WP:OR]] accusations as they would obviously generate a lot of unpleasant questions about editing styles of contributors who attacked me. Instead he recided to stick to 3RR. Let's take a look at page history [1]. Would Luna Santin be so kind to point out any sequence of events when I initiated edit wars? Edit wars and frivolous use of {{cn}}tags (as in case when citizen of Estonia nad one of main contributors in Estonian section of English wikipedia repeatedly denied something spelled out loud and clear in his own country Citizenship law) were started against me all the time, I never reverted anybody's edit. Each and every revert I made was to return sourced relevant information added by me and deleted by Korps!Estonia (Alexia Death, Colchicum, Sander Säde) in order to advance their politically motivated POV. But even with that (although it does not seem logical to accuse one of defending himself, but not much is logical in Estonian segment of en.wiki regardless), I would be interested in seeing proof for 3RR accusation against me. Aren't we confusing 3RR with 3 edits of same article? In this case Colchicum and Sander Säde should be banned too. RJ CG 18:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think FayssalF means tendentious editing (aka WP:TE), not tedious editing. Digwuren 17:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it have ben bannable offence, neither of your guys (Korps!Estonia) with your repeated POV-pushing and false accusations of anyone who have misfortune not to share your POV would survive on wiki past mid-May. RJ CG 17:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your personal attacks help with your unblock request. Suva 17:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be frank you you, at some point lies should be called lies, at least in order to have proof that your snitching on admin pages (as Sander Säde frivolously did) is just settling of political scores and have no merit. I tried to be nice and quiet with you, just patiently correcting your distorted statements and being very attentive about supporting my every edit with relevant NPOV source and just ignoring your libelious and overblown accusations. It did not work. RJ CG 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the relevant note, when I joined wikipedia I didn't understand why Petri was so loud with his accusations on Estonian segment and same Petri was so quiet and decent on the other segments. I do understand now. You guys need to be fed your own med (accusations of political bias and escalations of every dispute) all the time in order to keep you from harrassing another wikipedians. I am actually of opinion that calling you POV-pushers and liar (with good NPOV sources, as usual, I am religious about it) will remedy future disputes. RJ CG 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, aren't most of those cited things rationales from the deletion guideline and not from the blocking policy? I mean, blocking for 3RR is fine and all, but OR? NPOV? Those are reasons for deleting an article, not blocking a user. Weird. Utgard Loki 18:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why they quickly switched to 3RR, which did not happen (I never reverted same piece of text 3 times in 24 hours).RJ CG 18:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoopsy, I re-read 3RR page and understood that violation is per page. So I was clearly guilty of doing that, reversing blatant POV-pushing and removal of referenced data by different editors (who belong to same clique accused of sock-and meat-puppeting several times and acquitted on technicality that network setup behind proxy they share is set in such a way that it is impossible for wikipedia to make a conclusion) in different part of the page in question. Mea Culpa! RJ CG 18:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warriors frequently do pose themselves as the Sole Defender of All Sacred Justice on the wiki -- this is a common trap people fall into, the belief that they own the project and are the sole authority of what does or doesn't belong. I hate to break your ego trip, but edit warring is really just disruptive; if the users you're in a conflict with really are as bad as you seem to think, there are better ways of dealing with them (as mentioned above). – Luna Santin (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the nice lecture and sorry to resurrect an old thread, but this questionnable block had been used as a pretext for another block, as evident from [2] (note "again" comment). Since original accusation had never been discussed (I had been denied unblock on the ground of 3RR violation, which I admitted) I guess it is my right to know precisely what edits had been considered inappropriate. I'll forward the same question to FayssalF too. Thank you in advance, RJ CG 16:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but this questionnable block had been used as a pretext for another block, as evident from [3] (note "again" comment). Since original accusation had never been discussed (I had been denied unblock on the ground of 3RR violation, which I admitted) I guess it is my right to know precisely what edits had been considered inappropriate. Thank you in advance, RJ CG 16:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns were addressed here (just in case you missed the thread). --Ghirla^-трёп- 23:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FayssalF. Could you please comment on this? Thank you in advance, RJ CG 16:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is on the title of that same thread! Blocked for tedious editing at Russo-Estonian relations while violating WP:NPOV, WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. It has been discussed in multiple ANI threads. Weren't you doing that when i blocked you? As for your block by ProhibitOnions, i don't know what you did and if that is right or wrong RJ CG. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for being so insistent, but I wasn't part of any ANI thread, except one (where I did not voice my opinion but pointed on pretty coordinated effort of so-called "Tartu accounts" to cover each other's back within 3 minutes after one of self-confessed warriors exhausted his/her revert limit), so I can't find where specific accusations against yours truly had been discussed. I have no inclination to jump into those ANI either, having experienced firsthand the poisonous atmosphere you're breathing now there. Again, I am deeply sorry, but as things are going now, your initial accusations are actively used to build the case against myself, so I need them either to be proven or to be striken out. I'm not asking you to explain rationale of ProhibitOnions decision, I've asked him/her to explain grounds for decision (except carbon-copying your decision) already. Thank you in advance, RJ CG 17:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When i say it was discussed multiple times at the ANI, i mean the block of both of you, Peter Krohn and Digwuren were reviewed by other admins. If you couldn't find a link to the thread where i was accused of alleged abuse of my admin tools, here it is. If you believe you have been treated unfairly, please look for a venue to express your feelings as everyone does. Cheers. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could make yourself a party of the ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren--Alexia Death the Grey 19:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested at this point in beef you guys seem to have with anyone who dares to have views slightly different from ones pushed by your group. As far as I'm concerned this is the case about your group, and I am concerned about MY credibility and outlandish accusations previously uninvolved admins seem to buy at face value at first. Although it may seem incredible to you, people may have other things to care about but your group. RJ CG 19:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Estonians are evil Nazis" is not a valid "different viewpoint". It's ethnic hatred, plain and simple. Digwuren 20:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide an e-mail address or contact me by e-mail. I need to talk in private about the character assassination you are the target of. -- Petri Krohn 00:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Petri. I chose to not to use e-mail communication option for the time being in order to avoid meatpuppeting accusations. I see that it didn't help, as evident from Digwuren's outlandish statements. But I'm hopeless believer in the human good, so I'll keep things this way for now. Sincerely, RJ CG 16:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article. The guideline says that the one who made a bold edit which got reverted starts the discussion explaining why he thinks his edit is better. The discussion is kept when a new consensus is achieved. Your edit was definitely bold one. Suva 13:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.RJ CG 15:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you have started the discussion doesn't give you right to revert again. You can revert only if new consensus is reached, and this is reached when other editors agree with your points. Or don't have clear opinion at all in some amount of time. Suva 15:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This very same logic should apply to actions of my opponent, shouldn't it? But I didn't see you calling on him to revert his edits and to discuss differences on a talk page. And I'm not sure since what time I should beg you or Digwuren for the right to edit page. Could you clarify, please? RJ CG 18:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He hasn't reverted me.

You should really read through the WP:BRD and WP:CON

In short. Page's current state which has lasted for some time, and several editors agree to, is current "consensus" if you make a bold edit, which changes the idea of section or even whole article radically and you get reverted you have to explain why you think your edits are better. Then the conversation should find a new consensus or stick to old one.

Unfortunately WP:BRD is not a rule. And some people don't respect that guideline. First step would be to come to some sort of agreement with other editors to follow some guidelines and talk first not edit war.

I see that some editors are just trying to get eachother upset. I am even so bold to guess that some people are being payed to fill wikipedia with wrong information, I wish I am mistaking though. I wish the whole stuff is just some sort of misunderstanding created by media and governments.

Anyways, my "wise words" to you: World is not black and white. People who don't like coffee don't neccesarily have to like tea. And my wise words to everyone involved: Edit warring in wikipedia is not helping anyone. The current battle only damages the reputation of both Russia and Estonia. Suva 18:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are mightily nice words you write here. I only wish they would be more fact-based. Would you take a look at article in question before writing your comment (read something before you comment on it, didn't they teach it in an Estonian school), you would notice that yours truly had been involved in editing of this section for the most of the Friday, Aug. 10. As it was by the end of the Friday, it contained brief description of Russian position and comment from rather partial (and let's say, not extremely friendly to current Russian regime) Jamestown Foundation. Then Martintg and Digwuren started to edit this section over the weekend in the clear and blatant violation of WP:BRD you claim to respect so much. Not a whiff of displeasure from you. I haven't been involved in wikipedia over the weekend, as is clearly seen from [4]. Then, Monday morning, I edited section, basically removing Estonian interpretation of Russian claims and just listing the claims (and I'd like to ask for a umpteen time, since you happily ignored this question before - aren't Russians allowed to speak for themselves). This triggered immediate flurry of accusations of WP:BRD violations. Excuse me, but since factual basis for your accusations of a WP:BRD violation is so flimsy and partial, I have no other choice but to question your right to lecture me anything related to etiquette. RJ CG 19:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before WP:BRD is not a rule, nobody can VIOLATE it. I am just losing all kinds of respect towards editors involved in this dispute and wikipedia itself. For some strangest reasons you started to seem like a most reasonable person in this stuff, so I just decided to give some advice.

BRD is a tactic - strategy. Very clever one at that, if you can use it correctly. You can't say that anyone has violated it, but you can use it to avoid editwars and get the article NPOV. Suva 20:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has come to my attention that this talk page has been used by some of this user's content opponents abusively. I made a first clean up and I intend to keep it on my watchlist from now on.

The most blatant violation was posting by Digwuren on the top of this page. Anything that contradicts the spirit of {{Pinfo}} will be removed and posters will be reported.

It has also come to my attention that some used this page to post warning templates abusively. WP:DTTR sums it up nicely why this is a bad practice. When I see these templates posted again with the sole intention to harass the user, this templates will be removed on sight. For now, I removed various warning images. I intend to remove messages later, unless the owner of this page objects.

However fiercely one may disagree with the content of this editor's edits, vandalism and test templates are not the right way of settling content conflicts as they clearly do not apply. Such templates are nothing but harassment and those who abuse them will be reported.

Finally, I would like to state that I have never interacted with this user and I have no intention to "protect" him from being punished for any wrongdoing he might have done or will do. I see the block above given during the last Digwuren/Petri mess being sorted out and I thoroughly endorse all three blocks. Please do not waste time spreading the content bias accusations. I do not care for the content of this user's edit but he is obviously being harassed. This matter will be raised at the workshop of Digwuren's case, once the page is created.

Your cooperation is appreciated, --Irpen 19:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me giving you one. I notice that you never received the proper welcome at this project. Instead of the guidance template, you were welcomed by Digwuren's trollish entry. It is kind of late for {{Ruswelcome}} to be placed at your talk but judging from your Babel message, you might want to check some links at its bottom.

Generally, it is a good idea to alternate editing of controversial topics with something less contentious. Maybe you can create a new article or expand some? The Russia Portal, particularly its "Things you can do" window, and the Portal:Russia/New article announcements may be worthy to check out for some articles or suggestions were work is needed. Regards, --Irpen 23:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that false warning templates placed here by D and Korp! Estonia have been removed. Good! I was going to remove them in June, but was a bit too late. I consider all of them harassment and part of a campaign of character assassination. None of them had any grounds in your conduct, all were misuse of the templates. Unhappily the blocking administrator did not see through the disruption and harassment. -- Petri Krohn 16:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I may be partly to blame, as I regurally placed 3RR and some vandal warning tags on User Talk:Digwuren, in that case for very good reasons. It may not have been a good idea to use templates, but once someone starts communication with you with personal attacks, it is very difficult to maintain a polite conversation. -- Petri Krohn 16:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the warning signs earlier and said I will remove the rest of that crap too. Doing it now. Yes, Petri, don't use templates communicating with established editors. Even with the most disruptive ones like Digwurem. Take a look at WP:DTTR. --Irpen 17:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I would appreciate it, if you could give me your thoughts on this essay: Accusations of collaboration: 3RR hurts Wikipedia --Alexia Death the Grey 09:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

ProhibitOnions ^(T) 09:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I challenged block as politically motivated here, after administrator repeatedly refused to provide specific examples of violations he accused me of, although repeatedly questioning my motives and motives of a wikipedian who asked him to answer my questions. RJ CG 13:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 00:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RJ, I strongly urge you to heed to my earlier advise and devote a meaningful fraction of your editing time to less controversial articles. --Irpen 20:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added my comment here [5]--Ilya1166 05:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RJ CG, a topic recently posted on ANI included links to some rather incivil edit summaries. Comments like the "fragile state of your brain" more than borderlines WP:NPA. Please express your criticisms of editor's actions in a more civil manner seeing as this a collaborative project and not a place to put down your fellow editor. Thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will, but my comment was in responce to the "I déjà vu myself" summary made by previous editor. Thank you for reminding that I shouldn't descend on the level of some editors. I'll restraint myself. RJ CG 16:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating the three-revert rule on Rein Lang.  Your block will expire in 96 hours. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Deskana (apples) 20:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was last change a revert? I deliberately left the stuff which enraged my opponents untouched. RJ CG 21:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partial reverts count, which that was. --Deskana (apples) 21:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know I am now using the account Miyokan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilya1166 (talk • contribs) 05:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

News of that sort are not a matter of copyright protection so you don't really have to weasel things up to avoid any violations. :) Suva 18:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you meant by "weasel things up", but RIANs website is copyrighted. I'm not sure what your problem is (besides an obvious displeasure about the news). Could you please elaborate? TIA, RJ CG 18:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some people say that peek at copyright law can be helpful. But people say all kinds of things, don't they? Suva 18:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for an irrelevant note and cluttering wikipedia with another childish personal attack. Fell free to continue anger wenting. I understand your embarassment, but I can't help it. I didn't force Mr. Lang and Mr. Aaviksoo at the gunpoint to make their outrageous statements. RJ CG 19:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack? I just gave you an advice about copyright law. News are not copyrightable in most jurisdictions. Although fiction is, so maybe you are right to be careful. ;)

Embarrasment, I don't think so. I find your continuos attempts at obfuscating old news rather entertaining. :) Suva 19:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Old news? It's today news. "Obfuscating"? Well, in normal society words like these begs for a proof, but I don't think you understand. Thank you for your continuous attention to my humble person, although I probably should follow "don't feed the trolls" rule and let you to pollute my talk page unopposed. Have a nice day.RJ CG 19:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually meant your edit to add "digging of war graves" in the cover of "copyvio avoidance" process. But I have no problem with that, carry on! Suva 19:32, 6 September 2007 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

1.Edit warring takes two to war. Is punishment against one side impartial?
2. I did not resort to reverts of content added by other users (something that continuosly used by the side I "edit-war" with, according to blocking admin)
3. All reverts of relevant and sourced content I added were with an explanation "vandalism" (accusation that nomally need to be supported) or simply "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". I challenged the editor who reverted me to provide an explanation, and he just fled from editing the "Rein Lang" article (although he contributed to other articles in the same time).
4. Even Baltic editors see content I added to the Bronze Soldier as relevant.
RJ CG 13:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are clearly continuing to edit war. A revert is any action that in whole or in part undoes the actions of another editor. If you add information and it is removed by another editor and then you readd it, that is a revert. — Yamla 15:58, 7 September 2007 (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.

RJ CG's complaint is severely misplaced. You have attempted to push your extreme views by editwarring against the community; you cannot expect the community to be banned over enforcing stability and keeping bigotry out of mainspace.

Furthermore, you're a WP:SPA. As can be seen plainly from Special:Contributions/RJ_CG, you almost exclusively edit Estonia-related articles, so as to insert a hateful POV into them, and only when Irpen reminds you to diversify, do trivial things elsewhere — such as the AK47 series. You're not on Wikipedia to create an encyclopædia; your purpose here is clearly quite sinister. Digwuren 14:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this comment is the best illustration of my point (1). It takes 2 to edit-war and aggressive attitude is clearly shown by the "other" side. It also worth noting that this user refused to elaborate his politically motivated accusations on the Rein Lang and resorted to personal attacks here instead. I have doubts as to what clears me of accusations of "edit warring" better. Other than that, I see no need to comment on accusations of prominent troll, who repeatedly had been under puppeting investigation, is accused of hacking of the wikiadmin's computer, is under the ArbCom investigation. RJ CG 14:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way. These sockpuppet accusations are proved to be baseless many times. Only you and some other editors use that claim. And about that ArbCom. There is much more evidence against you than Digwuren right now. Hmm, is there any evidence against Digwuren at all? :) Suva 14:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Acute observation! Let's put it this way:

Did you know... ...that the arbitration case named after Digwuren has more evidence presented against RJ CG than Digwuren, even though RJ CG has not yet been named a party?

BTW

Did you know... ...that outside of Estonia it is considered an extremely distasteful to pick on a banned/blocked user?

This is called "common courtesy", but I don't expect you to understand this concept, so you probably should be coached on following one rule at a time. Have a nice weekend, filled with fear of Russian bears invading Estonia. Bye, RJ CG 16:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if I assume not-so-good faith. But your constructive edits were clearly there for only one reason: To obfuscate the process of adding more hatespeech. The latest diff which I lead your attention to is a clear example of this. You added the obviously hateful "digging of war graves" and marking the edit as "Avoiding copyvio".

Do baltic editors agree with your edits? No, we are trying to be civil, waiting you to get tired of this childish editing and go away. We also don't want to editwar with you, or editmessage-chat with you to find the consensus. Suva 14:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again? O_O. As to "digging of war graves"... It is not even proper English and you have been corrected on that before IIRC. You can speak about digging of graves when holes a dug to put dead bodies into them. Relocating graves was what you were trying to say I hope.--Alexia Death the Grey 14:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No he was actually referring to the evil gravedigger and bone collector Andrus Ansip. Suva 14:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do share your amusement at the speed of this block, together with negligence to inform me. Regarding your statement "As to "digging of war graves"... It is not even proper English" - it's false (read BBC article). Can I advice you to stick to language of political accusations in the future (Estophobe, eat babies and so on), as all your attempts so far to "get" me on factual incorrectness just proved you wrong. RJ CG 15:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English-language journalists often chop up sentences when making headlines. It's an old tradition from an era when paper was expensive, and short headlines thus paid. But even this particular article uses the proper phrase "dig up" in its body. Digwuren 16:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if you feel bad about calling a chicken a chicken, but this whole "hateful" accusation needs to be clarified. Digging of war graves is a fact. I could not even call it "relocation of the war graves" at this point, as currently some bodies did not find it's final resting place. Does it present actions of the Estonian state in an unfavourable light? Probably it does. Should we restrict WP to Estonia-friendly information only? I don't think so. On the related note, normally accusations of "POV-pushing" weigh much more when user follows same standards of editing everythere. So if somebody dares to accuse others of "weaseling up", this wikipedian probably protects peace and non-POV-ness in other parts of WP. Let's see what you said about Zoya_Kosmodemyanskaya. Calling her an "arsonist" and "saboteur" clearly ruffled many feathers of Russian editors. Moreover, it was not a "description" of her actions (she had been described as a "partisan", and this adequately covers actions against enemy's installations, using fire or other means), but "an opinion" about them. You repeatedly tried to protect POV-pusher and engaged in attacking users who saw this as POV-pushing. Now let's jump to "Cyberattacks". "Grave-digging" is a description, as it is impossible to equate relocation of monument with digging of war graves and former does not adequately describe the latter. And what did we see? You repeatedly attacked me for adding related and previously unmentioned information. Don't you think this is a schoolbook example of "hypocricy"? RJ CG 15:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Blocked for having the gall to annoy Baltic editors", who are untouchable with all their poisonous political accusations. Thank you for spelling it out loud. I'll also keep in mind that massive removals with comment "identified as vandalism" is an acceptable tool. RJ CG 16:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear fellow... "digging of war graves" means making holes in the ground for putting victims of war into them. "digging up war graves" means opening graves of war victims. So, sorry, but you WERE wrong. The way English newspapers chop up their headlines is no example of good grammar. "digging graves" is misused in the interest of shortness in that headline but at least resembles a proper sentence. Yours does not.--Alexia Death the Grey 16:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just heard that RJ CG eats babies. Is that true? Nah, just kidding. If you really want to get somewhere then follow the lead of other editors who don't get blocks. At the start, please edit some other articles you know about. Get yourself some respect instead of plunging into editwars after your block expires. You can then edit estonian articles to the direction of "Estonians being nazis" much easyer! :)

Or maybe... If you have more experience as good wikipedia editor, you won't actually do that anymore, but try to edit articles towards NPOV instead! And sometimes when you see something stated in some newspaper and your edit gets reverted right away, you check other sources aswell, to see if you made a mistake? Oh well, I hope you learn that dry editwarring is not going to help you. Suva 21:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to keep #wikipedia open at all times, because it's the place where your blocks have been engineered by your "friends". It is a first-rate vehicle for block shopping, which does not allow the accused to say anything in his defence, and they know and appreciate that. There are IRC clients that will notify you once your name (or some other key word) is mentioned. I am told the option is pretty useful for detecting a witch-hunt when it's going on behind the scenes. Take care, Ghirla^-трёп- 13:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I support Ghirlas advice. Then we can use better method for discussion than revert message summaries. Suva 14:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again,

I must say that I am disapointed that you seem to continue considering edit warring a valid path in solving the content disputes. Disruptive editors are usually characterized by three things: sterile edit warring, completely non-apologetic stance, and grievously offensive tone of discussions. If you employ just one of these three items of the list, you are likely to be perceived no different from your opponents who employ all three. I urge you to cut down on edit warring and concern yourself with the broader scope of articles including some noncontroversial content. If your edits get revert warred stop first and state your objections at talk. Mother Russia won't collapse because a couple of Wikipedia articles will stay in the version you fiercely disagree with for some time until the compromise is achieved.

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution offers several paths to resolving content disputes and none include edit warring. The ArbCom case on the host of related issues is ongoing at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. You may be interested to look at the ArbCom's evidence page and its talk since your name was mentioned by both sides. But most importantly, please stop edit warring and widen the scope of the articles you edit to include some less contentious ones. Writing content is no less interesting (even more actually) than fighting for it. --Irpen 09:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. RJ CG, whether you are "right" or "wrong", using the rv button as a primary tool in edit conflict resolution will get you nowhere. It will get you blocked even sooner if you are being opposed by a coordinated team. You should stop editing this article now. --Irpen 19:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heavily recommend you to work with some other articles for a while. The horse is dead and you probably get blocked if you try to unbalance the articles which you were blocked about. Please try editing some non controversial topics for a while. I will not report you anywhere if you do decide to ignore my advice, but I am sure that somebody will. Владимир И. Сува Чего? 14:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. I have no doubts somebody will snitch, but I haven't got a lot of time now for Wikilife. I just inserted a piece of information and hope it will stay here. Anyway, I doubt I will pop up again in the next 24 hours at least. Have a nice day. RJ CG 14:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Haemo 19:18, 4 October 2007 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I made the edit and then other editors reverted it 3 times without discussion. Why is my change considered "4th revert"? RJ CG 19:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As discussed below, the rule isn't an entitlement to three or fewer reverts in a day. In the future, please take it to the talk page or ask for a third opinion. Thank you. --chaser - t 23:02, 4 October 2007 (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 don't seem to get it. You have an extensive history of edit warring, and the three revert rule does not entitle you to 4 reverts a day. You have been blocked repeatedly for edit warring, yet show no inclination whatsoever to stop. Consider this your wake-up call. --Haemo 19:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Was he alone to revert war one step under 3RR? --Irpen 19:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, one other edit went to three. However, he has never been blocked for edit warring, so I feel that the warning on his talk page is enough. Ironically, it was RJCG who made it. --Haemo 19:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, RJ CG did not simply make a edit + 3 reverts. He did 4 reverts to that 21 september version [6] --Staberinde 20:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

...to comment here [7] and here [8]--Dojarca 08:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 22:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand your wish to add tautology to the article? Finland had long been part of the Swedish kingdom when it was conquered by Imperial Russia in 1809... So, Russia captured Finland... ...and turned into an autonomous... OK, so it was autonomous, not independent... ...buffer state... nothing wrong here... ...within the Russian Empire... Hey, but only half a sentence before it was already stated that Russia captured Finland. What is this? ...to protect the Russian capital. --Whiskey (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually most of sentence you attribute to me had been there long before. I only added "within the Russian Empire" as, believe it or not, not every land conquered by Russia had been annexed by Russia (taking into account that Russians occupied good chunk of France during Napoleonic war, statement "conquered by Russia" equals to "became part of the Russian Empire" only in fantasyland where whole Eastern and Central Europe and France are parts of the Russian empire). By the way, are you sure that your latest edits of Winter War are necessary? They are informative, but not directly related to Winter War (IMHO), poorly sourced and language lives much to be desired. I understand the desire of Finnish wikipedian to stress once more that Finland were a military ally of Nazi Germany but did not share it's views, but do we really need to repeat this mantra in each Finland-related article? I suggest you create/improve an article on Finnish interwar politics and link it to Winter War.RJ CG (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't complain the existing form but your addition, which I consider tautology. First, to occupy is not the same as to conquer, and second, by giving the definition "autonomous" it clearly states that the country belongs to other entity and if it is then created to protect St.Petersburg it becomes quite clear even to the casual reader which country is the mother country.

You are right, the additions are not necessary and they could be put to the separate article. But, even before your edits, and even more after them, the article highlights the Finnish connection to the Germany and downplays the connections to the western democracies which doesn't give balanced view on the issue. I have nothing against presenting Finnish relations with Germany, as long as it is balanced with Finnish relations to other countries. And yes, I know my English sucks.;-)

And about the sourcing... Is your OR-claim in Shelling of Mainila a general one or specific for certain statements? I'll start adding sources to that article later today and tomorrow.--Whiskey (talk) 06:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering what you meant when you said that my edit highlighted Finnish links with Germany? I only added that Danish Freikorps fought on Nazi side. If that bruised your sense of fairness, I added that Norwegian volunteers became heroes of anti-Nazi resistance later.

Regarding shelling of Mainila, article does not cite any sources. RJ CG (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now it does.:-) --Whiskey (talk) 21:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. BTW, you don't seem to know Russian, don't ya? Link to Aptekar's article is copypaste of worst kind. I also added link to another article devoted to the same event, published by rkka.ru. Not surprisingly, it claims that it is impossible to assign responsibility based on existing documents. Not that I trust it too much, but we're trying to create NPOV source and not Finnish or Russian or whatever propaganda leaflet, aren't we. RJ CG (talk) 14:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from templating regular editors, since many people construe this as patronising and uncivil. Martintg (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just an hello. Disregarding this can only bring trouble your way. --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G'day to you mate. I see that all this whining about hideous Russian wikipedians driving Balts out of project (I saw plenty of it early January) is one more example of generalizations bordering on distortions. One more of the same from the same group. RJ CG (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[9] made on February 8 2008 to Mart Laar

[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The duration of the block is 2 weeks. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of boldly changing a few things there. Enjoy (ya ne shuchu)!--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not re-change the heading titles. The period 1940-1991 is not uncertain and random. Karabinier (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not forget that official Estonian version of history still maintains that there were two occupations (contrary to feeling of many Estonians that Nazi were liberators). Therefore just "Occupation" is not clear for reader not aware of this split between official version and human feelings. RJ CG (talk) 13:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The submarine Lembit was not taken over by the invading Nazi troops. Lembit was incorporated into the Soviet Baltic Fleet by the Soviet Union. Therefore in the terms of Lembit we cant talk about two foreign submarine operators - because only USSR operated with Lembit submarine besides Estonia...Therefore the occupation is accurate as the submarine and the Republic of Estonia did not join USSR voluntarily.Karabinier (talk) 18:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Roman Catholicism the only religion the Polish Communist Party allowed?

Or did they allow other religions to exist?

And if they tolerated religious belief, even in there own party,

then why did the Polish Communist Party supress religious belief? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chamaoloan (talk • contribs) 02:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alexander Litvinenko. 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. seicer | talk | contribs 20:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 month: the uses to which you put the IPs 192.30.202.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 209.161.215.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) were most certainly not ethical or in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your timely intervention, blocking me for sins commited by anonymous public IPs (one of which belongs to Toronto Public Library and most likely shared by public access computers there, if edit history is any indication, and another to big Canadian ISP). It confirms my suspicion that it is not only OK to punish registered user attacked by hosts of anonymous IP from the same provider (you did it back in February, 2008), it is OK to punish registered user for the sins committed by various anonymous IPs from the same small agglomeration of 6 millions humans. You banned me before for warring with anonymous IP from country of 800,000 citizens. You banned me when two anonymous IP from region of 6 millions supported my edits. So, being attacked by anon. IPs or being supported by them, I end up being banned for some considerable (and ever-increasing) amounts of time. Why don't you stop playing this silly game of looking for funny exuses and just ban me indefinitely for being not to your liking? RJ CG (talk) 15:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About "the Stalinist government in Poland respecting traditional faiths such as Roman Catholicism and allowing some people in the party to practice Roman Catholicism", if that was the case, then the Soviet Union would have allowed the Russian Orthodox Church to exist but instead they persecuted the church, so if the Soviet Union persecuted the traditional Orthodox Church then what stopped Stalinist Poland from persecuting the Roman Catholic Church, or did they persecute the church?

Thank you.

Redsensation (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Situation of Roman Catholic Church in Poland was absolutely different from one Russian Orthodox Church suffered post-1917. Militant atheism was an important part of Bolshevik ideology in Russia and all faiths suffered equally bleak fate. When Soviets imposed Communist regime on Poles, they found Catholic Church to be too strong of an institution to suppress it. Therefore communist leadership approved quiet "detente" policy with the Church, "non-aggression pact" of sorts (one that Church violated in late-1970, throwing itself into the same camp with "Solidarity", but it is perfectly natural to violate compacts with weak opponent). Yes, authorities repressed some Church officials and "stepped on the Church's toes", so to speak, tried to limit it's reach here and there (for example, it was banished from the Army and authorities did not exactly enouraged church attendance), but generally it was allowed to exist. In general, drawing parallels between prosecution of Russian Orthodox Church and hardships faced by Polich Catholic Church is as valid as lumping Gordon Brown and Stalin into the same "Communist Murderers" group. I don't consider myself authority in Church-Party relationships in Poland, it is just more of personal recollection of event. You'll need to do some research for yourself, if you're interested. RJ CG (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

3RR violation on Alexander Dyukov and two other articles, by the IP editor 206.186.8.130 (talk · contribs), confirmed to be your sock at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/RJ CG. The 3RR was reported at WP:AN3. EdJohnston (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently discussing this. Perhaps you would like to join us, as you have suggested an interest before. Mariya - x - Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 19:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My account is blocked again, this time indefinitely. I'm not really surprised nobody cared to warn me about it. Not after being banned repeatedly for edits done by IPs from the same area (6-mln. megacity, not a small village). Gloves are off once one fashion him/herself "fighter against red scare". RJ CG (talk) 14:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/174.89.242.109 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 16:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Alberta Pure Vodka has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nothing to suggest WP:Notability

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]