User talk:PasswordUsername/Archive

WP:NPA and WP:POINT
With regard to these your statements... You came to my talk page only to call me a vandal and claim that I intentionally misrepresent sources. And you still did not provide any proof of that. You also said above that you intentially reverted a bunch of my edits to teach me a lesson. Are you going to continue, to follow my edits in articles you were never interested before and revert my edits? Doing so is against WP policies. Regards, Biophys (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw this as I am still watching this talk page. This looks like a clash of strong POVs to me, and I have no idea who is right. But one thing: We have a very restrictive, technical definition of vandalism here, which makes sense because reverting vandalism is exempt from 3RR and this exemption is not supposed to be effective in a case such as this one. It's easy for a beginner to get this wrong, especially because many of the more experienced editors abuse the word in all those contexts where they can get away with it. Vandalism warnings are not one of them. --Hans Adler (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This user apologized, and I asked him not to follow my edits. If he follows this advise, everything should be fine. I am not sure what you call my "POV". I do not hold any strong opinions about Novodvorskaya beyond following WP:BLP rules, and I do not care about Neo-Stalinism. I edited hundreds other articles and will continue doing so. Thank you for the comment.Biophys (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Renominating
It's a little soon, unless you've come up with some really persuasive arguments that weren't touched on last time. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  02:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no hard-and-fast rule; generally, though, unless the closure was so inappropriate that it should have gone to deletion review, I've seen it suggested that six months is a good bare minimum. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  12:28, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply
I would appreciate if you do not revert every my edit, even such neutral edit as formatting an image, without even talking. Also note that you promised at the ANI do not edit war using alternative accounts, but you are doing just that.Biophys (talk) 01:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As I've explained to you on your talk page, you cited WP:BLP as a reason for removing a photograph of Valeriya Novodvorskaya, whereas WP:BLP privedes for no such thing. You did not reformat the image; you deleted it. And I am watching the Novodvorskaya page, as you seem to be the only one making the extraordinary and radical anti-consensus claims found at Talk:Valeriya Novodvorskaya. My edit only happened under an IP as I got automatically logged out at the time of going to the Novodvorskaya page without realizing it, and I identified myself with both accounts within a minute of making the edit, as you have obviously seen at User talk:32.178.98.17. Best, PasswordUsername (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I did not cite BLP as a reason for removing image. Two very similar images of the same person are too much per WP:MOS. Your revert of such "gnomish" edit, without even talking, was unacceptable.Biophys (talk) 01:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)


 * MOS doesn't forbid using two images of the same person to illustrate – you did still cite BLP in your removal of the picture in your second edit to a version rejected by consensus(1), whereas you did not cite any policy of Wikipedia in your "two pictures are unnecessary" summary in the first one. I don't see what the issue of MOS here is; if it's a matter of adding captions, I can easily do that should you request. Your first edit also requests that we see talk, whereas you added nothing new to the discussion (where all your previous points had been addressed) there before reverting from the previous version. PasswordUsername (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

You are right
You are absolutely right about this. I was just about to post a similar comment. (I totally disagree with User:Biruitorul's claim: "since their return, Digwuren has shown good conduct, but Petri Krohn has proven unable to do so.) However, I decided to leave the board in peace and complained here instead. I can only hope that the admins will take a deeper look at the issues before jumping into action. Offliner (talk) 20:17, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
MLauba (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Volunteers
The brigade resorted to the conscription of young Estonians to complete its establishment and many others. Do you mean that you edit-warred without even trying to find out anything about the subject? Not good. Colchicum (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Explain
This is synthesis, as the source is not about Armenians. You may ask at any noticeboard and will learn that this is not on. Furthermore, this is a logical fallacy, the synthesis would be valid only if all Russophones were left without Estonian citizenship, which is emphatically not the case. Frankly, you don't even know for sure whether these 2,000 Armenians lived there before 1991 or they are recent immigrants. You don't even know whether they are Estonian citizens or not. This is pure original research, or rather guesswork. And in no way could the Russophones in question be "deprived" of what they had never had. Systematically? Where is this taken from? Your source doesn't use such words. Colchicum (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Beer lovers
A tag has been placed on Beer lovers requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 00:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on June 7 2009 to Kaitsepolitsei
You have been blocked from editing for 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 below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley (talk) 11:07, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Fifth revert
I did indicate a fifth revert later on in the discussion for Sander Sade. Would appreciate it if you take a look. Thanks. PasswordUsername (talk) 11:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Not obviously. What is it? William M. Connolley (talk) 11:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This is revert # 5: . (This is another instance of Sade reverting my edit, not in the first four I'd indicated in the beginning. I misattributed it to a revert of Offliner's content at the reverts noticeboard.) Also, I'd say the incivility in Sade's edit summaries at Kaitsepolitsei is probably an aggravating factor. PasswordUsername (talk)
 * --and I just found a sixth and seventh reverts:, . PasswordUsername (talk) 11:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems Sander Säde has broken 3RR. See the diffs I posted here. Offliner (talk) 14:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing it up – a swell thing on your part, Offliner. Hopefully it will catch someone's attention at ANI... Where is the grinding of those wheels of Wikijustice? ;-) PasswordUsername (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Offer of a deal
Hello PasswordUsername. I've made an offer to User talk:Sander Säde to excuse him from his apparent 3RR violation if he would voluntarily agree not to edit Kaitsepolitsei for one month, and only use the talk page. I said that I would make the same offer to you. If you agree to not edit the article directly for one month, and only use the talk page, you could be unblocked. (I might need to check with the blocking admin first). What do you think? EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I went over 3RR by one revert by pure accident, simply restoring sourced content and removing another user's insertion of WP:SYNTH and WP:SELFPUB. I have a pretty decent history of using Talk pages. Meanwhile, some editors have clearly abused the project. We now have teammates of a certain party adding edit summaries in Estonian...
 * I'm fine with the block - the world does work in its mysterious ways. Unblocking me would not be fair to our rules - and unacceptable since these are what is supposed to guide our project.
 * I'll take the block, since it is merited - I do appreciate your offer. PasswordUsername (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So you're declining my offer? You are aware that future reverts by either you or SS may result in more sanctions. This does appear to be an unnecessary dispute, and you are both well-intentioned, but this seems to be your choice, so let it be as you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no intention of doing future edits to the article. But I'll take the block. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing restriction
You and Sander Säde will not be editing the Kaitsepolitsei article for a month. (You can still edit the talk page). That one-month period will end at 17:12 UTC, 7 July 2009. Since you did not request unblocking, your block will stay in place until it expires. Thanks to his agreement to the restriction, Sander Säde will remain unblocked. EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Stalky-stalk
Hello Frank, thanks for the advice! I know that it is not good to go on some pages and every time I do that I have a sore belly (^__^). Anyway, I'm on Wikipedia because I think that every little bit of human knowledge should be shared by the entire human race, exactly like everything else. But, I am not here to do politics. Thank you once again and have a great day. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 08:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Unrelated insults by an unrelated user
Thank you Frank once again for you support, but it is not necessary. They are young. Perhaps one day they will grow up and realize that they are wasting their time. Best regards. –p joe f (talk • contribs) 11:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Your stalking allegations
I have had Armenia on my watchlist for a long time ever since being engaged there in the "is Armenia European or not" discussion quite some time ago. I saw the article tagged. I added a reference. I added Pjoef's talk to my watchlist. What do I find when I peruse through but you on their talk page pointing to your side of some argument regarding accusations you first lodged there as some sort of proof, indicating Digwuren or I are stalking you, you don't really care who. I am tired of your accusations against me behind my back on user and admin pages. In the future, should you have any concerns regarding my conduct: (A) contact me, and/or, (B) file for administrative action. I request you cease and desist from further innuendo and accusations. I trust I have made myself clear. PetersV     TALK 01:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP
Where do you see a BLP violation in ? The sentence is based on his own statements from the interview, and it's not like it's some sort of radical minority party. In recent Europarliament elections, it got two seats of Estonia's six. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 13:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Re:Southern Poverty Law Center a reliable organization?
Hi, thanks for the comment. I responded on noticed board (sorry for the delay). While I am not deeply familiar with SPLC, it seems that it is RS indeed. Have a good day, M.K. (talk) 08:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your backup on several Estonia/Russia related articles. I am now serving out a 6 month restriction on such articles and a 3 month block on BLP related to both countries.

I think certain users, especially Digwuren, are very good at gaming the system. Obviously, adopting the same tactics (as I did) is wrong but it does seem rather unfair that they have been able to get away with this behaviour for so long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shotlandiya (talk • contribs) 12:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
Hello,. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Sander Säde  08:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. Peltimikko (talk) 15:54, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked
I've blocked you for 72 hours. You've repeatedly inserted nonsense on Estonia-related articles. This type of edits are unacceptable. You've also inserted other nonsense. WP is not a computer game where you can insert whatever you want. See WP:NPOV. If you don't stop your anti-Estonian campaign, you may get blocked for a longer period. AdjustShift (talk) 18:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Statistics
I was going to post this information on the Crime in Estonia page, however, as you expanded your comments regarding your unblock request above, it seemed appropriate to post here, as, quite serendipitously, given my personal interest in Romania and participation on WP content there, and as it's not a Baltic state, I had quite independently picked Romania to cross check against Estonia.

Estonia
 * per http://www.prb.org/Countries/Estonia.aspx
 * population mid-2007 = 1,300,000
 * population age < 15 = 15%, so approximately 195,000
 * per http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119077.htm
 * (one year off, but population at a gross level should be about the same)
 * 762 cases of violence reported against children
 * = ratio of 1 out of every 256 children abused
 * = ratio of .58 cases per 1,000 total population

Romania
 * per http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2008/eur/119100.htm
 * first six months of 2008, 5,815 cases of child abuse (annualize to 11,630)
 * per our own WP, close enough...
 * total population 22,246,862
 * 0-14 years = 1,778,864 boys, 1,687,659 girls = 3,466,523 total
 * = ratio of 1 out of every 298 children abused
 * = ratio of .52 cases per 1,000 total population

One must be careful in presenting statistics that incidents "per population" are normalized against the appropriate values and that the raw statistics are as equivalent as possible. Most importantly, any such discussions should occur on article talk first, complete with figures, especially before serious allegations regarding child abuse being " common " are made. Obviously the demographics aren't an exact match, but even so, I cannot find support for your statement that "Estonia's statistics are among Europe's highest -- per capita, over 20 times Romania's ". What statistics? Per what capita (population demographic)?

Lastly, claiming: "This and other edits have been repeatedly attacked by content opponents, when in fact everything I enter into Wikipedia is a refleciton [sic.] of some previously published assessment or established fact." (my emphasis) isn't quite accurate. It's not what you say about your representation of sources that counts, it is your providing transparency to your sources so that (a) other editors can confirm them as reputable and (b) other editors can confirm your "reflection" as being a fair and accurate representation. You have done neither for your statement-as-fact of "common" child abuse. I hope you find this helpful and that it clarifies why editors would take exception to your content. PetersV     TALK 18:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Reply
I've already noted that the source was Child Sexual Abuse in Europe (2003). (Such numbers are both more complete and scrutinized than the general U.S. State Department reports you have cited (e.g., first six months of 2008)). Incidentally, violence against children and child molestation are completely different things – you must distinguish cases of the former from cases of the latter, and I believe that you are smart enough to know better. There is a very good table on Page 20 of the book (with child sexual abuse cases on the left and as a percentage of child abuse and neglect cases on the right of the table): the number of cases per 10,000 population is given at 0.05 for Romania, and 1.1 for Estonia (the highest of any country of the Eastern European group for comparison in the table). The same work notes that child molestation rates are considerably lower for Western Europe. I am sorry for the troublesome formulation "child molestation is common" with regard to the Crime in Estonia entry, but this is indeed something consistent with the incidence of crime against children in the country. This doesn't imply anything about Estonians as a nation – it's a statement regarding the criminal conditions in the country. In fact, many (if not most) of the worst child molestation crimes are committed by foreigners, and this inadequacy in child protection is not unrelated to the human trafficking problem in the country (cited as a significant concern by the United States Department of State - this is the first thing noted, incidentally, in the article Human trafficking in Estonia).

With regard to PetersV's statements about my sources, I provide links wherever possible (although false claims about my sources have been made by others - for instance, Sander Sade claimed that one of the studies cited did not mention that prostitution in Estonia was widespread, whereas this was, verbatim, the case). In this case, the source is a book.

It is sad that what was essentially a content dispute was outright turned into a distorted issue of editing by the same editors who have edit warred over a number of similar sourced claims they did not find palatable. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing is being distorted. Since we're carrying on the conversation here, I did take a look at your source, it indicated reported numbers generally much lower than for Western Europe and where numbers were askew with regard to Central and Eastern Europe, the book suggests that some could be because higher (worse) numbers indicate a better child support network (awareness and institutional support). These are not "hard" numbers and can't be used to make statements such as "child sexual abuse is 20 times greater per capita in Estonia as compared to Romania." You find something and seize on it without any further regard for understanding what the source says or for cross checking to other sources. Of course poorly written (and in your case lacking citations) content contending "common" child abuse will be deleted.
 * Regarding your statement: "The same work notes that child molestation rates are considerably lower for Western Europe", that is not what the book says, in fact, as I indicated at the outset here, it says just the opposite, that is in the table you cite, % of sexual abuse as % of all abuse is much lower than is found in Western European research, that is, rates of reported sexual abuse in Western Europe are higher . You're not spending the time to research the topic or to read over carefully and thoroughly the sources you quote. This carelessness says to me that you're more interested in generating negative content on Estonia than exploring (or being genuinely concerned from a humanitarian standpoint regarding) the topic of Crime in Estonia. Other editors may think differently, of course. PetersV     TALK 19:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely false. The book clearly states that child sexual abuse statistics are higher for Eastern Europe than Western Europe. Of the Eastern European cases indicated in the table on Page 20, the statistics are highest for Estonia. These are dramatically higher than for any other listed country. Reports are all we have to go by: if you have other sources of more accurate criminological findings, by all means, kindly submit them, please. Those numbers don't say one iota about any child support network. The self-serving interpretations here are being used as a tool much the same as usual. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope this is not a case of you simply reading what you want to read, that Estonian sexual abuse of children is off the scales. That's patently NOT what your source says, and I quote:
 * "Research in eastern Europe (Balachova et al., 2001) suggests that child sexual abuse cases are not being dealt with through child protection services in the same way as they are in western Europe. In countries where data have been collected the percentage of child sexual abuse cases as a percentage of all child abuse cases is much lower than that found in western European research (Table 1.5) [the one you cite]."


 * That is, sexual abuse of children
 * IS NOT being dealt with through child protection services in eastern Europe the way it
 * IS being dealt with through CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES in western Europe, THEREFORE
 * REPORTED sexual abuse as total percentage of abuse is LOWER in eastern European FIGURES than in western European FIGURES


 * "...Croatia and "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" appear to have a higher percentage [Estonia not mentioned but which also has a higher percentage], which might indicate that sexual abuse services are more developed there."
 * That is,


 * higher numbers relate to cases CAPTURED AND REPORTED, NOT necessarily higher number of cases OCCURRING.


 * There is absolutely nothing "self-serving" about my "interpretations." In fact, I am interpreting nothing. Please take the time to read what your beloved page 20 actually says. More time reading, less time disputing and denigrating. PetersV     TALK 20:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow. This is amazing. In countries where data have been collected the percentage of child sexual abuse cases as a percentage of all child abuse cases is much lower than that found in western European research. Do you properly understand the difference between incidence and percentage of X (precisely where X is some other number, such as total abuse of children, rather than an incidence or prevalence rate)?
 * This is a syllogism of your own:
 * "IS NOT being dealt with through child protection services in eastern Europe the way it"
 * "IS being dealt with through CHILD PROTECTION SERVICES in western Europe,
 * "THEREFORE REPORTED sexual abuse as total percentage of abuse is LOWER in eastern European FIGURES than in western European FIGURES"
 * This is not the way we do research on Wikipedia. We do not imply things based on sheer abuse of synthesis (based on your own analysis of what the statistics imply, rather than what they say).
 * And you insist on keeping yourself entertained by trifling with the same game of ignorance further, in any manner possible. Percentages are indeed higher for Croatia, but the incidence rates were found highest in the statistics for the Estonian cases. Again: this is on Page 20. PasswordUsername (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) What is "amazing"? That you're suddenly agreeing that the percentage of reported sexual child abuse IS lower for eastern Europe than for western Europe? [Sorry, re-read, you're just stating my statement is "amazing."] The source makes it clear that the quality and completeness of reporting regarding particularly low numbers—such as Romania—is suspect. It is inappropriate to use this source to contend Estonia has the "highest" anything relative to any other country. I apologize if to me you appear to be fixated on Estonia as the highest and worst as opposed to finding reputable sources with actual (non-normalized) data which can then be readily presented in an informative narrative devoid of the need for interpretation.
 * And only on WP is reading and replaying what's written in a source a "syllogistic" synthesis.
 * Here is a link to the top of page 20.
 * If anyone out there is eavesdroppping, read it and see what you think it says. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 21:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Alas, and how quickly you jump to using words like "abuse." This is not the way in which we WP:AGF. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 21:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the link: it confirms that you have consistently failed to distinguish between incidence and "percentage of child sexual abuse cases as a percentage of all child abuse cases " – as in "the percentage of child sexual abuse cases as a percentage of all child abuse cases is much lower than found in western European research."
 * Everybody who's "eavesdropping" should indeed follow the link in blue – the entire book Child Sexual Abuse Cases in Europe (Council of Europe, 2003) is recommended as well, by me personally.
 * The accusations you are constantly lobbing at content opponents is not WP:AFG, PetersV. PasswordUsername (talk) 02:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What accusations? Regarding your "Child abuse is common" I stated my opinion and that's it. Any place here I have had concerns regarding the stridency of your editorial contentions I have been clear to indicate my perceptions and not accuse you. As for page 20, I am confident in my assessment of its content, as you are in yours, hence my invitation to others to read. Where have I demonstrated lack of good faith? I have kept our conversation here cordial while you have been (my perception) spewing accusations of editorial abuse on my part. Chill. I would note that the page 20 statistics are a bit stale at this point, that's easily remedied by, as I suggested, creating content with current statistics, stating what they are, and avoiding characterizations which may be unfortunate. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 02:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The accusations you have used to "pile on" at WP:ANI in many instances, not solely this one.
 * Incidentally, the Page 20 statistics are not stale at this point. They're an example I found to demonstrate what had originally been dismissed as a tendentious claim when I had referred to the prevalent child abuse in the country generally. Although you are free to turn a blind eye to whatever you find distressing. PasswordUsername (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (od) You've made accusations on a user talk page that I stalk you. You've used "circus" to describe the behavior of editors you consider your opposition. You've used most unfortunate language in article content. I'm just holding up a mirror. Enough said, I'm not going to mud wrestle you.
 * The page 20 statistics are from Balachova's (et al.) presentation in January 2001, hence at best the numbers are from 2000. Child abuse awareness has, hopefully, come a significant way in the 9 years since that data was gathered. I have said more than once here: find current statistics, non-normalized so we can see the actual numbers, and improve the article without unfortunate editorializing. Suggesting you use current statistics is hardly turning a "blind eye" to what you contend I find "distressing" (I take that to mean that Estonia has warts). I certainly find child abuse distressing, I find many social issues in the Baltics distressing. I do not find accurately representing social issues distressing. Awareness is the first step toward progress. I have, however, stated my issues and disagreements with your interpretation and representation of information, and I've suggested improvements in your approach. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 03:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Slightly dated statistics (of up to 10 years in date) are routinely used in plenty of criminological studies documenting the crime trends in particular places. I'll try to find more recent statistics for you, (Is that even a worthwhile task, since all sorts of more recent data on the criminal situation in Estonia have been reverted per one reason or other on the Crime in Estonia page?) As someone who regularly reads the New York Times and peruses various internet and offline world journals, I can assure you that no significant downturn has been recorded.
 * And what you find distressing is certainly not just what you choose to misstate as not "accurately representing the social issues." Your willingness to confuse number of cases per 10,000 and percentage of total abuse cases (as you have done here) is just one example of what is doing the icing for this particular cake. Anyhow, given that the majority of you edits in the past month and a half seem to have corresponded with the same articles I'd been making my own edits to, I'd happen to know. But I'm on my break from this round-and-round thing with ya, so do chill out as you recommend in the edit sum.
 * Out, PasswordUsername (talk) 03:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * More recent statistics are readily available.
 * As for Estonia, if I read the table as 1.1 cases of sexual child abuse per 10,000 of population (0.05 per 10,000 for Romania is as easily under-reporting as actually being 20x less), those being 9.2% of total, means the total is approximately 1.2 cases of child abuse per 1,000 of population. My quick calculation of violence against children with more current numbers is 0.58 per 1,000 total population. So, hopefully a drop in abuse.
 * As for Romania by comparison, 0.05 per 10,000 representing 4.9% of total abuse cases comes out to 0.1 per 1,000 total population, much less than my quick 0.52 calculation above. So, hopefully an improvement in reporting (as opposed to a 5x jump in real abuse).
 * Regardless, a decade being "slightly dated" is your contention in an area known for poor statistical record keeping (in that geography). Don't confuse your past content being deleted because of how it states something with it being deleted because it states something.
 * Finally, as for majority of edits "corresponding", I was here first and watch a lot of pages. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 04:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, PetersV: those are not the recent numbers for sexual abuse of children. Please understand something about WP:SYNTH and how it comes into extrapolating from the assumptions you've pulled out of your magic hat in order to perform the conjecture in the above summary. That doesn't meet our standards per the very same synthesis rules that you would happen to be very familiar with. So just let me know when you come up with statistics that don't get their wind from reliance on quick calculations per your assumptions about the assumed correspondence between the percentages. Please kindly refrain from coming back here for a counterblast until then. (You know full well that I'm on Wikibreak?) Bye-bye now. PasswordUsername (talk) 06:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No counterblast, we've just miscommunicated here. What I did was take the page 20 numbers, extrapolate the total number of child abuse cases (the superset), and compare that to the (superset) numbers I calculated at the outset. That's a total # of abuse cases, not just sexual abuse cases. Hope that clarifies when you get back. We can discuss further on article talk. Enjoy your break. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 13:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You can wave about all the statistics you like, but as FisherQueen stated: "You give the impression of a person who is searching for negative statistics to add to the article, and I'm unable to think of any reason for your edits other than a desire to have more negative information about Estonians in the article". It is this unnatural obsession with Estonia that is the issue here. I'm afraid topic ban on Estonia related articles may well be the only answer here. --Martintg (talk) 07:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you are the editor who has been described as meriting this or something like a permanent ban: . In this instance I would absolutely concur with User:Hiberniantears...Glass houses, sticks...And stones?PasswordUsername (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, that thread is a response to accusations you launched on an admin's talk page. That admin also associated me with said group of editors you attacked, calling me a Single Purpose Account. That admin subsequently retracted that characterization. Please do not point to reactions to agitiation you created as evidence of anything. Thank you. PetersV <SMALL><SMALL>   </SMALL> TALK</SMALL> 15:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the SPA accuasations against you were retracted – I'm not going to dig this up right this minute, and this has nothing to do with you anyway. What was said about Martintg has not been, as anyone can see. PasswordUsername (talk) 18:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with admin Hiberniantears that indefinitely blocking Martintg might be a good idea to prevent disruption to the project. In recent months, Martintg has persistently edit warred to remove legitimate, well-sourced content from several articles. Perhaps he should be reported to WP:AE? Offliner (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! What wikidramu! Yeah, I also agree with admin Hiberniantears, especially as to this: but I wouldn't stop there as I can think of a tidy list of editors with whom they lock horns on a frequent basis who I would also indefinitely block. You know who are No 1 and 2 on the list, Offy. Colchicum (talk) 09:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See also this: No actionable evidence regarding any substantive post-amnesty violation of policy by Martintg has been presented. Passed 7 to 0 at 00:12, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Little has changed. Colchicum (talk) 10:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Europe
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests/Case and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Offliner (talk) 21:49, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous
Take a look at this nonsenseWP:AE Beatle Fab Four (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Note: This notice is not effective unless given by an administrator and logged here. Thatcher 21:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Courtesy notification
I've responded to yours on Thatcher's regarding myself. I remain open to sincere offers of a more collegial atmosphere. PētersV <SMALL>   TALK</SMALL> 22:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Bringing content disputes to admin pages
Please discuss content disputes where appropriate, not on admin pages. For example: The statements of these individuals regarding current or past events must be suitably attributed as not representing mainstream scholarly opinion. Thank you. PētersV <SMALL>   TALK</SMALL> 15:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * re: Rene van der Linden, he is a non-objective source regarding Estonia in particular; furthermore, I see his personal opinions and pronouncements often misrepresented as "official" positions of the CoE, again, regarding Estonia in particular.
 * re: historian Dr. Alexander Dyukov, he is a non-objective source, frequently featured on Russian state media for Estonia- and Baltic-flogging—and I don't mean flogging in the British English sense of promoting a product.

I see you have been belittling (my perception re: your comments on FIDH) the editorial positions of other WP participants on Thatcher's talk page. Please keep content disputes, including the nature of sources/organizations/etc., to article talk. Thank you. PētersV <SMALL>   TALK</SMALL> 22:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:FILMS Welcome
<div style="border: 2px solid black; background: black; background-color:lightgreen; padding: 1ex 1ex 1ex 1.5ex; margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; font-size: 90%"> Welcome! Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add User WikiProject Films to your user page.

A few features that you might find helpful:
 * Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].


 * The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for May has been published.  June's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.

There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:


 * Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
 * Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
 * Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia.  Check it out!

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask another fellow member, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Happy editing! — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to ARS!
{| style="border: 4px solid #CC0000; padding: 6px; width: 80%; min-width: 700px; background: #FFFAF0; line-height: 20px; " align=center Hi,, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!
 * colspan="2" |

We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!

Thanks
For bringing this to my attention. What's actionable under DIG in specific and CIV in general has always been in the eyes of the beholder :( Perhaps you could ask that user to be more civil yourself? It is likely that a person using such slurs will be more receptive to a comment coming from an editor who does not belong to the nation s/he is offending. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Obvious
Please mind your own business. --Львівске (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

1RR limit vacated
Thatcher 03:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Vacated Thatcher 20:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Martintg continuing disruptive behaviour
Martintg seems to have returned to his disruptive behaviour immediately after his sanctions were lifted. He seems to have learned nothing. He is now edit warring at Kuril Islands dispute and he made 2 unilateral moves without discussing first and without using WP:RM. Do you think this should be reported to User:Thatcher or maybe elsewhere? Offliner (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Making unfounded accusations is considered a personal attack according to WP:NPA. --Martintg (talk) 23:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Yevtushenko
See my reply on Talk:Yevgeny Yevtushenko.--RossF18 (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Black 100
A Ukr. question has always been particularly sore for them, as they denied the existence of such people and culture.--Galassi (talk) 12:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Soviet diplomat Boris Shtein
Hi! As a part of the Winter War project I created an article of the Soviet diplomat Boris Shtein. You have done great work in Boris Rybkin article, and I was wondering if you could with this one also. The surname Shtein sounds jewish, but if undertood correctly from the Russian source, he was not jewish or was he? Peltimikko (talk) 10:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sigh
Things like this are starting to make me wonder if guidelines such as WP:SYNTH really matter anymore. There are some editors who will vote very predictably in certain discussions, regardless of the guidelines or arguments (one only has to take a look at recent AfDs to prove this.) It's also obvious that there is some trolling going on. I guess it would be best not to waste any time at all on that article, and just let the trolls troll in peace. Some other sensible editors will sooner or later take that piece of rubbish to AfD again. Let's hope that the trolls have lost interest by then. Offliner (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Persecution of Nazi war criminals
Btw, is there an article about the (post-Nürnberg) persecution of nazi war criminals? I couldn't find one. There seem to be a lot of news stories about the subject, so it would be surprising if there is no centralized article in WP about this. Offliner (talk) 20:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Genocide under capitalist regimes
--Anderssl (talk) 23:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Eugene Salamin
I see that you moved Eugene Salamin to Eugene Salamin (mathematician), with the comment that the better-known Eugene Salamin was an artist. You left intact the various links to Eugene Salamin, which became a redirect page as a result of your move.

The natural next steps would be:
 * Fix the links. Writing Eugene Salamin will cause the reader to see Eugene Salamin, and when the reader clicks on the link the article Eugene Salamin (mathematician) will come up.
 * Either change the new Eugene Salamin redirect page that you created by moving the article, into a disambiguation page, one of the links being to Eugene Salamin (artist), and click on the link and write the new article, or else make the new redirect page into an article about the artist, with a disambiguation notice at the top saying
 * For the mathematician, see Eugene Salamin (mathematician)
 * or words to that effect.

I'd do those things myself if I knew anything about the person. Michael Hardy (talk) 04:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Question regarding your edits on Communist genocide
--Anderssl (talk) 02:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning report
Sorry, but I find your recent reverts unacceptable therefore I reported you here[] for edit warrning.--Jacurek (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about, he self-reverted his last: . It's only 3 reverts in 24h. Offliner (talk) 05:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)