User talk:Termer/Archive 8

Image:Livoniae nova descriptio
Please stop going over articles and replacing Livonia with Livonian Confederation in the description of this image. It is absolutely wrong, this map is titled Livoniae nova descriptio, not Confoederationis Livoniae nova descriptio. Thanks! — Albert Krantz ¿? 07:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC).


 * Please respond and discuss at Talk:Livonian_Confederation--Termer (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

British Campaign in the Baltic 1918-19
As I explained to User talk:DagosNavy, either this is part of WW1, or it is not. If not, then there is no reason to mention WW1 campaigns at all (which is done in the version to which you reverted). If so, then the rest of the campaigns need a mention. A campaignbox is there to provide easy links for a reader to other articles which are likely to be of interest. Are you saying that someone reading this article is not likely to be interested in other actions in WW1? Although this might technically be after the German surrender, it was still a consequence of those earlier events. Sandpiper (talk) 20:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello, Sandpiper. I'm a bit confused by your issue. WWI needs to be mentioned where and when needed for context. But that also means that naval battles in the Baltic, say, in 1915 (referring to your campaign box) aren't relevant to the topic--unless there's something specific that happened that directly impacted later events in which case it should also be mentioned in the article. It's not a case of either all of WWI gets mentioned or none. If I'm misunderstanding your position, please let me know. —PētersV (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I commented to dagosnavy that I am not familar with the exact facts concerned here and obviously it is something going on after the main event of WWI was concluded. However, the principle of having infoboxes is to allow a reader an easy set of links to article he might reasonably be interested in, in view of the one he is reading. There are in fact not so very many articles about WWI naval battles, certainly not so many as to preclude their all being mentioned in a table. My argument is essentially that they all should be mentioned, because they are all inter-related with the same forces being involved commanded by the same people, and anyone interested in one is likely to be interested in others. Wikipedia is badly organised when it comes to making clear to people what scope there is for more information around a subject. In this case, both Dagosnavy and Termer seem to feel it is appropriate to include an infobox listing other battles which took place in the Baltic through WWI, yet not to mention battles taking place nearby in the north sea with the same ships. I feel this is excessively narrowing the infoboxes and therby defeating the point of having them, which is to help readers to find related material. Every article related to WW1 naval battles needs comprehensive links to the rest. If wikipedia was a book, it would likely have chapter 1...chapter 2... and the text would naturally move from one to the next in an organised way. Since we have 2 million articles, we need to connect them into related groupings. Just having one box of battles which happened to be geographically in the Baltic doesn't really do this. Why was there a battle here anyway? Perhaps because Naval operations in the Dardanelles Campaign were a failure? Sandpiper (talk) 23:45, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Lets take it to Talk:British_Campaign_in_the_Baltic_1918-19--Termer (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Soviet and post-Soviet cinema task force
I wanted to let you know that I've temporarily reverted your changes. While I understand the historical divisions between the Baltic States and Russia, from a film history perspective, their national cinema was largely controlled by, trained by, and influenced by, the USSR for a great majority of the time since filmmaking became active in the region. That's why they've been grouped together in this respect. Given that these factors, and the fact that they were a part of the Soviet Union, it is entirely valid to call it post-Soviet and keep it within the grouping. This isn't intended as a sleight towards those countries, but simply a more logical (IMHO) way of organizing the geographic-based film task forces with a view towards common historical cinematic roots and cross-influences. Creating a separate Baltic states cinema task force does not make sense this respect, nor would it be sufficiently large for our purposes, and since we're eventually hoping to create enough national and regional task forces to cover all countries, it's a far better alternative than simply ignoring these countries' cinemas as if they didn't exist. That all being said, I would be happy to continue to discuss the matter with if you have any further questions, concerns, or comments. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the Military history project
 Hi, and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:


 * Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
 * The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can [ watchlist it] if you're interested; or, you can add it directly to your user page by including WPMILHIST Announcements there.
 * Most important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you [ watchlist it].
 * The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, article logistics, and other tasks.
 * We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
 * We've developed a style guide that covers article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
 * If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts and copy-editing alerts.
 * The project has a stress hotline available for your use.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the project coordinators, or any experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! Woody (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXX (August 2008)
The August 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Governorate of Estonia
I have a question on the talk page. Martintg (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXI (September 2008)
The September 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops
You are quite correct. My mistake. --Non-dropframe (talk) 23:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Mokshan art
Dear Termer, thank you very much for your kind support. Just want to please you showing something beautiful. Please visit http://stream.ifolder.ru/4378136 and click to download kuigorozh.avi The link has now expired and they are sure to offer you visiting any of the sites from the list before starting download. Choose any of them, it's safe, and you'll get free download link. It's just a short cartoon. Mokshan old fairytale. Unfortunately it is in Russian but songs are Mokshan. Please watch it, I'm sure you will love it. And if you like it I'll be pleased too. Thank you once again. Your comparing us to Setu was very good too. I know it because I heard much about this story from my Estonian friends.--Khazar II (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, just that I'm not aware of supporting anybody. What I've been doing, providing the article and some editors who are not familiar with the subject with necessary sources to get the story straight.

The link you left is not opening for me though.--Termer (talk) 05:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, that was what you've been doing. I very much appreciate your efforts and consider it a support. Support of my POV. You can watch what I wanted you to here. Thank you. --Khazar II (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I haven't intentionally supported anybody's POV-s though, just trying to get the facts straight as there are some editors who are not that familiar with the subject and therefore they need to see some sources that the facts are accurate. Since everything on WP has to be backed up by secondary reliable sources etc. otherwise it's WP:OR.

Thanks for sharing the cartoon Kuygorozh or the Snake-owl in English, very professionally and well made claymation. Does the director Sergey Merinov have any Mokshan roots perhaps or did he just made the film on the subject as an "outsider"?--Termer (talk) 02:51, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Happy to hear you know this snake-owl hypothesis translation. In fact etymology is not clear and some scholars even saw relation to garuda. Sergey Merinov is Russian. All beautiful things in the cartoon (like the egg) were created by Yuriy Dyrin. Toorama guys reconstructed the 10th century music. Yuriy and Toorama were those who made this that is why the magic egg is so big and beautiful and reminds clearly of the old pagan finnic mystic egg and the Great bird. --Khazar II (talk) 21:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Stalin's ten blows
Hi. About your recent edits to the article on Stalin's ten blows, the article is about a speech given by Stalin, as explained in the article. The titles of the offensives given are the ones used by Stalin, not a POV one that I came up with. Since it is about a Soviet term originated by a Soviet leader, it stands to reason that we should use the terminology that was used in the original speech, even if we think that the names used by Stalin were biased, obviously they were. The article documents a term used as a propaganda tool by Stalin. It lists the victories as he called them, with a NPOV accompanying description of all the offensives. Joe ( Talk ) 16:36, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC 1
Can I request that you remove your comment from the RfC. The only reason my comment is there is because the RfC instructions say to leave a neutral comment there for people to read. People who were involved in the discussion shouldn't take part in the RfC, unless it involved rebutting new arguments (even then, it's best to leave it all to third-party editors). I have left a comment on Collectonian's page stating the same thing.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:41, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't consider you comment neutral in any way and mine is going to be removed right after yours. --Termer (talk) 17:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What the hell are you talking about? It doesn't claim sides. It doesn't give a preference one way or the other. RfC directions TELL ME to put a neutral comment in there (which it is neutral, the only thing it does is point to the debates so neutral parties can read them for themselves). If you want to act like a child about this fine, but I've asked you nicely once to remove your comment and respect the RfC. If you choose not to, that's your decision but it only reflect badly on you Wikipedia etiquette.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

one more comment like that and I'm going to remove your posts from my talk page per WP:NPA--Termer (talk) 17:51, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Remove what you please, its your talk page. You could have removed it on sight. Just to point out, Collectonian has respectively removed his comments to the RfC (making your comments slightly odd to see since his are no longer there). I will ask you nicely one last time; please remove your comments from the RfC as an RfC (as you pointed out) is for "editors not involved with the dispute". Since you didn't make a comment until Collectonian made one, even signifying that it was because of him, this thing about "remove yours and I'll remove mine" makes no sense, since mine was there before and you clearly had not problem with it.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

So why to make such a fuzz out of it. Like I said, my comments are going to be removed right after Collectonian. Or it seems I missed out on that you are not Collectonian, well sorry about that--Termer (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Never heard of an "invalid RfC". A single editor adding comments when he's taken part in the debate is not going to invalidate the RfC. Assuming that one person's comments would cause other editors to not think for themselves is also not a likely possibility. Also, Garion96 didn't actually take part in any of the recent discussions. He commented a couple of times in a discussion about IMDb's use in the Infobox Actor template, not the Film Infobox. His name being included in the original discussion on the Film WikiProject page was based on his comments with regard to the Infobox Actor discussion. So, as far as I know, none of the people giving their opinions so far in this RfC have commented on this current discussion - discounting Ed, who appears to be arguing with an editor over something trivial, when they both are in agreement but for apparently different reasons.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  03:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just get annoyed when people try to bolster their arguments with appeals to stuff like "common sense". I don't mind expressiveness, emotion or colorful language, but hyperbole I can live without. I didn't know the previous contributors aren't supposed to comment on an RfC (and I still don't understand why, the logic behind it) -- the template should probably saw something about that. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Two things. First, show me where it says you can challenge an RfC to be invalid based on 1 editor who may have taken part in the previous discussions? Second, please note that what you linked to was a discussion about the Actor Infobox, and NOT the Film Infobox. Garion was making a comment about the Film Infobox, you are right there, but he did not take part in any of the previous discussions that were held specifically about the Film Infobox. Having previously acknowledged that you would like to remove the external links in the film infobox while you are debating a separate subject does not negate one's option of taking part in an RfC about said subject.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you think you can, and feel you need to call this RfC invalid then please do so. I believe that any rationale Administrator will find that challenge itself to be invalid and the RfC 100% fine (unless for some odd reason it becomes flooded with editors who took part in the previous discussions, but thanks to your nice little warning at the top of the section I doubt that will happen). :D   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:17, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC
You think you could just, you know, explain the RfC thing to me, instead of posting another template? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 03:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

the idea of RFC is to get a third opinion so that a consensus could be reached. Please read the information banner or the actual RFC page. In case previous participants in the dispute are going to comment, the RFC as a forum for the third opinion becomes meaningless.--Termer (talk) 04:05, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Where on the banner does it say anything like that? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 04:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Üldine udujutt
Ma näen, et Sa julged juba trollide kirjutisi kustutada ilma täiendavat draamat tekitamata. Tore! :-) Me ei ole siin tsirkuse pärast, me oleme siin entsüklopeedia pärast. Ja tegelinskid, kes teatrit rohkem armastavad, võivad alati mujale minna.

On an unrelated note, have you noticed that Irpen's favourite article these days is Holodomor, a subject and article known largely for the controversy it brings? Now, it's as though he's doing nothing on Wikipedia besides "guarding" it. Just a thought ...

Nagu Sa tead, on tänaseks Irpeni lemmikud User:RJ CG ja User:Miyokan (varasema niimega User:Ilya1166) püsivalt blokitud. Üks tähelepanekuid, mis Miyokan'i tehtud parandusi otsekui ube loendades silma torkab, on, et ta piirdus väga väikese hulga artiklite (nagu Russia) toimetamisega ning ei vaevunud oma silmaringi eriti laiendama. Sinu parandusi lugedes torkab mulle silma oht sellessesamasse mädasohu sattuda :-(

Mida niisugune toimetamisprofiil tähendab? Seda, et kui Sa draamasse satud, võivad paljud kõrvalised inimesed arvata, et Sa oled pisike ja tähtsusetu tegelane ja kuna draama on an sich paha-paha, on kõige lihtsam viis sellest lahti saamiseks Sind ära lintšida. Nagu Sa tead, tean ma seda omadest kogemustest ...

Niisiis, laienda oma artiklite hulka kiiremini ja kui vaidlustesse satud, siis katsu hoolitseda, et keegi Sind toetaks. Paljudel teemadel, millega Sa kokku puutud, oskab näiteks Pēters abiks olla. Loomulikult toeta ise ka teisi; tihe suhtevõrgustik on siinses sipelgapesas väga abiks -- aga ära lase kellelgi arvata, et Sa ainult sellega tegeledki. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 14:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Message for you
Hi Termer, I have a reply for you about the Swedish Baltic dominions map on my talk page. Thomas Blomberg (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Kudos
For Image:SiewierskieIRP.png! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 08:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My pleasure.--Termer (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

An excellent find
is quite an interesting detail to notice, indeed. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 08:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's that time of year again
I've created Soviet repressions. Currently, it is just a stub, but it's an important and well-documented topic, so it should have no trouble at all.

You've been working on related topics before &mdash; perhaps you'd like to help? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The article you have started up is an unnecessary duplicate of Soviet political repression, I've redirected it.--Termer (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I didn't know of that article. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've a proposal for better coverage of the topic for Eastern Europe on my talk (continuing the conversation). —PētersV (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Parvus
What do you think of ? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 01:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Historians, however, are skeptical based on books that are published in the 60-70-s?:-D So lets see what the works from the 60-s say then: so much is clear, the only thing the first provided source says is that some guy called Alfred Erich Senn has come to a conclusion in 1976 that Lenin had no provable connections with German agents in Bern Switzerland before March 1917. The other book cited, by Scharlau and Zeman, it's called The Merchant of Revolution: The Life of Alexander Israel Helphand (Parvus) 1867-1924 published in 1965. As far as I can tell, the book gets mostly cited by other sources when it's about how the guy organized Lenin's travel through Germany. Lenin's Legacy By Robert G. Wesson mentions it in several occasions, for example pp.58 He (Lenin) was careful to have non-Bolsheviks accompany his party to reduce suspicions, and he dealt not directly with Helphand-Parvus but through intermediaries.

It has been Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn mostly who has written on the subject in books like Lenin in Zurich etc. For example Assault on Ideology By James F. Pontuso published in 2004 is very clear about it: pp. 48 ''A second widely accepted reason for the Bolshevik rise to power was the aid given to its leaders by the German high command, Solzhenitsyn maintains that this assistance was far more extensive than Lenin's renowned train ride through Germany under the wary eye of the German army. Solzhenitsyn argues that the Bolsheviks were supported financially and given indirect access to the Germans by the shadow figure Alexander Parvus.''--Termer (talk) 07:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Moksha and Erzya
Dear Termer, back to our talk on Moksha and Erzya differencies. I have uploaded to commons 5 files scanned from old USSR Ministry of Internal Affairs booklet on USSR population anthropology types. Please look first at
 * Image:appearance_moksha_1.jpg (booklet cover page) and:
 * Image:appearance_erzya.jpg
 * Image:appearance_erzya_1.jpg
 * Image:appearance_moksha.jpg
 * Image:appearance_moksha_2.jpg

Need your opinion. --Khazar II (talk) 20:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks useful, the first thing should happen I think, the License has to change from PD-self to PD-RU-exempt since it's official Ministry of Internal Affairs booklet, it should be in public domain I think. Then these can stay as sources in Commons that can be used for creating individual images to illustrate the Mordvins article and later the Erza and Moksha articles.--Termer (talk) 21:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've changed the license to PD-RU-exempt, but I'm not sure if it applies so I've double checked with an admin there who seems to be at home with the Russian copyright law. In case the PD-RU-exempt applies, the images can be used.--Termer (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert in licenses tags but you know this kind of old Soviet stuff is not copyrighted and of course can be viewed as one in public domain. It has been already used at some Russian nationalist webpage (I can check which one exactly). Please look at this through short section "Anthropology" where I just translated a couple of passages from Russian sources (poor translation, sorry, I was in a hurry and I'm not an anthropologist). I mean Mokshas may be in fact not of Finno-Ugric origin and just shifted to Finnic language like Lapps but much earlier or whatever. At least it is clear from these works they are different from Erzyas. Thank you, Termer!--Khazar II (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * even though this kind of old Soviet stuff is not copyrighted Commons may be different in that respect, lets see if everybody agrees if these images are free for Commons purposes, there have been many old Soviet images deleted from commons before.--Termer (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article you've started up at your user space looks good though, I'll go over it and we can make it a main article for Moksha Mordvins.--Termer (talk) 23:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I see. Hope we will find a way out to use those images. Thank you, Termer. Thank you for your kind assistance with the article.--Khazar II (talk) 10:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Termer, please have a look at article The Continental Unconscious by Anders Kreuger. He visited Mordovia in 2007. English source which could be of help. What do you say?--Khazar II (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Very good source! Published by the University College Ghent in Belgium.--Termer (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Upcoming ArbCom elections
Hi,

I'm rather unhappy about the sorry list of candidates at Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements. Would you consider running? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 22:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, thanks but participating in any kind of committees is not exactly what I'd like to do. I just don't have it in me.--Termer (talk) 00:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXII (October 2008)
The October 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Is there, or should there be a "list" of reliable sources? I can see that such a list will be quite an evolving beast, but might serve to quell disention before it starts.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * you know, I still think that anything needs to be spelled out only if there is no hope left for the existence of common sense. It seems that it would be necessary with special cases only when a source gets interpreted both ways all the time like the IMDb. So for such cases a special policy should be spelled out and that's exactly what we're doing at the moment in Wikipedia_talk:Citing_IMDb. But having a list that would spell out every single major source available, for that there is a notice board Reliable sources/Noticeboard, and since IMDb has come up over there several times, I asked everybody over there Reliable_sources/Noticeboard to help out with getting a working WP:Citing IMDb put together if possible. --Termer (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, I agree. All we can do is address the repeated dismissive arguments from RSN and CIMDB. Keep me posted. There are many editors who understand the value of IMDB and its pitfalls. Their input would be most welcome.   Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Bloomfield & co
We seem to have a whole microcosm here, see. And this has been going on for years, despite various notices, Renata being the only sysop who has cared (well, she deserves a medal).--Miacek (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIII (November 2008)
The November 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 17:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

White Tights
Hi, Termer. Wouldn't it be better with this image instead? —Zalktis (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice! just that how about copyvio concerns? Any idea if the author has died about 70 years ago?:-)Or is the author willing to upload it to Commons?--Termer (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * One might ask the owner if it would be OK... —Zalktis (talk) 11:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for White Tights

 * Termer, many thanks for helping me get my first DYK! —Zalktis (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * my pleasure!--Termer (talk) 14:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats Termer! I've sent you an email BTW  The Bald One       White cat 12:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Termer
Would you consider running for adminship, if I nominate you? Wikipedia needs admins with Eastern European (incl. Baltic) background. There are plenty of maintenance tasks to do for people equipped with admin tools. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 15:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, I don't exactly have such ambitions to be an administrator on Wikipedia but in case there are enough people out there who'd think that Wikipedia would benefit from me having an additional set of tools that could be good for the project...I wouldn't have any objections either, so please feel free to nominate. Please also include the reasons why would you think it would be a good idea for me to have Admin tools.--Termer (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have nominated you, please indicate the acceptance there. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 10:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason the RFA is not listed here yet? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 16:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Termer has to transclude the thing first, then it will appear in the list. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 17:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say it but I don't think this RfA will pass, even though I did support it. It's kind of tragic really that you're failing based upon your answers which aren't incorrect, per se, but rather they lack quality of written communication. It's pathetic how RfA has turned into some kind of exam but hey, what can we do? It's up to you whether you want to keep it going and get more input from opposers and supporters (it might turn round, but I find it unlikely) or you can withdraw. Please, if you do fail/withdraw, reapply in future because I'd really like to see you as an administrator even if it's not your primary intention as a user. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think all the comments that are coming in include valuable feedback. Even though I do not have ambitions to be an administrator exactly, I'm going to keep it open until the end of it just for the sake of hearing it out what people have to say. Especially interesting has been hearing out my content opponents.:-)--Termer (talk) 16:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, I just closed it per your comments on the page itself that you were withdrawing the nomination, and came here to tell you. I don't think re-opening it now would serve much of a point though. Feel free to reapply again some time in the future :-) --Deskana (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just thought I'd say that I was impressed with your withdrawal statement, it shows great maturity. I hope you do get nommed in the future. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 11:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Duchy of Estonia
You might want to have a look at Duchy of Estonia (and add it to your watchlist). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip! I almost can't believe it, this guy is really persistent indeed:-D --Termer (talk) 03:50, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


Ecoleetage (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.



Raua Street incident
Thank you for expanding the section on the Raua Street incident in the article on Estonia in World War II - and providing sources! Anyway, I think this incident merits its own article. It seems to be important, as we now we have copy-paste repetition of the same content on multiple articles, including Estonia. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - I was going to ask what searches you did to find the sources, but from the Google book link I can see that one of them was "Rahva Omakaitse". Thanks. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)
The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of WP:TEDIOUS
I take offence at your accusations on Talk:eSStonia that I have partaken in WP:TEDIOUS editing. As your failed adminship discussion shows you have in the past failed to WP:AGF and have called other editors in the past a patterned Russian nationalist POV editor. Would it then be ok for me to assume that you are a "rabid Estonian nationalist POV editor who is gaming in order to get rid of a notable article simply because you don't like it, and because to have such a term would take away from the portrayal that you want in WP that Estonia is perfect in your nationalist eyes". Is that a fair call? Or is it way off base? The very fact of the matter is, is that we have seen over the time seen a shitload of articles used only to attack Russia and other countries, and nowhere near as carefully sourced as eSStonia, survive time and time and time and time again, so one can only assume that this too is notable. Learn to assume good faith, because I don't partake in the bullshit in eastern european editing areas; I don't stalk others, I don't try to introduce fringe opinions into articles, and most importantly, I try to write everything I do in a NPOV fashion. But thanks for making so many judgements against myself based upon this AfD, it's totally unwarranted. --Russavia Dialogue 22:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Russavia, there is absolutely no justification in your personal attack. Martintg (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Talking of stalkers, hello Martintg. Martin, how about you also tell Termer there is absolutely no justification in your personal attack as well. He has accused me of tendetious editing based upon what exactly? For that in itself is a personal attack. I don't introduce WP:REDFLAG fringe theories into articles, I don't fail to cite articles properly, I don't try to introduce unproven and outrageous accusations of people being paedophiles into several articles, I don't re-insert unsourced information without providing sources, I don't act in a team like fashion to annoy "wiki opponents", I don't game the system in trying to exclude legitimate sources from articles, I don't go out of my way to create the most grotesque and POV article possible, I don't express an opinion in deletion discussions which oppose the nominator just to be disruptive, I don't go block shopping, I don't deliberately insert information into articles from what I know are not reliable sources, I don't assert ownership over articles, I don't refuse to answer questions when they are asked of me, I don't undo edits of other editors without even checking into why they made those edits, I don't accuse editors of being in the employ of security services, and you know what Martin, I don't stalk other editors and partake in the above. I may cross the line from time to time, and at least I have the cojones to admit it (do you?!?), but given all of the above are things that other editors have done time and time again in their interactions with myself, one can probably understand that when an editor who has not interacted with myself on a single occasion previous, accuses myself of tedious editing in a single discussion over a single article, that yes, I am going to take a bit of offence at that. One thing I am in both my editing and discussions is upfront. Now to keep you occupied Martintg, here's a list of things for you to start on....


 * Putin-Dobby
 * Putinland
 * Tomb of the Unknown Rapist -- this can be a laundry list of Soviet war memorials where someone has referred to it as the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist -- to make it easier, find a list of Soviet war memorials and just replicate that information here on WP.
 * List of creatures compared to Putin -- non reliable source, but it's a start.
 * List of similarities between Russia and Mordor -- source from my favourite yellow journalist here.
 * List of children molested by Putin -- check with Biophys, he has these sources.

That leaves Termer, who can WP:AGF and discuss things with me, and the two of us go from there. --Russavia Dialogue 01:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh Russavia, don't you tire listening to your own WP:RIGHETOUSINIGNATION? You don't go block shopping? I'll spare you the diffs. Have the отвага и мужество to admit that without a WP:BATTLEGROUND on which to engage the über-nationalists your WP:LIFE is empty. Let's stick to content and stop littering editor's talk pages with WP:DIATRIBE about what other editors do or don't do and what you do or don't do. On WP, I've learned that the editors who protest the loudest about what they don't do are the ones that do whatever that is the most. If you don't wish to be mistaken for such an editor, consider a change in your tactics. Спасибо. Cheers! PetersV     TALK 02:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Russavia for finally reading the eSStonia talk page! And I'm clad you have taken offense due to your WP:TEDIOUS editing. Hope that it helps you to change your editing behavior from partisan-biased to WP:NPOV and list all the viewpoints from the sources you have used by yourself in the article. To help you out, I even left a quotation from your own source on the talk page . In case you haven't made it that far yet on the article talk page, no problem. Once you're ready, please feel free to use the quotation. and please let me know if you have otherwise trouble understanding or identifying what exactly are the alternative viewpoints saying in the sources that you have listed in the article refs by yourself but chosen not to include in the article text for some reason thus far. Otherwise, not to worry, in case the article is not going to be deleted, I'll help you out. For now I just don't see any reasons to invest any effort into an article that might end up in a garbage bin anyway. Thanks for understanding!--Termer (talk) 03:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS. regarding your question if Estonia is perfect? No, Estonia is not perfect, Estonia is a democracy and that is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.--Termer (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Always a pleasure to be told I am a POV-pusher by a POV-pushing Estonian editor. End of discussion. --Russavia Dialogue 03:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You must have misunderstood me. I do respect your POV and do not intend to tamper with it pr WP:YESPOV. The only thing I'm asking in return, please respect the POV I'm familiar with. Until you don't, I have to consider your editing WP:TEDIOUS.--Termer (talk) 05:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't care about your POV. But if you are going to introduce your POV into the article, which you already have, you too are acting in a very tendetious manner. We don't put our POV into articles, but what sources say. Thanks. --Russavia Dialogue 11:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rephrase: I do respect the right of others to their POV, but in terms of WP, I don't care about your POV, or anyone elses, mine included, when it comes to writing articles in mainspace. But if you are going to introduce your POV into the article, which you already have, you too are acting in a very tendetious manner, or are Russians not able to be Estonians? Do we really want to go there, particularly given that there is a notable POV out there that they can't. We don't put our POV into articles, but what sources say. Thanks. --Russavia Dialogue 12:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I prefer to WP:AGF, but your continued accusations of tendentious editing by myself demonstrates that there is none on your part. Am I right? --Russavia Dialogue 12:18, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I never edit WP according to "my POV" but according to POV-s that I'm familiar with by citing sources. Until you use sources that say something is this and that but it doesn't make it to the article, you're cherry picking citations and come to a different conclusion than the source, your editing would be WP:TEDIOUS. Also, whoever has removed alternative viewpoints from the article we're talking about, has engaged in WP:TEDIOUS by violating WP:NPOV: The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly.--Termer (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * PS.I'm all for good faith and looking forward to it that you end up at the right side of the 'two categories' listed in WP:TEDIOUS: those who come to realise the problem their edits cause, recognise their own bias, and work productively with editors with opposing views to build a better encyclopedia – and, well, the rest.--Termer (talk) 06:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Demote or dispute?
It looks like you reverted the Manual_of_Style_(icons) back to a version that had the Template:demote tag in a section. Gnevin, Garion96, and Bkonrad all ganged up on me to remove that tag. There claim was that it was excessive and in the wrong place. I fought to keep it in because I didn't think it was excessive and I thought it was unfair for them to remove it when neither of them put it there and discussions were unresolved. If you want the article demoted, then I support it but suggest you replace the dispute tag with the demote tag and replace the Template:Policycontroversy in the WP:ICONDECORATION section. If not, I suggest you revert it to the version that had both the dispute tag up top and section tag disputing the wording of that section here in this version. Oicumayberight (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That was the last edit speaking of consensus that I reverted to. Didn't see any other agreement about the tag or anything on the talk page, just bold edit warring the guideline that seemed like it was going on. Regards your questions, feel free to act according to your best judgement. I don't think such things would make any difference unlike finding it out what exactly has been going on with this guideline and how to move forward.--Termer (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, the demote tag is being considered for deletion here. Oicumayberight (talk) 05:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, hope that those who care about such technicalities can figure it out for the rest of us.:-)--Termer (talk) 05:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Multiple users unfair removing the dispute and RFC tag
I still think it's unfair that they can get away with removing the tags. You may want to report this at the Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Removing the dispute tag when the article is under dispute is denying that it's under dispute, and is dishonest. I tried to report this myself here. But since I was preempted, falsely accused and blocked for 12 hours, I have no business complaining. It's my fault that the Administrator didn't have time to review the case. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?
Please check out  Is it a sockpuppet? Idlewild101 (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)
The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Estonian language
Hi, you seem to be interested in Fenno-Ugric languages. You might want to have a say here. -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 15:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVI (February 2009)
The February 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 13 March! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. We will be selecting coordinators from a pool of eighteen to serve for the next six months. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on Saturday, 28 March! Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVII (March 2009)
The March 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXVIII (April 2009)
The April 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Hiberniantears
Hi,

Requests for comment/Hiberniantears. Currently far from ready, but I reckon you might want to participate in its development anyway, so I'm notifying you early. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 03:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)
The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Discrimination against ethnic minorities in Estonia
It is a waste of time attempting to NPOV a POVFORK, as it impossible to achieve any balance. That is why it is policy to delete POVFORKS. Wait for the conclusion of the AfD discussion. --Martintg (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Outline of Estonia
I've answered your question at Talk:Outline of Estonia The Transhumanist 00:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: If you like working on outlines, consider joining the WP:WPOOK.

IPA-estonian
Hi Termer,

Eventually I'd like an "IPA for Finnish and Estonian" key (something like WP:IPA for Czech and Slovak), assuming the languages are close enough for that to work. (There are very few Estonian IPA transcriptions on Wikipedia.) I'm sure you're more qualified than I am. Care to take a crack at it? If not, it may take a while for me to get around to it, because Serbo-Croat, Danish, Thai, Mandarin, & Belarusian all have heavier case loads than Estonian. kwami (talk) 04:22, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think that should work. The phonology articles can be a bit dense for someone who just wants to know that the the [j] is pronounced like an English "y". These are meant to be quick & easy pronunciation guides; then, if the reader's interested, we link them to the full language and phonology articles. I see two advantages over the generic IPA key linked from IPA2: no superfluous symbols, like clicks and tone, and by creating the key we establish a de facto wikipedia standard for the language, so that each allophone is transcribed the same way in every article, which makes it easier for the reader to learn. Normally we want a separate transcription for each phoneme, plus the allophones that are important to the language or salient to an English ear. kwami (talk) 04:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Rebane
Hi, please see talk. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you OK with what I wrote on talk? PasswordUsername (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)
The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Military history of Estonia
The article is currently an account of the early Military of Republic of Estonia and so far away from the approximate analogies (e.g. Military history of Finland or Military history of Slovenia that I have no idea where you want this to go. Like where should it start? The destruction of Sigtuna? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)
The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Timeline of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact
Hi! I edited the article Timeline of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact. I did not found what was the exact date when the Soviet–Estonian Non-Aggression Pact was signed? I found sources saying June 1932. Peltimikko (talk) 05:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September! Many thanks,  Roger Davies  talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)
The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009
Reliable_sources/Noticeboard included the clearly voiced phrase "Only third opinions please." This includes yourself. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!
Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September! For the coordinators,  Roger Davies  talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello!
I am an admirer of the work that you do on Wiki. Regards Sir Floyd (talk) 10:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Flag icons
Hi - there is another discussion on flag icons, particularly in infoboxes. As you know there is a zealous push to remove these with little justification in WP:MOS. Until last year it was universal that all infoboxes had a flagicon and it is the intention of a small group of users to remove them universally now. Based on some of your thoughts previously, I would appreciate your input on this topic. Please seee the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons). |► ϋrбan яeneωaℓ • TALK  ◄| 12:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)
The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Should Persecution of Falun Gong be renamed into something else?
That is the question that is repeated again here: Talk:Persecution of Falun Gong. Since you are not an involved editor, would it be possible for you to provide an input? Thank you in advance for your time! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Lia Looveer
Pages that disparage or threaten their subject or some other entity, and serve no other purpose. One section discussing whether she collaborated or not and other discussions on the same page means that the page does serve another purpose. When he provided a link and asked for discussion (hardly a random suggestion) on the talk page first, that seems like the proper way to include controversial content rather than just adding it? It may disparage the subject, but it does not mean it shouldn't be included if it's true. In this case the link appears weak and I doubt it will be included in the article, which is why I suggested that the section could be blanked once consensus has been reached. James086 Talk &#124; Email 05:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not deleting the talk page. If consensus on whether she was a Nazi collaborator or not has been reached then the section can be blanked. You seem to want to control what others can ask. Fair enough, if someone asked if Barack Obama is a Nazi collaborator, it would be ridiculous (he wasn't even born in WWII) and can be removed, but it is a reasonable question about someone who worked for a German radio station in WWII. I am not going to look at the info and I'm not going to form an opinion one way or the other. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 07:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A db-g10 tag requests deletion of the page. You should wait until the discussion is finished before blanking the section. This diff shows that you blanked the section 2 hours after Anti-Nationalist offered an opinion. The discussion certainly was not finished. You should also tell people that you are blanking it and why rather than just doing it. It is not at all surprising that the blanking was reverted. Let the discussion play out, tell people why you are blanking and then if there's no objection do so. Just because you don't like the topic of conversation does not mean the conversation is not allowed. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 07:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!
As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)
The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:38, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Nationalist
You may be interested in Anti-Nationalist's new attack - Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. He seems to attack absolutely anyone who disagrees with him. -- Sander Säde 11:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)
The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Bloomfield
I started a list of articles created/heavily edited by him at User:Renata3/bloom. If you could check them (you can use the "related changes" link) once in a while to make sure another of his IP/sock does not restore the garbage, it would be a great help. Once in a while he re-appears (usually as an IP) an restores his original version of an article. The list is not complete (I am planning on finishing it this week), so if you are aware of any other additions, feel free. Renata (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ungannians vs. Ugaunians
Hello Termer! Old thing, but if you are intested, I am disputing some of your conclusions in Talk:Ungannians.

Warbola (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Estonian images
I am going to withdraw all of the images that you listed as keep. If I understand correctly, Estonian law says copyright lasts for 70 years, so I thank you for telling me what is a good image or not. I am trying to clean up the PD-EE category of falsely tagged images and send the good ones to the Commons. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:03, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And I am familiar with the policies with regards to the US Government images. I made sure it was taken by a Embassy staff member before I even uploaded. But I am glad the issue with the issue of Ants Laaneots's images are solved. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 16:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes_(3rd_nomination) exists
neutral notification Collect (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Pics of the Maakers?
Greetings, this site is in Estonian, but appears to have a pic of Juhan Maaker: http://www.osta.ee/11817915 1) Any way you can use your Estonian skills and see if it has any pics we can use? 2) Is there enough info available anywhere to do a brief bio of Juhan Maaker and then add this pic?

Thanks so much for your help in these torupill articles, I really hadn't expected someone so knowledgeable to show up. Was it my post on WikiProject Estonia that brought you in? MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, great work on Juhan Maaker. I take it you're a native Estonian speaker? Not at all to rush you, but if at some point you have a moment to translate these for the Estonian Wikipedia, it'd be cool to get that cross-flow going. Your language skills have made a huge difference in this article, so greatly appreicated. I've also written to Andrus Taus to see if I can get any pics of his father, and/or any sourced info from any books/articles he has on hand; also asked Andurs for any pics of Roomet as well, just in case. I think this is coming along pretty swimmingly! MatthewVanitas (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Interested in article on A. O. Väisänen ?
Greetings, just tossing an idea out for you since you have language skills I lack. Apparently A. O. Väisänen was an ethnomusicologist who collected much of the jouhikko (bowed lyre) repertoire. Just pointing that out in case you may be interested in an article. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Here you go: Armas Otto Väisänen.--Termer (talk) 19:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:37, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Finnic languages
My point is that the table of examples doesn't illustrate how the term "Finnic languages" is used; it illustrates how the group we now call Finno-Permic has been subdivided over time — and this is why it is also in the Finno-Permic article, no? — which isn't really relevant there. (Moreover, juxtaposed with a subdivision of BF it risks giving the linguistically uneducated reader the impression that there was an "old" division of BF which included groups such as Mari.)

And if you stripped the divisions off, you wouldn't be left with much worth tabulating. Listing, perhaps, but really that still seems like footnote level material to me; inline, why wouldn't it suffice to just note (as done now) that the term used to be used for that rather than this? -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 21:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The only thing I was saying, we'd need to keep all meanings of "Finnic languages" under one article, and perhaps redirect "Finno-Permian languages" accordingly by making it a chapter under Finnic languages.
 * No, not really. They're sufficiently distinct concepts to not be the same article — one is a solid (sub)family, the other is a hypothesis on intermediate grouping that includes several other (sub)families. (Terms like Aryan languages may be worth comparision.) If we keep Finnic languages as the Baltic-Finnic article, and if you feel Finno-Permic languages is not well-titled, perhaps we ought to have something along the line of Finnic languages (sensu lato).
 * I don't personally have a problem with Finno-Permic — it does seem to be the term used in those English-speaking sources that reserve "Finnic" for BF, eg. . (I'm also not convinced Finno-Permic necessarily even needs an article of its own; you can expect I'll be suggesting a merger as soon as I get myself started on Classification of the Uralic languages.) -- Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 22:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Moksha people
Thank you, Termer for changes to Mordvins article! Seems now "Moksha people" article may be included into English wiki.--Jarmanj Turtash (talk) 11:52, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year
Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:37, 16 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Estarchitecture
Template:Estarchitecture has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  Claret Ash  12:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXII, March 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 02:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

WPFC subprojects
Hello Termer, you are one of the 3 current active members of the Subdivisions bureau. Members are considered inactive if their last contribution to Wikipedia has been over 6 months ago. There is a current discussion going on concerning the merging of some of the WPFC's subprojects due to the overlap and relative inactivity of those currently extant. Please respond to me soon with your support of or opposition to the creation of a single Subdivisions task force. The current three subprojects that will be merged are the Subdivisions bureau, the AH subdivisions work group (parts of which are already covered by the Austria-Hungary task force), and the Former subdivisions work group. Thank you, Xuxalliope (talk) 11:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIII, April 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:31, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:31, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 01:16, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page. In this issue: Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->
 * Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
 * Research: The most recent DR data
 * Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
 * Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
 * DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
 * Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
 * Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:59, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:05, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill [talk] 16:14, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Revolutions of 1989 online Wikipedia challenge
--Kippelboy (talk) 15:39, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2013 (UTC)