User talk:Neptuunium

Hello, Neptuunium, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Far-right politics. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! DanielRigal (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi there.

Please let me explain why I reverted your change in a bit more detail as it is not easy to get a full explanation into an edit summary.

The picture shows a torchlit march, which is a stylistic tick of the far right (including but not exclusively including neo-Nazis).

The caption is:

Far-right nationalists on a rally in Tallinn, Estonia in 2015".

The two claims being made of the party/march are "far-right" and "nationalist". The party marching is clearly identified by the logos on the banners as the Conservative People's Party of Estonia. It is reasonable to ask if these descriptions are correct.

The article Conservative People's Party of Estonia says:

It has also been labelled "far-right" by Kari Käsper, the Executive Director of Estonian Human Rights Centre,[26] and in foreign media by BBC News[27] and the Christian Science Monitor.[28] According to Fox News Channel, EKRE is a far-right party, "considered by some to have Fascist-Neo-Nazi sympathies similar to many other flourishing nationalist parties in the Baltics and Eastern Europe".[29] The Simon Wiesenthal Center has called EKRE youth organization's annual torchlight procession an "extreme right march".[30]

That clearly supports the caption used. So long as the article is correct the image and the caption is justified.

So now I am asking ask you to please stop removing the image unless you can get a consensus to do so on either article's talk page.

I hope this is clear now. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The bias is in your thinking. Populism isn't bad or negative trait. Free Party is, by nature, a populist party. Having populism among the ideologies isn't biased any way. In fact most of the mainstream parties are populist. Having the most populist election promises by independent researchers of praxis is quite enough to have the populism among the ideologies. Freedom Party of Austria, Vlaams Blok, Progress Party (Denmark) etc have populism in the ideologies. By the way it is not nice to attack someone in the Edit summary. Behave yourself, and reverse your edit. Klõps (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

By Klõps' logic... you say. Avoid indirect criticism, Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Klõps (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Walter Görlitz. I noticed that you recently removed content from J. R. R. Tolkien without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. There is no timeline to meet your requirements. The section is clearly tagged and readers are aware of the dispute. There is no need to censor what you object to simply because you don't like it. Feel free to add referenced counter-points to make the section more neutral, but gutting it is not appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

if that's not a personal attack, it's pretty close. See WP:NPA. Remember to discuss the content, not the contributors. And again, WP:CONSENSUS isn't two editors agreeing on something. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Armin Laschet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Annexation of Crimea. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

You are making mass changes that do not follow the result of the RfC. Please desist from making further changes. Mellk (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

USSR indeed remains mentioned with these changes, therefore you have no reason to revert it to a clearly POV variant. - Neptuunium (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

That's not how it works. The consensus is to use option A and this option does not include your version. Mellk (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rein Lang. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 14:45, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

All the notes on these pages say "USSR must be mentioned"; USSR remains mentioned and complimented with necessary context to avoid misleading readers. - Neptuunium (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Claiming that adding a mention of a widely recognized principle, whilst retaining the required mention of Soviet Estonia, is "disruptive" is laughable. - Neptuunium (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

However, if you'd rather disagree, I invite you to appeal to administrators or other relevant parties as I will not be reverting these edits. - Neptuunium (talk) 14:54, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

The consensus is to use option A. If you looked at what option A looks like, you would see that there is no "de jure" location tacked on. Until there is consensus to add a footnote or "context" in the infobox, it should follow the same format as option A. Mellk (talk) 14:55, 27 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Kaja Kallas, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:33, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Ken-Marti Vaher. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:34, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Rein Lang, you may be blocked from editing. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:36, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Madis Timpson. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:36, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Neptuunium! I noticed that you recently made an edit at Jürgen Ligi and marked it as "minor", but it may not have been. On Wikipedia, "minor edit" refers only to superficial edits that could never be disputed, such as fixing typos or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not minor, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:37, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

@Dr vulpes:: Hi! Thanks for your input! I do apologize for the mistake I made with "minor edits". More generally, however, I'd advise you to stick to doing administration work on topics of which you actually have in-depth knowledge. Otherwise it ends up looking silly, like when you claim that recognizition of Estonian state continuity is POV-editing, when in fact majority of the countries never recognized ESSR's existance (I'd heavily recommend reading this subsection Occupation_of the Baltic states#State continuity of the Baltic states. Thus, it becomes evident that the RFC on these biographies artificially ignores the way these birth places are considered in the real world. Even more unfounded is removing actually sourced claims to support this false RFC, as you've done in the article of Kaja Kallas. Calling these edits "disruptive" is equally unfortunate and frankly, ridiculous. - Neptuunium (talk) 15:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

The issue there is WP:SYNTH. Mellk (talk) 15:18, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! One other question: could you tell me how to properly go about disputing the current RFC for reasons stated above? (other issues with it have also been brought up by users like @Chrisahn:). I'd like to not go down the route of editwarring in these articles and I'm not at all familiar on how these things are done on the English Wikipedia. - Neptuunium (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Please see WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Chrisahn said they would challenge this at WP:AN, but I do not think they have done this. Mellk (talk) 15:29, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Estonia. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Gigman (talk) 10:34, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

Howdy. Nobody trying to distance Estonia from Northern Europe. But if you're going to have "Northern Europe" in Estonia's description? Would you 'at least' do the same for Latvia & Lithuania? GoodDay (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Tartu

added links pointing to Valga and Koidula

Viljandi

added links pointing to Elron and Päri

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tartu, a link pointing to the disambiguation page was Valgaadded.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

This discussion has been disrupted by block evasion, ban evasion, or sockpuppetry from the following user: ~2026-64609-3 (talk · contribs · block log · spi) Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus.

I noticed that Glebushko added "Soviet Union" to the main body of the articles of many Estonians which does not have consensus for inclusion. The consensus only applies to infobox, right? Would those be reverted to the state prior to Glebushko's disruption? There is a large amount of them that look worse after Glebushko edited them. ~2026-64609-3 (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2026 (UTC)