Talk:Landmarks of Saint Petersburg

I would like to note that the page was deliberately eroded and its coverage of the subject was compromised by the guys who like to poke a POV umbrella at every superior editor. The situation is drearily familiar. Frankly, the text should be merged back into Saint Petersburg, and that page should be restored to the latest useable version. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:09, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Saint Petersburg is way too long
 * 2) Familiarize yourself with WP:Peacock
 * 3) Familiarize yourself with the subject
 * 4) Wikipedia is not a tourist guide
 * 5) Anichkov Palace can hardly be called "palace for children"
 * 6) Shlisselburg is not in Saint Petersburg
 * 7) Etc. etc
 * 8) Try to abstain from mindreading
 * 9) Yes, this text is still worthless. Colchicum 14:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your suggestions. They are rather pathetic, considering that it was me who created Template:Peacockterm when you did not even have an account in Wikipedia. I don't care about the removal of cruft added more or less recently, but the portions written by me have survived for two years without any complaint until a user by the name of Colchicum, deeming himself the highest authority on the matters of style, made the following edits:
 * Removed the epithet "majestic" from the description of the overall aspect of the imperial Russian capital. Let his conscience be the judge.
 * Replaced "sumptuously" with "richly", for reasons unknown, making an elliptic reference to WP:PEACOCK at the top of the page.
 * Suppressed information that the building of the Twelve Collegia is roomy and spacious.
 * Deleted mention of Shlisselburg and its medieval fortress from the text (although these are administrative parts of the city).
 * Suppressed information that the park in Pavlovsk is "one of the largest English-style parks in Europe". I believe it is the largest, though. But Colchicum knows better.
 * Of several thousand people who have edited the text before him, Colchicum was the first to disagree that the fountain cascades of Peterhof are "glorious".


 * I believe these edits result from the Eastern/Central European background where something completely unreadable and supposedly impartial (along the lines of the Great Soviet Encyclopaedia) is taken for a paragon of enyclopaedicity. Since Wikipedia is expected to accommodate such fringe opinions, I don't think that I will ever contribute on the articles pertaining to St. Petersburg (of which I have been a major if not only contributor in the past). --Ghirla-трёп- 14:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Superior Editor,
 * I fail to see why the date when I started editing Wikipedia is relevant and I don't care of your fringe deterministic beliefs and plans. Shlisselburg is... what? Your ignorance is fantastic. And try again to stop mindreading. Your inference that I disagree that the fountain cascades of Peterhof are glorious and Saint Petersburg is majestic is blatantly wrong. However, I believe that such claims have no place here. The claim about Pavlovsk might well be true, but is worthless and goes against Wikipedia policies as it is unreferenced. Here you seem to be the only person deeming himself the highest authority on any matter. Bye. Colchicum 15:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)