User talk:AdaHeidelberg~enwiki

Rein Lang
Rein Lang article is on probation and all changes are supposed to go through User:Deskana. I wont revert for now, but it is imminent...--Alexia Death 13:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Specifically, regarding your questions, it's a matter of proportionality. The original version of the events, growth-based, was rather problematic.
 * Since Deskana originally just cut anything in excess, there are some weird wordings here and there. But fixing them is not a license to reinsert excess material again.  When in doubt, ask Deskana.
 * As for controversies -- there's the artificial controversy and there are the followups. If yesterday's events develop into a full-blown followup controversy, that will be a real controversy, but it will not make the original controversy any less artificial. Digwuren 16:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Mentioning Rahvaliit is excess material but Nochnoy Dozor is not? As for the controversy - which controversy is artificial and which is real is quite clearly a POV matter. We can only quote someone who has called this controversy artificial or real, without taking a position. AdaHeidelberg 16:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What should be mentioned and what not can be discussed on the article's talk page, Talk:Rein Lang.
 * 'Artificial controversy' has a good criterion for objective determination: when a 'controversy' involves its primary participants declaring it a 'controversy', it is an artificial one. When the primary participants instead complain about issues, it's a real one.  As you recall, this one started with Russian media declaring "there's a controversy going on!" and adding rather distorted claims. Digwuren 17:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Minu mäletamist mööda vihjas sündmuse vastuolulisusele juba Eesti Ekspress oma uudises ja kohe tekkis ka avalikkuse seas arvamuste lahkuminek ehk controversy. Et kas Langil oli õigus käituda nii nagu ta tahtis või ei olnud see mingil põhjusel kõige arukam tegu. Vene meedia jällegi seda poleemilisuse või vastuolulisuse momenti üldse ei rõhutanud, nemad esitasid asja suht ühemõttelisena. Järgnes Langi reaktsioon, mis ongi juba jälle debatt, vaidlus, poleemika, controversy. AdaHeidelberg 18:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Nii käivad asjad denialistlike propagandameistrite maailmas. Mõnedele on Teach the controversy! lausa lipukirjaks.  Wikipedia püüab neutraalsust saavutada.
 * Mis hämasse puutub, siis ekspressi artikkel ei ürita väita, et mingisugune controversy (mis ei tõlku eesti keelde vastuoluks; too on loogikatermin) käimas on. Digwuren 19:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ma ei saa aru, keda või mida te peate silmas denialistlike propagandameistrite all. Väide nagu oleks antud juhtum artificial controversy (kunstlik vaidlus?), on arusaamatu ja taotluselt arvatavasti ebaneutraalne. Kui uudis Langi sünnipäevapost teatavaks sai, tekkis tema käitumise suhtes reaalne arvamuste lahkuminek. Mis siin kunstlikku on? Ei ole ka korrektne sel moel implitseerida, et Vene meedia või Eesti poliitiliste vastaste reaktsioon oli ebasiiras ja oportunistlik, vaid tuleb tsiteerida allikaid, kes nii väidavad. Aga controversial on eesti keeles vastuoluline, vaidlusi tekitav ja sõna vastuolu võib kasutada ka laiemas tähenduses kui loogikaterminina. AdaHeidelberg 19:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Sind võib huvitada teadmine, et mina ei ole sugugi Langi fänn. Iseäranis Delfi eelnõu saaga oli minu õiglustundele üpris vastukarva. Aga artiklisse mineva teabe valimine ei peaks Wikipedias toimuma isiklike süm- ega antipaatiate järgi.

Selle artikli ümber toimuv on praegu äärmiselt huvitav ning samas tundlik. Enne tegutsemist tuleb *kindlasti* põhjalikult kaaluda, mis on oluline ja mis ei ole, ja Deskana versiooni säilitamine -- vähemalt diskussiooniperioodiks -- on kahtluse korral üldjuhul eelistatav kahtlase väärtusega lisandustele.

Muide, disproportsionaalsusega on sedasi, et huvitavaid juhtumeid saab detailselt käsitada omaette artiklites. Võta kätte, kirjuta User:AdaHeidelberg/Rein Lang's Adolf incident and its echoes, ja kui see küpseks saab ning piisavalt allikatega varustatud on, liiguta mainspacei. Siis on poliitika järgi, hundid terved ning lambad söönud. Digwuren 17:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Mina ei püüdnud mingeid sümpaatiaid väljendada vaid artiklit keeleliselt ja stiililiselt kohendada, lisades materjali just niipalju, et laused muutuksid arusaadavaks. Jään enda juurde ses suhtes, et mõiste "artificial controversy" on hämamine. AdaHeidelberg 18:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Jäta Wikipediasse oma mailiaadress või kirjuta  suunas. Digwuren 20:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Artificial controversy is not "hämamine". Look the page Artificial controversy if you don't believe me. Also it would be nice to use english on talk pages as other people who don't speak estonian work on those pages aswell -- Believe it or not. Suva 20:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Kindly read the talk page of Artificial controversy for my opinion (in English). AdaHeidelberg 09:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called AdaHeidelberg. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name AdaHeidelberg~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 21:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 10:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)