User talk:Constanz/Archive1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hi
I don't meant to cast doubt on your expertise. However, as you may be aware, for practically every political movement there are arguments about what it is exactly, and whether certain parties really are. Wikipedia can only describe what the people themselves, and commentators say, and does not take editorial lines of its own - even if they are right. You might find reading policies like neutral point of view interesting. I appreciate this might be frustrating, but Wikipedia and its editors shouldn't be trying to make judgements, just citing from sources. Morwen - Talk 17:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

de
That's me on de: - but my German is nowhere near good enough to translate (I can buy sausages and assure German tourists in Frankfurt that this is the right platform for the city centre, that's about it). Morwen - Talk 18:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:User et-0
Hey. Can you translate the text of Template:User et-0 into Estonian for me (if it hasn't been already when you read this)? Thanks Hedley 00:09, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Signatures
It's in Special:Preferences, the 'nickname' field. Mine has Morwen - Talk in it. Morwen - Talk 14:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong when you say the nummbers are wrong
WW2 Nummbers of tanks MADE not owned but MADE

The nummbers i have given are produced tanks not owned but produced made during that year not owned not allready hade but MADE

All nummbers have been taken from here

Russia's War by Prof. Richard Overy tables are found on pages 155, 178 and 238

World War 2 Day by Day written by Chris Bishop And Chris Mcnab lists of causlties and production nummbers can be found of pages 244-252

Barberossa by Alan Clark

If you say the nummbers are wrong the prove it

Give me a real reference a book made by a professor or an institution, page nummber also.

Deng 01-02-06 04.05 CET

Taken from RfP
I would suggest listing what you want on the talk page and adding the tag. Someone will come by and make the changes you want. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Stalin's Missed Chance
Constanz, do oyu know of an English-language source for this book? I do not read Russian and have not been able to find a reference to it in English. Many thanks. DMorpheus 17:59, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for the references. I hope to look into this. DMorpheus 16:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Constanz, are you familiar with the following journal article? "The Pact With Germany and the Idea of an 'Offensive War (1939-41)' " Author is V.A. Nevezhin, printed in The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, BVol 8, No 4, Dec 1995 ????? I am trying to obtain a copy and I thought you might also be interested. DMorpheus 16:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your offer to send me your translated chapter. I would love to see it. I will have a copy of Nevezhin's article in a few days through my local library. If you need to send me anything please feel free to send it to fincht34@hotmail.com. Thank you again. DMorpheus 18:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been suffering from tonsillitis for almost a week. I hope to recover by next week and after finishing the essay I'm obliged to do, i'll try to find some time for mr Meltyukhov again. I think the work needs editing before I hand it over. Constanz - Talk 09:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello Constanz. Yesterday I got a copy of V.A. Nevezhin's article "The Pact With Germany and the idea of an 'Offensive War' (1939-41) from the December 1995 issue of the Journal of Slavic Military Studies. Once I have read and evaluated it I'll post anything of interest wherever it seems apporpriate. That's bad news about your translation - good luck with it. DMorpheus 16:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Recreating previously deleted material
This is regarding Template:User No Marxism: This template was deleted and should not be recreated. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm a volunteer just like you, I don't get any salary, and I don't appreciate your threats. If you had checked the logs, you'd have seen that this template was deleted according to WP:CSD. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


 * All divisive/inflammatory templates are against policy (linked above). If you want to nominate the other pages you mention for deletion, you can edit them to include . --MarkSweep (call me collect) 10:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Constanz. Could I ask you to please stop re-creating this template? --Tony Sidaway 20:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I have brought it to Deletion review/Userbox debates, feel free to state your opinion there. (I have already made my opinion clear.) - Mike Rosoft 23:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help! It was vital. Constanz - Talk 14:40, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Please do not post to my talk page with personal attacks against another user. I don't care what names ("vandal", "hooligan", etc) you want to call User:MarkSweep, but I disagree, and if I see you calling names repeatedly, I'll block you under WP:NPA. Name calling is childish and unproductive. If you have an issue with another user's actions, you may discuss those actions, not the user in question, in the forum of your choice, and you'll find much more sympathetic listeners if you lay off the vitriol entirely. Thank you.

(Incidentally, I don't think that userboxes indicating which political philosophies you dislike contribute anything to the writing of a high-quality encyclopedia, so I support their deletion. Wikipedia is not a free web-host.  Please feel free to nominate any inflammatory or divisive userboxes that have been missed so far, especially if you feel that it will help restore NPOV.) -GTBacchus(talk) 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not suggest deleting the userboxes representing ideologies I myself diapprove (BTW, it's hardly possible that a userbox could be deleted by consensus). And I do not have powers to delete any of them just on my own.Constanz - Talk 14:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's see... I agree with the new speedy deletion criterion regarding divisive and inflammatory userboxes, I see "No Marxism" as an example of that, so I support its speedy deletion. I think we should be writing an encyclopedia, not advertising our political ideas.  Wikipedia is not a free webhost.  Therefore, I don't think there's anything wrong with User:MarkSweep's actions.  He's acting consistently with policy.  If you think it's a violation of neutrality to have some political userboxes and not others, then my suggestion is that you nominate the others for deletion, (which any user may do by tagging them with db-divisive).  If you don't want to do that, then I suggest you forget about userboxes, and work on something in the article-space.


 * WP:NOT trumps consensus, especially when consensus would turn Wikipedia into yet another Internet playground. My question for you - would Wikipedia really be so bad without any political userboxes? -GTBacchus(talk) 17:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Kekkonen's opposition to 1940 peace treaty
is it true that Kekkonen was the only MP to vote against? I changed the article but i'm not enirely sure. Constanz - Talk 17:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No idea. The Finnish Wikipedia says that he voted against, but doesn't mention how many others did. --Kizor 18:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

SuperDeng's possible socks
It's confusing. Apparently, User:Victory Army created user User:Victory Day and then created Victory Day's user page. So you have to look at Victory Army to see the contribs. More evidence it's Deng...plus the broken English. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 05:15, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Stalin's Missed Chance quote
Please see Talk:Stalin's Missed Chance about possible typos in the last quote from Meltyukhov. Just want to get it right, because otherwise the article has me saying "Wow!" Shenme 00:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand alot
Read my comment to your post and also dont call me bias because I aint

(Deng 16:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

I did answer your question and also it was your editing that made the texts bad.

(Deng 18:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC))

Well dont make personal attacks on me and I wont change your titles

Still no reply on the raw material production could it be that I am right and you are wrong?

(Deng 15:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

Eastern Front
Hi Constanz - I would appreciate if you could comment on my proposal to move the matter forward in the RfC section. I noted you commented on some points that I believe no longer exist in the proposed version, as of yesterday's edit there. I am just trying to get this page unlocked and un-NPOV'd. It is an important topic and deserves better than that. Thanks a lot in advance. Andreas 07:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for archiving 'that mess'. Andreas 15:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welsome. --Constanz - Talk 15:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Erlikman did not use Axeworty as a source. He used Soviet era sources for Romanian casualties. Have you seen the Erlikman book?--Woogie10w 18:06, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Sources
I have been trying to explain to the crowd on the eastern front page that Sov sources tend to be unreliable but they insist on the 8.6 million # of military losses as being gospel.--Woogie10w 18:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about I use sources from many countries
I have used sources from many countries and have used 1 from Russia. 2 from the UK 1 from the USA 1 from germany (Deng 18:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC))

Soviet Casualties
Hi The issue of Sov WW2 casualties is a can of worms. The official data issued by the Sov/Russian military is 8.6 million war dead including 1.8 million missing & POW. This does not agree with German data on POWS taken (5.7 million) less Sov data of POW liberated (2.7 million) and an estimated 10% missing in action. Total POW/MIA are at least 3.0 million not the official 1.8 million. The Russian military is trying to cover up its poor performance in the war. The fact of the matter is that many reserves were called up in 1941 and captured before being registered by the GHQ in Moscow. From a military operational point of view they were casualties and must be taken into account. The German data on POWs taken allows us to cross check Sov data. We are dealing here with a classic case of Soviet disinformation. Civilian casualties are also a problem. Russian demographers have determined that 26.6 million died in the war. That's fine I have no problem with that number, the problem is what were the circumstances of the deaths. If we assume military casualties of 10-11 million we have to explain 15-16 million civilian deaths. The Russians today claim 3 million civilians died of famine in the interior regions not occupied by the Germans. Also 3 million died in the territories annexed in 1939-40, on the casualties page I did not include them with the USSR but in their respective countries. It would be an outrage to include Estonians as Soviet citizens in my opinion. So getting back to Sov civilian casualties we must explain the remaining 9-10 million deaths. Contemporary Russian sources cite Soviet era( circa 1975) sources to explain these deaths. They were all caused by Nazi reprisals, forced labour and famine according to these sources. I have my doubts and remarked in the footnotes " civilian losses are poorly documented and may include victims of German as well as Soviet repression" On the WW2 Casualties have used a contemporary Russian source Vadim Erlikman who takes into account the victims of communist crimes, he is definitely not an apologist for the communist system. He lists 10.6 million military casualties which in my opinion makes more sense than the official figure of 8.6 million. We should take into account the fate of the POWs released in 1945 (2.7 million) who were marched off to an unknown fate in the Gulag or exile. From a military operational point of view they should be considered war losses, this brings Sov losses close to 13.5 million. The Sov military brass never liked to discuss the issue of the 1,000,000 "Vlasovites" who lost 215,000 KIA. Their history was swept under the rug--Woogie10w 11:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am disappointed that there are so many people on Wikipedia who defend the communist system using the NPOV smokescreenBerndd-AKA--Woogie10w 10:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am working with Shanes on a page Soviet casualties. Currently it is raw Work in Progress seeUser:Berndd11222/My Sandbox. If you get a chance please take a look and give me your opinion Berndd AKA--Woogie10w 15:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My goal is to make sure that the article is backed up with solid sources. The leftists like to nitpick and are deeply offended by references to Stalins policy as "terror" this is not NPOV on Wikipedia, this really annoys me.--Woogie10w 15:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My intention is to post facts from verifiable sources and list a solid reference, it won't be my opinion. They can't revert an item just because they don't like it. In any case I have a lifelong interest in the USSR. I was forced to study Russian as a kid in the US back in 1959-61, After Sputnik we had to "catch up with the Russians" Ha!Ha!--Woogie10w 15:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC) The key problem areas with Sov WW2 casualties are POW losses and the number of victims of Sov repression. The Russian military claims 8.6 million dead including 1.8 million POW and missing. We can tell that this way too low when you crosscheck with German POW data, the actual nr is at least 3.5 million POW-MIA. Thr Russian brass is ashamed to admit the high losses of 1941. The other area is civilian casualties. The current view in Russia is that the Germans are responsible for all excess civilian deaths ( 16 million) I have my doubts, the Reds killed millions and blamed the Germans and I would like imput from folks in Russia on this matter.-- Woogie10w 16:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Thats right 1.8 million is part of the total 8.6 million. Leftist academic fools treat this statistic as gospel because it is "official" and from a Soviet source--Woogie10w 16:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC) Dont worry about the spelling in my sandbox, I plan to check it in MS word before posting,Thanks --Woogie10w 17:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

David Glantz
I am merely pointing out that your current draft is not discussing some of the key counter arguments to the thesis of the preventive war, and rests of archival research by one (maybe - I can not judge Meltyukhov) reliable source. If you want to have a strong encyclopedic article instead of a weak opinion piece, you need to address the counter arguments in more depth than you currently do.

You can search inside Stumbling Colossus at Amazon.com.

As for Suvorov's argument about where the independent army would stay during winter - it would go back to its barracks in the interior or build itself barracks where they were, since a German attack post autumn would be infeasible. I find Suvorov's line of intuitive thinking utterly unconvincing, regardless of where I have come across it. But that's just my view. Andreas 10:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You guys are walking on real thin ice when you cite Suvorov, I would stick with Glantz.--Woogie10w 10:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Good is spelt with one d
Secondly, (another unpleasant news) 'our mutual friend' Deng has become active again! See his changes to WW2 Eastern front proposal page.

(Is it necessary to add, that he is obviously trying to revive the old story of 'bad Germanns and goodd Soviets'? He replaced a paragraph on Vlasov etc with his version of the events (a rather belletristic 'improvement', BTW), and usual English with his understanding of the English grammar...) Constanz - Talk 13:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

(Deng 00:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC))

We need to get the numbers right
Thanks for your comments, I have a dilemma with Soviet losses. The official data does not make sense, you and I find it laughable. The source on the casualties page now is Erlikman because he is the only one who makes a bit of sense, but still he is using Sov era data to allocate the losses. Soviet era sources are not known for reliability. Here are the facts: 1- The Russian Academy of Science published a report in 1993 that gave data on the demographic impact of the war on the USSR. The losses were 26.6 million including 17 million draft aged males. 2-The official Russian military report published in 1993 listed 6.9 million confirmed dead plus 1.8 million POW and MIA deaths combined. They claim 4.5 million POW & MIA less 2.7 liberated in 1945. 3-The Germans claimed to have taken 5.7 million POW not counting Sov MIA. 4-Most western historians( I could make a list) give Sov POW losses as 3 million+. Not counting in MIA 5-An independent Russian researcher Vadim Erlikman published in 2004 a handbook of statistics on war casualties(with decent footnotes) that claimed the USSR military losses were 10.6 million in the war including 6.9 million Killed, 700,000 MIA, 2.6 million POW and 400,000 partisans and milita. The number of POW and MIA is more credible than 1.8 million so I posted Erlikman's data for the USSR. Erlikman is not an apologist for the communist system or the Russian government. He listed an estimated 1.7 million dead due to Soviet repression in addition to war losses of 26.5 million 6-Back to the 2.7 million POWs and "Vlasovites" that were sent back to the USSR in 1945. I wonder how many are included in the total of 17 million draft aged males lost in the war. They were marched off to the Gulag. We just do not know their fate. 7-Please go to my talk page --Woogie10w 00:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)to see a posting I copied from the Dupuy Forum on Soviet Casualties. Today there is a high level Russian military official( now he is head of the military archives) who claims there is a card file in Russia with the names of 13.8 million Soviet war dead. I really need the help of people in Wikipedia who may have knowledge on this topic. We need to get the numbers right--Woogie10w 00:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hooliganism
Deleting other wikipedians' comments will not get you too many friends around here. Another sign of your poor understanding... Asterion 20:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The wider effects of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact
Constanz It is my view that the killing of Leon Trotsky, which occurred concurrently with the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact relates directly to Stalin’s wider plans. Thus, the effects of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact were not limited to Eastern Europe but extended to the whole world. Communists were sabotaging war efforts in France and even England.

Stalin had gained control of the indigenous Cuban communist party with his agent "Fabio Grobart" in the 1920s. After that Stalin's agents in Cuba worked to further Russian rather than Cuban goals. For instance the Cuban Stalinists made alliances with Cuban dictators Machado and Batista. Thus when Julio Antonio Mella decided to break with the Stalinist group which he had helped found and decided to follow Trotsky he was promptly murdered by Stalinist Agent Vittorio Vidali, later Italian Senator. This was done in coordination with Mexican Stalinists (who included some rather famous intellectuals). Trotsky himself was killed by assassin Ramon Mercader whose mother was born in colonial Cuba and Mercader after his Mexican sentence expired went to live in Castro’s Cuba

During 1940 those Stalinists living in the wider world also followed their leader's odd choice of allies. Thus matters such as blocking; the escape of Jews who had traveled to Cuba in the SS St. Louis (Fulgencio Batista was strongly influenced by the Cuban Communist party at that time), or the refusal of passports to those who were leftist but not communist, Republican Spanish to Latin America relates to this pact.

It is notable that the famous Chilean Stalinist poet Pablo Neruda (read his ode to Stalin, and his written praise of Batista) then Consul in Mexico was active in helping the escape of some involved in the first, failed plot to kill Trotsky. Some even postulate that Stalin deliberately sabotaged the Spanish Republicans near the end of that Civil War. It is also notable that Neruda, from his diplomatic post, also picked which Spanish Civil War refugees were to escape, and has been severely criticized for his notable preference for Communist party members. El Jigue 3-31-06

Constanz some time ago I placed a certain amount of such material at the Pablo Neruda, Julio Antonio Mella, Ramon Mercader and the Vittorio Vidali  sites. Some of the sources for these sites are in Spanish which if you know Rumanian may be directly understandable to you. The French and English troubles are from hard copy volumes. Will post more citations to hard copy when I get a chance. El Jigue 4-1-06


 * I don't speak Rumanian (I do speak a bit of Russian).--Constanz - Talk 15:23, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Constanz thank you for all your help on the Cuba page. El Jigue 4-2-06

Constanz, a more subtle approach that has apparently been used is to have a third party delete references, them demand these references again, and finally because the references are "lost" erase the passage in question. El Jigue 4-10-06

Youth of the Centre-Democrats
Hi Constanz,

I notice you removed the prod tag from the above article. As you'll note from the talk page this appears to be a topic that might not be suitable for the English Wikipedia. My main concern is lack of compliance with WP:V, a fundamental Wikipedia policy. In my attempts to verify the article I was unable to find any major English language media which verified the significance of the party. The external links are both to Danish-langage pages controlled by members of the party. Nobody is suggesting it doesn't exist, but a short mention on the main party's article is probably sufficient for this topic. I'll be happy to hear your views on the article talk page in the hope of bringing others into the debate. In my opinion, this article needs a Heymann Standard of improvement, which I fear is unlikely. A merge and redirect to the parent article could be a painless solution, and if you feel the prod was truly unnecessary this might be the way to go. Cheers,  Dei zio  20:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

On Estonian language
Is there any difference in meaning between 'Erakond' and 'Partei'? --Soman 16:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Stalin
You strike me as a well informed and reasonable editor. So I regret being in the position of reverting some of your work on the Stalin article (this edit) The claim that Stalin's rule was bloodier than Hitler's, which created a firestorm when German historian Ernst Nolte first posited it in prominent discourse, is very contested. Many argue that Hitler had more blood on his hands because he was the leader primarily responsible for the 50 million deaths in the Second World War. You may disagree, and I respect your opinion. But controversial, contested claims are to be avoided on Wikipedia. I recommend that you review WP:NPOV. I inserted a compromise avoiding the contested Nolte thesis while keeping the "bloodiest reigns in world history" line. Best regards, 172 | Talk 07:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

If not debating this with you. I'm just trying to keep the articles within the NPOV parameters. Not everyone accepts the claim that Stalin's regin was bloodier than Hitler's. They maybe wrong, and stuck with an outdated assumption from the days of the wartime alliance that Stalin was the lesser of the two evils. Nevetheless, that POV still has its followers, and they can not be disregarded because of Wikipeida's policy of NPOV. 172 | Talk 08:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not a debate. I'm not interested in representing the other position. I just want to make sure that you're aware that there is another position. In order to write NPOV, one has to be ready to play devil's advocate with oneself. 172 | Talk 08:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Jaan Kaplinski
Hi Constanz. Nice to see you add an article on Kaplinski. Can't believe that there wasn't already one. I read The Same Sea In Us All in translation and much enjoyed it. In case you hadn't noticed, the article still has a line of (what I assume is) untranslated Estonian?? Mazzy 09:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh...you fixed it already! :-) Mazzy 10:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll try to remember to have a look at my copy of the book of poems over the weekend and see if there's any biographical or literary info I can add to the article. I've put a link on my user page to remind me.  Mazzy 10:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)  P.S.  Finnish is yet another language I don't speak...so I didn't recognise that either!

Stalin's offensive plans
very well, I also intended to create an article on ww2 revisionism. If you don't mind I will help you to develop your article on Stalin's offensive plans. I'm reading Meltiuhov in Russian right now. Sigitas 15:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you please explain what in particular is wrong with Hoffmann? Sigitas 16:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Marxism-Leninism
I've reverted your edit there. It's true that Marxist-Leninists believe in the necessity of an armed revolution. However, your edit was deliberately polemical in that it gave this proclamation undue prominence in the article, and moreover gave as evidence a quote from Marx, rather than from a specifically Marxist-Leninist source. Mgekelly - Talk 10:37, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * rather than from a specifically Marxist-Leninist source -- isn't hat Marx' works are sources of Marxism (well, during Soviet times, Marx', Engles, Lenin's writings were all considered pieces of classical marxism...)


 * Oh, dear, you're an academic subscribing to Marxism. It seems that the humiliating (and bloody) failures of communism absolutely evereywhere have not taught certain Western intellectuals yet...    * Oh, Western freedom-loving ”left-wing” thinkers! Oh, left-wing labourists! Oh, American, German and French progressive students! All of this is still not enough for you. The whole book has been useless for you. You will understand everything immediately, when you yourself -- “hands behind the back”-- toddle into our Archipelago. Solzhenitsyn, Gulag archipelago, Part VII, Ch.3 --Constanz - Talk 16:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Constanz, this is a clear personal attack on me, and thus a clear violation of Wikipedia policy.


 * Regarding your attempt to actually answer my Wikipedia-related note, of course, M-Ls subscribe to Marx, but quoting Marx like this is not informative about Marxism-Leninism in particular. It is really just a very ugly edit, and I think has a rather clear anti-Marxist polemical intent, which means it's hardly NPOV. I'll try to make an edit which we can both live with.


 * BTW, FYI, if you want to reply to me, do it on my talkpage, not yours, so that I am sure to get it. Mgekelly - Talk 00:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Constanz, you are right - your edit was not POV, and I apologise for implying that it was. My problem with it was mainly stylistic, how abruptly and strangely it appeared in the page. I hope that what I have now done with the article makes clear the nature of Marxism-Leninism to your satisfaction while looking rather more encyclopedic. Best, Mgekelly - Talk 16:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing again?
Hello, my friend. If I see you routinely replacing "Russian" with "Old East Slavic" and other self-devised bullshit, I'll start replacing "Estonians" in pre-18th century context with "Old South Finnics" as routinely as you do. Take care, Ghirla -трёп- 10:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm, routinely? How many times have I made such edits actually? (self-devised bullshit, well you better don't use such phrases here).--Constanz - Talk 10:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: A wikiquote copyright concern
I'll take care of it for now. By default, quotation websites cannot hold copyrights to the quotes they contain, but they can claim copyright to the format in which they are displayed. Since you didn't copy their format, it's not a copyright violation (see this topic at the Village pump for a more lengthy response). However, just to be safe, you can place a link to the site at the beginning of the section to show where all of the quotes came from (for an example, take a look at something like the George W. Bush article, where a link is provided at the beginning of the section to show where the contributor got the quotes from).  Rob ert  15:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, right, thanks a lot. --Constanz - Talk 11:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Cuba
Adam Carr recently started bringing the Cuba article up to standard, gradually rewriting each section. In the meantime, his work has been resisted for several weeks by a group of Castro supporters who dispute, among other things, that the fact that Cuba is not a democracy. Adam Carr is now at a conference for a couple of weeks, meaning his work will likely be undone. If you have the time and the interest, please take a look. Best regards. 172 | Talk 05:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hm, I've recently had some encouners with European 'left-wingers', who possibly represent the same opinion (Cuba is a democracy, USSR wasa democracy...) I'll try to have a look on the article when I am in wiki (though now I'm offline mostly). Anyway, unblocking User:205.240.227.15 would be a acceptable option. --Constanz - Talk 11:55, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility
Hello. Please refrain from unnecessary uncivil statements like "other admins seem to have completely lost their ability to think logically and draw conclusions from the facts". I understand that you have reasonable disagreements with some administrators' opinions. As they disagree with yours. Please do not stoop to attacks against their intelligence because of it. What you should do is disagree with them reasonably. Otherwise you're even hurting your own case. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 06:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, though to be sure, that wasn't the main gist of my note. Dmcdevit·t 06:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Deletion review/Userbox debates
Neither really. This is not a vote, nor is it jsut for admins. All registered users may contribute to a deletion review discussion. The primary reason for a DRV is to determine if a deletion was out of process, and that it should be reversed, although its scope is fuzzy at times. — xaosflux  Talk  12:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Constanz thank you
Constanz thank you El Jigue 5-10-06


 * You're welcome.--Constanz - Talk 10:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)