User talk:Miacek/Archives/2009/February

The Economist
Hi, I've just reverted your edit as there's an ongoing discussion about this material on the article's talk page where only a single editor has supported including it. Please discuss the material there first. Also, I don't think that it's good practice to restore material which other editors have removed and which you acknowledge needs work. Nick-D (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was about to save the version where I had curtailed some things, but what i met was an 'Edit conflict', as you had just reverted again. Sorry, but if a marginal British Trotskyist group deserves a sentence in the criticism section, then I think this opinion by Ames, that is probably (rightly or wrongly) shared by lots of people, deserves a mention, too. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 11:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Changing articles
please do not change articles without first checking the discussion page for that article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantedanti (talk • contribs)

I am unsure why you keep editing articles without reading the talk page concerning that article. If you would like to work together to discuss edits of the Sam Harris page, please do so; perhaps we can resolve this issue. Two posts were put on the discussion page of that article, in regards to removing the word "philosopher" from the page. There was no response for some time regarding these posts, so I removed the word. If you would like to discuss this issue, please do so on the discussion page, instead of just continuing to revert. Thank you. Dantedanti (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Help with dealing a cultic subject?
Hi,

I recently developed Hannes Vanaküla, based mostly on recent months' media coverage of the man. Unfortunately, as so often happens with cult circles, a follower of his has shown up, and is making disturbing assertions on the topic of WP:BLP. Unfortunately, I'm not really familiar with BLP issues on Wikipedia.

Could you take a look, and make suggestions on making sure that any legitimate concerns that might arise are covered? I know there is no point in dealing with the irrational concerns, but this kind of people are sometimes rather active in getting admins involved.

Thanks in advance. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 15:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with this topic, but am ready to help foiling attempts to use Wikipedia as a propaganda tool (and my crime-fighting dog is eager to have a good fight, wooof!). -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dogM. se fâche( woof! ) 15:58, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of the Wikipedia article about Hannes Vanaküla
QUOTE: --- 15:54, 9 February 2009 Miacek (Talk | contribs) (7,185 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by WorldReporter; Wikipedia is not advertisement service. (TW)) (undo)

I have advertised nothing in the Wikipedia article of Hannes Vanaküla. I see You just wanted to get rid of my edit where I left out User Diguwen's hostile sect accusations, which were made without any proof (I left out the slander) and left out tagging of insulting titles after Digwuren had edited my text without answering my comment in user talk. This is absurd that whole of my edit is an advertisement (added Hannes Vanaküla's biography and activities of the year 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WorldReporter (talk • contribs) 16:24, 9 February 2009 (UTC) WorldReporter (talk) 16:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Please don't do harsh edits and moves
There have recently been harsh, nearly vandalism-like actions on moving-renaming-editing of the article "Võro language" by you. The article has been edited and developed peacefully and in good faith for many years. Suddenly you moved it to another name - "Võro dialect" without any discussions. Ignoring my protests you insisted on abrubtly moving and editing the article in order to show that Võro is just a dialect, not language. I found that my newer edits (citation etc.) are lost and the article is now totally destroyed, one can not even see it. There are only redirect pages. Please revert your moves and changes and do not change basics of the article (replacing notion language with notion dialect etc.) without discussion on the talk page.--Võrok (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

SVP, again
You would be probably interested in giving a opinion on a new discussion arosen in Talk:Swiss People's Party. --Checco (talk) 12:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Yisrael Beiteinu
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. JCDenton2052 (talk) 14:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You might want to edit the new section in the YB article. Also, here is my discussion with User_talk:JCDenton2052. Mhym (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Võro language
Hello Miacek. You may be interested in a discussion at WP:COIN. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Populist Parties
Well if you want to help improve the article...it would be much better to the Encyclopedia then just deleting it. About the parties you refer, at most the characterization may not be fully corect, but very close and just in need of sources, the case of the Civic democratic party, he wasn't added by me, and inded the charaterization made by its editor was so rabid I had to make an effort to keep it neutral. And many others weren't added by me (I created the article), I simply edited to lock more reasonable on this context. Based on this, there isn't really "someone's oppinion" guiding this, as in the ones I added I was following scholars, books and newspappers leads and so many users countributed that this is at most misguided and needing more sources. Waiting for countribution from your part, Lususromulus (talk) 14:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Northeastern coastal dialect
Hi,

I think this article's title should specify that it's the Estonian Northeastern coast that's being discussed, something like Estonian Northeastern coastal dialect or Dialect of Estonian Northeastern coast or Northeastern coastal dialect (Estonia). ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was considering this when I created the article. I just couldn't decide, which variant to use e.g. Estonian Northeastern coastal dialect or Northeastern coastal dialect of Estonian. I'll move it to Northeastern coastal dialect (Estonia). -- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 12:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Crime-fighting Dog
Nice to see you fight vandalism here on Wikipedia. I find the crime-fighting dog to be cute, though I know he will do a good job in fighting vandalism. Anyways, I plan on creating an account soon, and I wish you luck in continuing your fight against vandalism.

Sincerely,

74.70.250.254 (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I hope to see you editing with an account soon.-- Miacek and his crime-fighting dog ( woof! ) 17:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)