User talk:Sander Säde/Archive 1

Thanks

 * Thanks for your diligence in trying to keep the signal-to-noise ratio high in Eric Pianka and Forrest Mims - it can be a thankless job. I've found your edits to be clearly focused on what really matters here at WP&mdash;writing a good encyclopedia&mdash;and hope you continue to contribute. MarcoTolo 00:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you - although I suspect I am taking this thing way too personally. DLX 01:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello, , and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Newcomers help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;. Four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style


 * Saw you were missing the Wikipedia official "unoffical welcome". In addition to the above suggested reading, you may want to read the section of policy/guidelines that deals with biographies of living people and Wikipedia is not regards, FloNight   talk  13:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Marijuana Wiki
Hi there,

I see that you are a pro-Cannabis Wikipedian so I hope this will be of some interest to you.

I've started a Marijuana wiki (aka The Sticky Wiki) which I think you might be interested in. I'm hoping you can help me get started with this project. Whereas lots of articles about weed get speedy-deleted on Wikipedia, they would be totally cool over at MarijuanaWiki. But really I want the site to be more of a marijuana community than merely an encyclopedia.

To give you an example, I want to have city guides about where to score, find pot-friendly cafes, marijuana events, and what represents a good price in that city. Etc. (You can check out the featured article: "Toronto" to see what I mean). I also want to have grow diaries and marijuana blogs. All in all, basically more communal than encyclopedic.

I am in need of admins/moderators, and people experienced with MediaWiki to help build policy, categories, and templates, etc. If you'd be interested in helping me with this project, the URL is MarijuanaWiki

Thanks for your time and consideration. Hope to see you there!

-- nsandwich 23:51, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Re : deletion of phpmyvisites
I'll deal with it in a while, after my lunch. Thanks for reminding me. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 07:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Restored. Please accept my apologies for the long delay in processing the restoration. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 08:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

OmenServe
OmenServe has only 624 Google hits: compare this, for example with mIRC, another IRC-related topic, which gets over 14 million hits, or ChanServ, which has 751,000 hits, yet has a far smaller article. Whilst OpenServe may be worth a mention in Wikipedia, it could probably be merged with other similar articles without any great loss, and the level of biographical detail in the earlier version seems to me to be possibly excessive: with or without the existence of this piece of software, do you consider that the individuals mentioned would pass the WP:BIO criteria? -- The Anome 18:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please use appropriate article talk page for questions. DLX 18:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine. I've done so: please see my comment there. -- The Anome 18:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

12th W-SS Division
Maybe we can discuss this edit reverting. The article you cited yourself says that the entire Waffen-SS was found to be a criminal organization at Nuremberg. This finding concerns the entire organization, not any individuals or units. The only exception was for individual soldiers who were conscripted.

With respect, I don't see how stating this can possibly be seen as pushing any POV. One could with equal validity claim that suppressing this information is pushing an alternative POV, but I have not made that claim for several reasons. I prefer to stick to comments about the edits, not the editors. It's ironic that this point would be debated on the 12th W-SS page since their atrocities are amongst the better-known crimes, having been committed against western soldiers.

Looking forward to a productive discussion of this. DMorpheus 16:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are right about this thing - I didn't remember correctly and never read the cited section fully. I will reinstate your edit. Sorry! DLX 18:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your very gracious reply. Take care. DMorpheus 18:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Everywhere girl
Deletion review is over there. Thanks. 〈 RED VEЯS 〉 08:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * To be clear: Deletion review is the place where you can go to ask for the deletion to be overturned. The reason for deletion is given in the deletion log (read that rather than the webzine's truncated version) - it was deleted as the result of an AFD, after which the article was recreated and properly deleted again. You are at liberty to ask for a new consensus to replace the one at AFD.


 * As for the removal of legal threats and trolling from my talk page: I'm not the only administrator to consider the webzine to have made a legal threat. Aaron Brenneman has blocked several users for making and restating the legal threat. And the other anon comments are trolling and are in ignorance of established Wikipedia policies on deletion and freedom for editors to edit without intimidation from outside sources.


 * I can see no purpose in continuing this conversation as we are clearly miles apart on our views on this matter and I'm 100% sure I have Wikipedia policy and precident behind me. However, as stated above, I have no opposition to you seeking a DelRev on this article and would encourage you to do so if you feel so strongly about the matter.


 * Thanks and happy editing! 〈 RED VEЯS 〉 10:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There's an older deletion review here. - brenneman  01:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A warning on your use of language
If I ever see you use the word "vandalism" again to refer to the good-faith contribution of an established editor I'll block you for personal attacks. Clear enough? brenneman
 * If I ever see you (or any other editor ) blanking out large portions of the page without any explanation, then that is vandalism. Clear enough? DLX 07:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for twenty four hours for continued personal attack. There is a line between passionate debate and incivility, comments such as yours above fail to allow for the good faith of other contributors, and as such are disruptive. -  brenneman  12:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please let me see that place, where it is written that administrators can blank sections without discussion. It seems that you think that there is some other kind of ruleset that applies to administrators - or just yourself. This is not so. Review your suitability for adminship, in my opinion you are not fit to be one. Administrators should be an example for us, not disgrace. DLX 13:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Block by Aaron Brenneman
WP:NPA: Editors should be civil and adhere to good wiki etiquette when stating disagreements. Comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people. However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack. Even some comments that might appear to be a personal attack, such as labeling an edit that removes a substantial amount of text as "vandalism", may be well-intentioned. The appropriate response to such statements is to address the issues of content rather than to accuse the other person of violating this policy.


 * Please stand by as I'm requesting the blocking admin's comment. Sandstein 20:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Copied from talk(brenneman)
 * Hello. It appears that you temporarily blocked for personal attacks against you, specifically, for his insisting on calling your removal of content added by him to  "vandalism". I'm inclined to grant his unblock request. While such comments are incivil, they hardly rise to the level of a blockable offence with one (or no) warning. Second, it appears inappropriate to me that you would block an editor with which you yourself are in a content dispute, instead of reporting the issue on WP:AIV for another admin to act on. Would you like to comment? Best, Sandstein 20:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * End copied section
 * Thank you for bringing this request to my atteniton.
 * With regards to the unblocking rational: That "disclaimer" was added on January 11 without prior discussion. The section created for discussion of it has attracted no comments either in opposition or support.  So really the argument as it stands is "User:Serpent's Choice says this was not a personal attack."
 * With regards to the language used, "Clear enough?" reads to me as a simple statement meaning "Do you understand?" I took no offence at DLX's use of the phrase, and am puzzled by the double standard.
 * With regards to the content dispute, again there appears to be a double standard: If we're in a content dispute, than the use of the word "vandalism" is wildly inappropiate.


 * I'm happy to unblock if and when DLX recognises that his comments were personal attacks and he disavows the use of such language. If required, I will provide links to arbitration cases and previous instances where the use of the word vandalism for removal of text has resulted in negative outcomes.


 * brenneman 23:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I agree that what at issue is a good faith content removal, hence a content dispute exists, and making allegations of vandalism was wildly inappropriate on the part of DLX. It was equally inappropriate, though, for you, Aaron, to block DLX for it, because such incivil comments are not grounds for an immediate block, and because you were a party to the content dispute. As we appear to disagree on this, I'll leave the decision to unblock or not to a third admin reviewing the request of DLX, if the block has not run out by then. Sandstein 05:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My viewpoint. I have deleted one section from an established article in my two years of editing Wikipedia (for the first year I did not have a account). And when I did that, I had an established editing history of 10+ edits for the article - and I still posted appropriate request for comments to the talk page and waited for two days for negative opinions. As there was none, I deleted the section - and there has been no reverts or complaints about it. The article in question was IRC, well established and quite often controversial and vandalized article.
 * Now yesterday I come online after I wake - and see that user with no history (for the last 100 changes) had blanked half of the article with edit summary/explanation that amounts for little more then "I did not like that, so I deleted it." It may be in Wikipedia guidelines "Be bold", but so is "Build consensus". For established, high profile articles... blanking sections without discussion is simply not done. Appropriate method is to discuss it on the article talk page and when consensus has been achieved, act accordingly to it. Running through Wikipedia and blanking large portions of articles is not acceptable behavior for anyone, whether the user is anonymous, regular or administrator - or even Jimmy Wales himself.
 * As for the comment, I do agree it could have been worded better and am sorry for that - but still, it was not a personal attack. Similar case has been specially mentioned in an official Wikipedia guideline; not knowing about it or disputing it does not make one excempt from following it - that should be very clear in this case. And if Brenneman felt that my comment was a personal attack - his "Clear enough?" was most definitely in a tone and expression that I consider to be both personal attack and insult.
 * My history in Wikipedia has been clean - I have no prior warnings of personal attack or POV. I have been recommended by other users for my work. And I am proud of that history - and always have been trying to keep it that way. That is why this whole affair has been so... troublesome for me. I don't feel I deserved the block - or that it is justified. It should be very clear that I am not a random hit and run spammer/vandal/troublemaker, but a dedicated user of Wikipedia. DLX 08:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That was heartfelt, I'm sure, but I am having trouble getting past this phrase, "under no circumstances it was not a personal attack."
 * The suggestion that the "official guideline's" very temporary inclusion of the counter-example absolves you of any responsibility appears to deeply misunderstand the manner in which our guidelines are written on water.
 * Calling a good-faith contributor with whom you disagree a vandal is a personal attack.
 * How you can equate "clear enough" with that simply beggars belief.
 * You may disagree with my editing style. (You'd be wrong, but you're allowed to disagree.) But you simply cannot call people vandals and expect it to pass unnoticed.  Taking five seconds to search,  here is an example of the arbitration committee's view on the use of the term.
 * brenneman 11:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for comparing me to a user such as Irate. I always get a warm fuzzy feeling when I am compared to a such troublemaker &lt;/sarcasm&gt;. When you liken me to him, perhaps you should see what he wrote first - and continued writing on his user page after the ban. Now, comparing me with him might be considered a personal attack.
 * Also, are you saying that Wikipedia guidelines do not apply to you?
 * And I do strongly disagree with your editing style and I don't think I am wrong in that - but this is not what we are debating about just now. You have a history of banning users with whom you do not agree or felt that they were threats (none of them were:, , ). So perhaps you should review that habit. Everyone who do not agree with you are not trying to attack or insult you . DLX 12:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * (update about the alleged legal threats) I realized, that those was probably due to the fact that you mixed up words "libel" and "libellous". "Libellous" means "(used of statements) harmful and often untrue; tending to discredit or malign" while "libel" means "	a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge". "Libel" may or may not be a legal threat, "libellous" is not. DLX 12:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've blocked you for another 48 hours for linking the word "paranoia" above. Accusing another user of having mental problems is yet another personal attack.  Please see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents  brenneman  13:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * *shrug* I am sorry if you saw that again as a personal attack or accusation of having mental problems. It was not. I have shown nothing but goodwill though this whole ordeal. You have shown nothing but stubborness, bad will and hatred. I don't think this case merits further comments from me, as it is clear that you will not listen anything whatsoever what is told to you by me - or by another administrator. That is not how any wikipedian should act, especially an administrator. You are abusing power given to you by fellow wikipedians. DLX 13:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Quick note - currently being discussed at WP:AN/I. Proto ::  ►  13:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Section break
As before, I'll lift the block if you'll recant the attacks and demonstrate some understanding of why there is a problem here. I'm not only on the list of adminstrators open to recall, I invented it. If you really really think that I'm wildly out of line, talk lines are always open. Oh, and according to the Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law libellous is "constituting or including libel." brenneman 13:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You just can't call people names and question their mental health and then say it's not a personal attack. Sweet mother of Abraham Lincoln, you're saying I have "hatred."
 * I've got an incredibly short block-log. I'm a fuzzy doe-eyed puppy of an administrator when it comes to using the stick as opposed to the carrot.  Really.


 * "Libel" has several meanings:

1.	Law.

a.	defamation by written or printed words, pictures, or in any form other than by spoken words or gestures.

b.	the act or crime of publishing it.

c.	a formal written declaration or statement, as one containing the allegations of a plaintiff or the grounds of a charge.

2.	anything that is defamatory or that maliciously or damagingly misrepresents.

–verb (used with object)

3.	to publish a libel against.

4.	to misrepresent damagingly.

5.	to institute suit against by a libel, as in an admiralty court. [Reference.com]
 * I already apologized about what you considered a question about your mental health. I did not realize that the meaning of link might be constructed to be a reference about your mental health - if you take it like that, then I was very much out of line and apologize again for it. DLX 13:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked
You are unblocked. Please don't edit war or say nasty things about people in the future. Chick Bowen 16:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this. And I won't. DLX 17:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Post facto
I'm not sure if you followed the conversation at the adminstrator's noticeboard. While there was mixed opinon on the validity of the block itself (some supporting, some opposed) there was universal condemnation of my use of blocking in what might have appeared to be a content dispute, or of an editor with whom I was other wise involved.

In light of this I apologise unreservedly for executing the block myself. I'm happy to engage in further discussion on this if you see fit, and please don't take this as a retraction from my stance on personal attacks. I'm willing to have general debate how it should be handled when/if it percieved that one occurs, for example.

brenneman 00:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I did follow the administrator's noticeboard and thank you for posting this mess there. I think that all that needed to be said was already said there. DLX 05:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Requesting your comments on the Everywhere Girl section in The Inquirer article
Since you are one of the involved users who support the Everywhere Girl section, I'd appreciate it if you can leave a comment in the talk page. Dionyseus 00:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying me. DLX 07:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be a misunderstanding. I believe that what User:Trialsanderrors meant by needs secondary sources was that the statements were credited only by The Inquirer, which would be a primary source, and thus needed secondary sources, which would be independent sources. By adding another The Inquirer article as a source, you simply added another primary source rather than a secondary source. If you believe I am correct about this, I would appreciate it if you would self-revert your edit. Dionyseus 09:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did misunderstand his request, apparently - thank you for pointing that out - but after re-reading the sentence, I don't think it needs additional sources: "The Inquirer has criticized this deletion as well as the revelation of the model's real name during the deletion discussions by Wikipedia users (the model's name and identity had been kept confidential by The Inquirer).". We have indisputable references for both claims - actual articles where they criticize - and I don't think we need additional sources for that. But if you object to that logic, then I will revert the edit as you asked, of course. However, I do think this discussion would be better to be held on article talk page. DLX 09:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Note
I've just reverted this. Retiono Virginian 16:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you DLX 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Recipe links
Hi, I see you put some links to recipes back. I did the cleaning action because one of the links (mexicanfoods) was spammed through wikipedia, and these links do not comply with WP:EL and WP:NOT (they are promotional in nature, wikipedia is not a linkfarm, and they do invite more links). Though the information can, strictly, not be incorporated in wikipedia, links to a linkfarm like would be better, or to the wikibooks project using cookbook. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (going to post this to your talk as well) Why not remove just the offending link(s)? It seems that great many people come to food articles from Google and other search engines, where respective WP entry is usually first or at least in top 10 - and they are usually not looking for Wikipedia article, but for recipes. It is a common practice to have few recipe links in food articles. Of course, link farming is a totally different issue and such links should always be removed - but good links to food sites (esp. ad-free sites, such as BBC Recipes) should be there, in my opinion. In case of BBC, they usually have also a very good review of the "foodstuff" in question.
 * That said, I am not going to put the links back there - but perhaps you should consider reinstating some of the "good" links (to noncommercial sites - see, ). In my opinion they are relevant, useful and needed. DLX 08:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. I see your point, and I did not really look at it that way.  But I don't think these sections/links would comply WP:EL and WP:NOT.  The problem that I think there is, is that there will be many, many non-commercial sites that provide recipes for tortillas (lets take that as our example).  So that will result in the editors to decide which recipes stay, and which go.


 * WP:EL gives as an alternative linking to a linkfarm like dmoz (a search delivers 156 hits and some sub-pages; probably contains all these recipes, so that would give the service you suggest), and the wikipedia project has wikibooks, with the associated template cookbook, which would be good for recipes. For the more established sites, these may also serve as a reference.  These alternatives take away all bias, and it does not invite others to spam their links into these sections (what, IMHO, the existence of such a section, even if it would be empty, does).
 * I'll await some further discussion, consider a re-edit on the articles inserting dmoz and cookbook links (where appropriate/available), and have a discussion about this with others active on the anti-spam front (I guess they will all say: dmoz). Hope to hear more.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I suspect that this issue is actually wider then just recipe links on Tortilla. I did some searching and found Recipes_proposal, but it seems they failed to reach consensus. Some kind of general policy about recipes is definitely needed - as for the WP:EL, I think recipe links are covered by #2, #3 and especially #4 in WP:EL. Unfortunately, WikiProject Food and drink seems to be dead or as good as dead.


 * I generally don't like the idea of linking DMOZ pages to articles - other then 1st time checking, DMOZ links are rarely verified. As fluctuating as the net is, there can be lots of spam/ad links from dead sites in DMOZ - or just plain link farming, even that page from you has a movie reviews, several links of "tortilla flour" and "Mexican cookware" providers/manufacturers/sellers.


 * Like I said before, perhaps it is time to establish an official Wikipedia policy about linking recipes. Something along the lines - a link section "Recipes" is both allowed and recommended, but must contain a link to WikiBooks cookbook (if there exists a relevant recipe), optional link to DMOZ and no more then five links to relevant recipes in ad-free/non-commercial sites? Some kind of template would be useful, probably.


 * I hope you don't mind if I post my reply only here. Some Wikipedians like to get always a reply on their talk page as well, but I like to keep conversations in one place (edit: copied to your page as well now). DLX 10:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I am at work, did not have time to answer earlier. I indeed do like to keep discussions in one place, that is better to follow.
 * I see that the links would comply with parts of the guideline WP:EL, though many will fail other parts (links normally to avoid) as well, and it will result in the common complaint 'there are other links there which are not as good as mine, so mine should be there as well). It is a bit difficult there, and indeed maybe this discussion should be kept at a higher level.  I could suggest to bring this up at WT:EL, but I think that the conclusion there will be: do not include, use dmoz or cookbook.  I don't know if the recipes list should be 'allowed and recommended', to a certain extend it would be the same as allowing links to how to repair your car on every page about a car, or links to how to make a chemical on all chemical pages.  And that while we try to get the number of external links down.  I will not go on a rampage to kill all recipe-links (I now only killed those which did contain the spammed link), and will hear what other people say.  Hope to see you around!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply and recommendations. I think that bringing this up at WT:EL is a good idea - no matter what the result will be. After thinking about this issue I can see several positive and negative sides on allowing/having recipe links in food articles.
 * I will do a post to Wikipedia talk:External links tomorrow - and will post a short notice to you about it as well. DLX 17:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Didn't have time today, will try to do it on weekend. DLX 19:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There has been a discussion on this subject on the administrators noticeboard, apparently the ruling seems to be that they are not appropriate. Still, feel free to discuss it on WT:EL as well.  Hope this helps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beetstra (talk • contribs) 10:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Oops .. difficult to find: linky -> WP:ANI. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you DLX 11:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you please restore my earlier addition to Darwin's page?
Dear DLX,

You would have obliged me if you had left a note on my page before deciding to remove my earlier addition to Darwin's page; the addition concerns the following external link: The Complete Work of Charles Darwin Online

May I hereby request you to be kind enough and restore my addition? I am inclined to interpret your removal of my addition as less than a friendly gesture.

--BF 01:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That website was "link farm" last week, when it was added to the article by an anonymous IP . It seems that now the website is back and has real contents as well. So feel free to add to the article now. DLX 06:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear DLX,

I expect that Wikipedians respect their fellow Wikipedians to the degree that they check any additions before deleting them &mdash; I am undescribably upset (as a matter of fact I am angry &mdash; I am sorry to say so, but it is a fact) by your action, and, as implied by my previous message, I expect that YOU restore my addition; I did what I had to do, and you will have to correct your inappropriate and hasty deletion of my addition. Your statement concerning an anonymous IP, etc., is no consolation to me; evidently, I did not edit the Darwin page through an anonymous IP and what some anonymous people may or may not have done in the past is utterly irrelevant to me. What is relevant is that you simply deleted my addition without even caring to check whether the link worked.

"link farm" and "It seems now the website is back" are incomprehensibe to me; http://darwin-online.org.uk/ cannot be and cannot have been link farm, or whatever! The website in question has been on since a year ago and has never since been out of service.

--BF 13:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * **shrug** Have it your way. With that attitude you won't get far in Wikipedia. Also, do learn how to sign your posts properly. DLX 14:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Which attitude? You just deleted someone's considered addition without having cared to check the addition and then talk about attitude? Enough said!

--BF 16:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Addition that a week ago was linking to a "best search results: v1agra, C1alis" type site? As for the attitude, "I expect that YOU restore my addition"... Does it really need any comments? Grow up.
 * And you still haven't learned to sign your comments. DLX 16:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you may consider to be more respectful in your communications with others; I am certainly not a youth. As for my request, it is common courtesy that when one breaks things in a shop, one pays for them; if you read my first communication carefully, then you will realise that I wrote what I wrote in response to your nonchalant response: "So feel free to add to the article now", as though nothing may have happened; one cannot go about deleting other people's contributions without having first carefully examined them (I try to be sympathetic, but I cannot be held responsible if some people advertise Viagra and the like on Wikipedia!!!). May I therefore repeat my earlier request that you kindly restore my earlier addition?

Ps: BF is my official Wikipedia signature.

--BF 18:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the article, I think we've finished discussing that. I gave you my reasons - and it isn't such a big deal as you make it. Don't be insulted when your edits get reverted, just ask on the article talk page why something was removed - or just re-insert it with a better edit summary. Similar things have happened to every WP editor (including myself), if everyone would react like you, Wikipedia wouldn't exist.
 * However, as for the signature, it is a common courtesy to have it to link to your user page, so anyone interested can easily see your user page, talk page and contributions. DLX 18:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Baltic Russians
Could you give some reason why you've reverted without any discussion and even motivation my edit today? It was seeking NPOV by avoiding political clichees and proofless judgements like "colonization", "Russification" and "occupation" (See its legal definition in Art. 42). Aleksandrs Kuzmins 13:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The question of occupation has been discussed several times (see Occupation of Baltic states and related talk page(s)), rather extensively. Overwhelming consensus is that it was occupation, not annexation. As for the russification, see Russification and rest of the article. In light of those, I don't think "colonization" needs any explanations. DLX 13:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * In the mentioned talk page I haven't found a consensus, but different points of view which came till the ArbCom. Prevalence of "occupation theory" supporters in quantity? Wikipedia is not a democracy. The objectivity of Occupation of Latvia 1940–1945 is still disputed.Aleksandrs Kuzmins 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the Russification, you recommended an article which states: "However, children of mixed Russian and Estonian parents living in Tallinn (the capital city of Estonia), or mixed Russian and Latvian parents living in Riga (the capital of Latvia), or mixed Russian and Lithuanian parents living in Vilnius (the capital of Lithuania) most often chose as their own nationality that of the titular nationality of their republic – not Russian" - that's Latvianization, Lithuanization, Estonization, not Russification. The fact that there was assimilation of minor ethnic groups is not deniable, but this happened not only towards the ethnic Russians but also assimilating the minor groups inside the majority group. So there's no reason to speak of Russification as policy.Aleksandrs Kuzmins 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * About colonization: all the heads of CP of Soviet Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia were ethnic Latvians, Estonians, Lithuanians. Moreover, these republics lived better than the "metropoly" - this also shows the prooflessness of "colonization" ("colonist" ethnos subordinated to the people from the indigenous - already strange, but possible if these are puppets, however "metropoly" not exploiting "colony"??).Aleksandrs Kuzmins 14:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should take these questions to article talk page or resp. pages.
 * As for the russification, note "chose" in your quote.
 * Heads of the CP in all republics were puppets, as you probably know. They had no real power to change anything. And as for the "exploiting" - in Estonia there was a saying (rough translation) - "from pig, we get the screams, rest goes to Russia". DLX 15:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting the citations
Dear DLX,

please stop deleting the references of the article on the monument of Lihula, because it seems to be a vandalist action. If you find better citations or references to the mentioned article you can replace the current ones, but as you do not have found such citations you must not delete any of the existng references. You should describe your reasons to delete the footnotes on the TALK PAGE, especially if you see that it is restored for several times. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rannit (talk • contribs) 14:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Rannit, I have tried to contact you several times. You have not responded even once. Like I said in the HTML comment on that page: "Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution#Language and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attribution#Using_questionable_or_self-published_sources. Both sources violate those guidelines, so stop adding those sources (so does http://www.hot.ee/lvpfoorum/Lihula/sambasoda.htm, actually)."
 * Those sources are simply not acceptable. I suspecy that if you search in Google News, you will find much better results - for example, see this simple search.
 * Also, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia and for finally contacting me. DLX 14:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation changes
I just noticed that my change to the punctuation was a mistake. When I was going through the edit history, I thought I saw the term with a single quotation mark on one side and double on the other. I didn't realized that I was looking at the actual correction and not vandalism. I noticed you also corrected it with the comment in the edit summary " it was better before Oicumayberight (talk) changes, but oh well...". If you were only talking about the punctuation, I didn't have a preference; so feel free to change it to single quotes. If the comment was referring to any of my other edits on that page, I'd like to know what they are if you could please be specific. Oicumayberight 21:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, just punctuation. Sorry, that I wasn't clear enough in my edit summary, I was dead sleepy. And actually, I am not sure whether it should be single or double quotation marks - but at least they should be same on both sides. DLX 05:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)