User talk:Staberinde/Archive 2

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Improper closure of your report on BPN
One of the partisan supporters of this contentious text, Jeraphine Gryphon, has improperly and prematurely closed your report. I tried to reopen it but another partisan supporter is now joined in the attempt to stop further discussion. 87.208.192.123 (talk) 10:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that; I didn't really mean to force closure, but to show volunteers on that board that the issue was settled so they don't have to waste time on reading it. I know I'm an involved editor but it really seemed like the consensus was clear. We can't keep arguments going on forever, ain't nobody got time for that. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * - I consider issue resolved based on agreement I reached with Tonusamuel.--Staberinde (talk) 13:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The argument wasn't between you and him. I'm not happy with your edit at all. At least get someone who speaks English to proofread your version. I'm tired. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I hope I'm doing this right, if not sorry.
Hey, I do understand that it is the lede of the article however it's a pretty important thing to add in, it's economy and technology are what Estonia is known for, people such as CNN have noticed this. It's important for Wikipedia to have this information and if we could collaborate to include this information i appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WindAeris (talk • contribs) 23:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Going through your addition sentence by sentence:
 * "Internet penetration" – 28th spot is not so exceptional, you don’t see internet penetration mentioned in ledes of top ranked Iceland or Norway etc. Maybe short sentence in Tiigrihüpe would suit but probably not more.
 * "best economy" - firstly, „best economy“ is useless term as there are lots of ways to measure it, secondly source for that claim doesn’t really qualify as WP:RS, I dont really think that Estonia's above average performance in current economic crisis is so important to have separate sentence in lede, especially as country is already described there as "advanced economy" etc.
 * "most wired" - I need to think a bit about this, possibly this could actually go to lede in some form (it would also effectively cover internet penetration topic)
 * Also, you can automatically sign your talk page comments by adding: " ~ " to end of it.--Staberinde (talk) 08:56, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Added a bit about wired thing .--Staberinde (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Faustschlag
Lord Roem ~ (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, friend
I have written a proposed remedy to the Richard Arthur Norton affair, to be taken to AN/I in the event that ArbCom defers the case. Since the original thread is hatted, the proposal has been made on his talk page (User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)). As you were a participant in the original thread, I would very much appreciate your comments as to whether the proposed remedy satisfies your concerns. Thanks, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 23:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Kirikuküla, Kaarma Parish
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for 1 kroon coin (1934)
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Church of the Holy Ghost, Tallinn
I've approved the nomination with the current hook, but I've proposed an alt. If you ignore this message, the current hook will still be used, so don't feel pressure to do anything unless you want to. Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Good idea, edited nomination accordingly.--Staberinde (talk) 11:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Church of the Holy Ghost, Tallinn
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Very valid criticism - thank you!
Hi Staberinde. Will be working on those stubs as of right damn now. Could you possibly help me with them? Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I probably wouldn't be much more help than anyone else with google, as I don't have any personal knowledge of those people :) But overall, whether you expand those or not, I suggest you definitely not to create more those. If BLP that you are creating looks like it should be immediately tagged, then you probably shouldn't push that "save page" button.--Staberinde (talk) 18:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

WT:Requests_for_adminship/2013_RfC/2
I'd appreciate your comments ... you'll see why when you read it ... and if you'd rather reply here or on my talk page, that works, too. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq
An article that you have been involved in editing, Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

We'd like your opinion
A question for people who commented in the RfC at "Probationary Period" and "Not Unless". (Or feel free to reply on my talk page, if you prefer.) - Dank (push to talk) 19:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Proposed revision of disambiguation terms at WP:NCCOMICS
As you recently participated in this discussion, Do you have anything to add at this discussion? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Advice Polack
Hi. You seem to have taken an interest in Advice Polack, and I wonder if you'd mind participating in the discussion at Talk:Advice Polack. As you'll see there, one editor forcefully insists that the sources aren't reliable, but so far the discussion hasn't been very fruitful. I gave up the fight a few months ago, but perhaps you can help break the deadlock. EEng (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 2
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ants Kurvits, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sosva (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Ants Kurvits
Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Lifting the Gibraltar DYK restrictions
A couple of months ago, you opposed a proposal to lift the restrictions on Gibraltar-related DYKs, which were imposed in September 2012. Could you possibly clarify (1) under what conditions you would support a lifting of the restrictions, and (2) when you think it would be appropriate to lift the restrictions? Prioryman (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Currently I would be in favour of relaxing/removing reviewing restrictions only as long as that would be accompanied with establishment of hard limit how many Gibraltar related DYKs can appear per week/month (something like 1 per week for example). Although I dont think such change is likely to get sufficient support, so I guess status quo will just have to remain. Fully lifting restrictions may be worth consideration when full year has passed since start of controversy.--Staberinde (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your feedback. Prioryman (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Project for RfA nominators
As one of the supporters of the proposal in the 2013 RfC on RfA reform, you are invited to join the new WikiProject for RfA nominators. Please come and help shape this initiative. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Shark_Island_Extermination_Camp#Requested_move_2
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Shark_Island_Extermination_Camp. FOARP (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2013 (UTC)