User talk:Sxostek

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox.

Please, note that vandalism (blanking) is "Removing (...) significant parts of pages' content without any reason." Your removal of well-referenced statements about the character of the 12.30.2007 royal Statute does not mention any reason in its edit summary. This removal pushes your anti-Salic law POV, in violation of the WP:NPOV rules. All POV's, either pro or against Salic law, have to be represented in the article, cf. WP:NPOV. Lil&#39; mouse 3 (talk) 04:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a vandal? And I have an anti-Salic Law point of view? My, what interesting things happen when you venture out onto the internets.  Hecka interesting.  Sxostek (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you are not. I did not label or call you anything, for this would constitute a personal attack. However, knowingly or unknowingly, you have committed a vandalism. It is one thing to criticize an act and call it for what it is, it is another to label somebody. Please, review the Wiki rules at the links above mentioned before any further editing. Thank you! Lil&#39; mouse 3 (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Those rules are hecka lengthy. Still, I don't see how removing your characterisation of a former king's action as "undemocratic" is considered vandalism.  From what I can tell, NPOV means that the articles should be neutral, not stating opinions.  Also, I don't understand what the point of including the opinion is.  Isn't any act by a monarch undemocratic?  Their not elected, right?  The wiki is a brave new world that has such rules in't.  I fear I do not yet understand them all.  I guess I'm a vandel without even knowing it  :(  Sxostek (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Briefly: A. Your deletion is vandalism because (again, I repeat the rules above-mentioned) 1. you gave no reason for the deletion in its edit summary, and 2. the deleted part is significant. B. Indeed, the Wiki rules are rather long and tedious to learn. Therefore, for a newcomer like yourself, in the meantime, until you learn these rules, you should not delete anything that quotes a reliable source, like you did in "Princess Margarita." Unless, of course, you like being accused of vandalism... The rule of thumb is: if an edit quotes a reliable source (i.e. is verifiable), the info stays in the Wiki article. This is so because "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." (WP:V) Thus, you should limit yourself in the beginning to just adding info which quotes reliable sources, and not delete anything at all. Of course, you should always correct grammar or style errors, if you spot them. C. For more on the democratic (i.e. constitutional) vs. undemocratic nature of constitutional vs. absolute monarchy, with direct application to the Romanian Monarchy, you can read this discussion. Cheers! Lil&#39; mouse 3 (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)