User talk:Termer/Archive Sep 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Estonia in World War II

Hi Termer. You are off to such a great start on the article Estonia in World War II that it may qualify to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page under the Did you know... section. Appearing on the Main Page may help bring publicity and assistance to the article. However, there is a five day from article creation window for Did you know... nominations. Before five days pass from the date the article was created and if you haven't already done so, please consider nominating the article to appear on the Main Page by posting a nomination at Did you know suggestions. If you do nominate the article for DYK, please cross out the article name on the "Good" articles proposed by bot list. Again, great job on the article. -- Jreferee (Talk) 02:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Estonia in World War II

Updated DYK query On 9 July 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Estonia in World War II, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 09:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're welcome

It was no trouble at all, my pleasure. --Hydraton31 07:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About Latvia

You removed several tags from Latvia, allegedly due to "misuse", and justified with the article being in the CD selection for 2006. I would like to draw your attention to the official Wikipedia policy about verifiability and urge you to not remove relevant templates from articles. Reinistalk 21:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Exactly Reinistalk since the article has been in the CD selection for 2006, the Wikipedia policy about verifiability is covered according to the relevant Bibliography and References included with the article. Therefor tagging the whole article is a misuse...please remove ASAP and help to improve the article by introducing additional verifiable facts or in case you think any fact in the article is questionable, feel free to tag the specific facts.Thanks--Termer 23:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your accusations of vandalism directed at other editors

You have recently accused some other editors of vandalism for reverting your edits. Please be adviced that accusing others of vandalism, when not true, is considered a personal attack. In the article Finnish people you have inserted a claim that you've sourced and then accused Drieakko and User:Clarifer of vandalism when reverting it. The problem is that the source doesn't back up the claim. Nowhere in the source does it say that the Finnish people constitues any given number of people. Please understand that the percetange of Finns given in the source is the number of people who are native speakers of Finnish, not people belonging to the group Finnish people. That is your own definitions and your own calculations, and they violate WP:OR. Accusing others of vandalism for reverting it is not in line with Wikipedia policies.JdeJ 17:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. Please note that replacing sourced and refed facts on WP with opinions and false facts is going to be to interpreted as compromising the integrity of WP, vandalism by me like in the past so in the future. And sorry to hear that anybody would take it personally, please take such concerns to Encyclopedia Britannica, the World FactBook etc, the sources the facts that were removed by the vandals are based on. Thanks! --Termer 17:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like you don't understand. The facts in the World Fact Book are completely correct. But when you take those facts and change them, making up your own definitions and making calculations of your own to reach number that aren't in your original sources, then you can no longer claim to have the support of the sources. What you are doing, in effect, is to falsify the facts. Given that, it would be wise to stop calling responsible editors vandals. JdeJ 19:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trolling JdeJ and provide relevant sources to back up your claims and opinions.Thanks--Termer 20:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You're behaviour leaves a lot to be desired. When users reverts your original research, you call them vandals. When I point out that your sources don't say what you claim they say, I'm trolling. I suggest you read up on Wikipedia:Civility and start contributing without name calling and personal attacks just because people disagree with you. JdeJ 20:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please take the claims of original research to Encyclopedia Britannica, World Fact Book etc. thanks--Termer 20:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

As you didn't get this the first time, I repeat it in simpler English. Sorry for sounding a bit rude in the process but I've done everything I could to say put it more nicely, yet to continue to act as if you had done nothing wrong. The World Fact Books doesn't say what you think it's saying. Either you don't understand it or you are delibarately falsifying it. So the problem isn't with the source, it's with your inaccurate interpretation of them. JdeJ 20:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trolling on my talk page and please back up your opinions with relevant encyclopedical/scholarly sources like the one mentioned above. Thanks!--Termer 20:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: User_talk:Clarifer. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. You have been hurling a number of false accusations of vandalism at User:Clarifer [1], [2], [3] and User:Drieakko [4]. In addition, you've been calling my defense of their edit for trolling [5]. You have to be able to disagree with people without starting to insult them. JdeJ 20:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

JdeJ once more, please stop trolling and spamming on my talk page. Please start working with the articles under discussion instead by backing up the alternative claims with reliable sources and by restoring the removed facts according to the provided refs. Thanks! --Termer 05:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Clarification

Just to make one thing clear. I do think you're a valuable contributor to Wikipedia. I'd wish you'd be more careful about calling other people vandals and trolls and try to engage in a more civil way WP:CIVIL, but I'm sure you do your edits with the best intentions. You've done a good job finding sources and you've added a valuable contribution to many different articles, so I do hope you continue to contribute as before. JdeJ 21:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

JdeJ, your kind words are appreciated! Although I preserve a different interpretation of the WP:CIVIL and continue to refer to WP:Vandalism any time I see facts removed/replaced with not sourced opinions in an article etc. and to Trolling at the times of continues attempts of irrelevant discussions that have nothing to do with improving an article etc. Please do no attempt in the future to present such interpretations of mine as personal attacks or violations of WP:CIVIL since there is no basis to that whatsoever. Thanks!--Termer 08:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ArbComBot 00:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Learned Estonian Society

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Learned Estonian Society, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.ut.ee/OES/History.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 04:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, could you point us to a page stating that this source is public domain? I couldn't find it. Thanks! -- lucasbfr talk 13:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I've added more inf about the public source at Talk:Learned Estonian Society. It's an educational society, a Non-profit organization at the public and/or state University of Tartu web page. Further on, the text is not copied over directly but only used for reference. so please have the copyright tag removed ASAP. Thanks!--Termer 17:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not a good idea.

This was not a good idea, nor was it useful or helpful in any way. When appealing to administrators for help, it is best to have clean hands. I'm sure this was a one-time aberration, born of frustation, so I won't see similar things again. Thatcher131 23:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have no idea what are you talking about. I have not appealed to administrators for help regarding the issues and I think presenting personal political opinions in a controversial subject to be trolling. and last but not least, I'm not frustrated in any way. Please restore the trolling tag since having political debates on the talk pages can not and will not be tolerated. Thanks--Termer 23:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

There is already a notice at the top of the page that the page is for dicussion of the article, not political debates about the subject of the article. The term "troll" has a very specific negative meaning that does not seem to be required by the general notice so I see no reason for it to be used in relationship to a particular discussion question. The article is under probation and editors who edit disruptively may be banned from editing. Digwuren filed a complaint against Grafikim and Irpen here. Accusing long-term contributors of being trolls is hardly civil. Even if I or another administrator determines that Irpen and Grafikm may be banned from the article under the terms of the article probation, they will not be labeled trolls. Thatcher131 00:01, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry why would you suggest that anybody has labeled Irpen and Grafikm trolls? The tag was there to remind everybody not to get into political debates. Therefore it should be up to every editor themselves either they wish to go on with political debates not appropriate for an encyclopedia. That’s something I cannot control. Therefore, please restore the tag since such political debates cannot be tolerated. thanks!--Termer 00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You added the tag immediately after making a sarcastic remark [6], but it doesn't refer to anyone in particular. Sure. Thatcher131 00:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally think all the political discussions up there are trolling. In case you insist, I can admit labeling the actions of Irpen trolling (even though I didn't have anybody personally in mind) on the related article's discussion page since he/she has not presented any evidence to support the opinions and keeps just dragging the discussion into useless political debate. And I'm not saying that he/she has been the only one. The opposing editors have not been better either. Therefore, to put a stop to this, please restore the tag. Thanks--Termer 00:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not. I'll ask for a second opinion if you like. Thatcher131 00:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That’s cool, I already left you some second thoughts. Thanks!--Termer 00:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Termer. I'm going to have to agree with Thatcher that the addition of that picture was not helpful, which I think you agreed to in your latest post to Thatcher's talk page. Are there any active discussions on Talk:Occupations of Latvia which you think should be removed as a misuse of the talk page for political commentary? If so, or if any start in the future, you can point me to them and I'll see if they're worth blanking or archiving so as to get the discussion back on track. Picaroon (t) 01:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK September 6

Updated DYK query On 6 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kristjan Jaak Peterson, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Andrew c [talk] 14:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For this great catch, you've earned this barnstar. Digwuren 12:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A word of support

All the past (and future) differences aside, I thoroughly support the splitting you just undertook. What do you say about one more article Occupation of Latvia (term) or even Occupation of Baltic States (term) where the scholarly argument that supports the usage of the term occupation as applicable to the post-war period will be presented which would allow the historic articles to stay more to the topic. Political term articles are legit in their own right. We even have a Category:Political terms with subcategories, etc. --Irpen 07:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Irpen. It seems more like a communication problem rather than differences...I must admit, I'm not fully grasping what difference the move makes really other than Occupations of Latvia is a very clumsy title. But since you've been insisting, I guess you have your reasons. And it's good to have a consensus at last. Hope that the other guys are going to buy into this. And sure if you think the terms you mentioned are going to clarify things, why not.--Termer 08:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Occupations of Latvia

There was no concensus for the split of this article. Martintg 10:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Irpen agreeing with you does not make it a consensus. The reason why people oppose this split is clear. Soviet occupation of Latvia, even tho in two interupted by Nazi occupation, lasted until 1991 and your split completely disregards that. Irpen and his supprtes main argument is that the Baltic states were liberated from Nazis and not reoccupied and this his split allows for that interpretation that and is contrary to sources. Nobody would however object to splitting out Nazi occupation and having a separate article "Soviet occupation of Latvia". --Alexia Death the Grey 12:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

RE:at Talk:Occupations_of_Latvia--Termer 02:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)