User talk:Staberinde

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know

Updated DYK query On 2 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Italian invasion of Albania, 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.

--Allen3 talk 15:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Updated DYK query On 14 October 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Paju, 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) • 09:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Staberinde, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Alex (talk) 16:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your user name

Hi. I am curious about your user name. Is it an intentional reference to the Iain Banks character in Use of Weapons? --Guinnog 13:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I remember that it was also name of one battleship in that book.(Staberinde 14:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Armenia strawpoll

NB This poll has now closed, it being Friday 10th November and about 10.30am where I live. The numbers are as follows:

  • Support 6 (although User:Hamparzoum's existence has been disputed by User:Tekleni.
  • Neutral 1.
  • Oppose 10.

As such, no mandate has appeared for making the requested changes to the article. As previously advertised, Caligvla and I are taking a break from this dispute for a week. After this, the case may be taken to the mediation cabal, although I hope to avoid this eventuality. Walton monarchist89 10:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stalin

What about WP:RFC?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I answered at your talk page--Staberinde 14:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have litte experience with running polls, but it seems simple enough: WP:POLL.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blanking of pages

Why do you do this? --Ghirla -трёп- 12:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Stupid mistake. I wanted to move Estonian Liberation War there(as discussed in article's talk) but i have no experience in such things so I thought that maybe if I blank it then I can make the move. As I found it can't be done so I reverted myself immediately.--Staberinde 12:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
It's OK. Moves are performed by clicking on "move" button to the right of the button you click when you want to edit the page. Since the page Estonian War of Independence has some history of editing, the only way to effect the move is to announce your plans on WP:RM and start voting on the talk page of the article you want to move. If you have problems with this, you may want to ask people on WP:RM to arrange the process for you. --Ghirla -трёп- 12:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Axis Powers

Hi! I noticed you reverted User:Planemo. I have reverted him twice after that and reffered him to the talk page. However, he change his signature on one of his edits from User:Nixer so I think we have a blatant sockpuppet here. Could you look into it because I am getting to close to 3RR ? MartinDK 11:10, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Im currently not very active in wiki but I will try to keep my eye on it. About Nixer, as far as I remember he has been blocked for sockpuppeting before, also his block log is huge. Anyway changeing signature of other editor in talk page is something new for me so probably admin advice would be good.--Staberinde 19:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that's strange. Try asking him, also, consider WP:RFCU - and sure, you can always ask at WP:AN.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reported this to User:Zoe since she was recently involved in an incident about Nixer and the use of sockpuppets so hopefully she can shed some light on this. MartinDK 21:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to update you on this Nixer has been community banned and Planemo confirmed by CheckUser as one of 3 confirmed puppets after my complaint at WP:AN/I. This leaves the person who vandalized today and who CheckUser could not confirm as a puppet. But given the community ban we should be able to simply revert his edits as they are basically just reinsertions of what Nixer put there. MartinDK 23:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Location of responses

My understanding has always been that we are to put our comments, indented, right after the comment to which they apply. That's how I have always seen it done. I almost always use my watchlist and diffs to read what someone wrote, so where the comments are located when I am following a discussion is usually not important. When I come upon a discussion in progress, I find it easier to read comments in topical, rather than chronological order. If I've been screwing up all along, please let me know. --Habap 16:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

hmm, it probably comes down to personal preferences. I prefer(can it be that im only one?) to read post in chronological order as it makes easier to follow how discussion has envoled. Of course then there are not very much jumping in the middle of older post its not a problem but if it starts happening massively then it can make followeing the progress of discussion hard(especially if someone doesn't add date and time to his posts). Worst case scenario I have seen is putting new comments so that some old one is cut in several pieces(which creates total mess as only one those pieces is signed). Anyway it shouldn't be aganist any rule so no serious "screwing up" :) just I don't consider myself responsible if you happen make very good argument and I don't notice it because of location I didn't expected.--Staberinde 17:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
In that particular discussion, only one post wasn't time-stamped. I never break someone else's comment to respond to them point-by-point - that IS confusing. My understanding is that the whole purpose of indenting is to show to which part of the discussion your comment applies. In this way, someone can follow all of the comments on a particular point in order instead of jumping around. In a threaded discussion, that's how it would display the comments. It doesn't bother me if you miss some of my "brilliance". hehe
Have a good one! --Habap 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Syria-Lebanon campaign

Hi, can you explain your removal of the flags for British India and the Mandate of Palestine from "Combatants" in the battlebox, and the promotion of UK to the top position there? As far as I'm aware there is no rules against including colonial states/forces in battleboxes. Also, the involvement of UK troops was relatively minor. Grant | Talk 12:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, Im generally not very big fan of putting colonial forces which were under full british control as some separate combatants. But maybe we could put them same way as in Battle of Gallipoli battlebox so that all colonial forces would be listed but they would be under british empire? Also I can't see any logical reason why some flags are bigger than others. And finally Vichy France still used same old french tricolor, that flag with axe was only a presidental flag.--Staberinde 15:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that "British Empire" (before 1926), "British Commonwealth" (1926-49) and "Commonwealth of Nations" (since 1949) are successive names for the same thing, rather than being distinct geographical/political terms. They are different concepts but applied to more or less the same countries. "British Commonwealth" was the correct generic term in 1926-49 and covered the U.K., India, Canada and all of the (non-independent Crown colonies). "British Empire" is technically incorrect for 1926-49, and not just in relation to the independent Dominions (Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa), not that it stopped Churchill and others from using "British Empire" in relation to the Dominions! So there was no distinction between "Empire" and "Commonwealth" in official or informal usage, at any stage. You are far from alone in this misunderstanding. Hope this is clear. Regards, Grant | Talk 17:37, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
That's much better, well done. Grant | Talk 10:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To my small estonian friend

а хочешь, маленький эстонский друг, эти слова Сонина тоже поставим в статью? "В связи с происходящим в Эстонии варварством - и в части того, что происходит с памятником (я считаю, что даже если большинство хочет памятник снести, это обязанность хорошего правительства - найти решение, которое не оскорбило бы меньшинство), и в головах у эстонских журналистов (редакционная статья в популярной газете совершенно позорная), и в действиях полиции по отношению к демонстрантам - так вот, в связи с этим варварством предлагается много разных мер. Эмбарго, блокада, отказ от покупки эстонских товаров, ... Заставить их платить за нашу боль и гнев." http://ksonin.livejournal.com/90508.html Beatles Fab Four 20:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The saga continues ...

You might be interested in the newest delusions of persecution by everybody's favourite chronicler of the evil that lurks in Estonia. Digwuren 03:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Estonia

Could you please tag Estonia-related articles that you create (or encounter) with {{WikiProject Estonia}} on their respective talk pages, as I have done to some of the articles that you've created? That helps to let other editors know of new Estonia-related pages and will add page automatically to WikiProject Estonia articles. Thanks. DLX 16:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, not a problem.--Staberinde 17:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. DLX 17:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Estland

I have presented two options at Talk:Estland#Clarification? and asked supporters of a dab page to specify which option they are in fact proposing. You added a third option. This option in fact is analogous to option #2. I have removed the option and placed your "vote" under option #2. If this is in error, please remove it and accept my appoliges. Do not hovever add a third option. It will make it impossible to understand what is really requested. -- Petri Krohn 12:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Petri Krohn's behaviour

Thank you for your interest in topics regarding the Baltic republics and the Soviet occupation. This interests has undoubtedly familiarised you with tactics and behaviour of Petri Krohn.

I have prepared a thorough overview of these tactics, along with references to related Wikipedia policy, and posted it to his userpage, requesting that he stop such activities, especially representing private alternative histories on Wikipedia as thought they were fact.

Unfortunately, he proceeded to delete the request mere seven minutes later, along with an inflammatory edit summary. I do not believe this to have been a proper reaction.

Please, if that will not be too inconvenient, take a look at the situation, evaluate it, and consider expressing your evaluation in the appropriate manner.

Many thanks, Digwuren 16:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In response to calls to this effect on the talk page, I'm moving forward with the WP:RFC/U with only the last six weeks worth of edits fully classified. Please take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn, which, after minor editing and addition of the most recent 'interesting' diffs, is supposed to become the main RFC around 21:00 UTC tonight. If there are reasons barring you from endorsing the current summary, I would like to learn about them as soon as possible so the main summary can be endorsed by as wide a coalition as possible.

Thanks in advance. Digwuren 15:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World War II page

On the World War II page some people are trying to list the USSR as a 'co-belligerent' Axis power (see Co-belligerent on the talk page). I read that you were opposed to this in the Axis powers of World War II article, as am I. We need you there to help educate these people.--Ilya1166 13:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I do not have any real opinion about that issue in WW II infobox as in my opinion infobox should be as short as possible because otherwise controversial stuff like USSR in Invasion of Poland, Spain, Iraq, etc. will cause disputes forever.--Staberinde 15:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFC/U on Petri Krohn filed

You might be interested to know that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn has been filed. Digwuren 20:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kyokujitsu-ki

Hi Staberinde, I saw your name come up several times in the discussion on Template_talk:World_War_II#Japanese_flag_explanation. The same guy, User:Piotr Mikołajski, is busy adding the Kyokujitsu-ki on pages like Nakajima G8N, Nakajima G5N, and Mitsubishi G4M. Any thoughts on what I should do? Seems like no explanation works. Thanks in advance. M Van Houten 19:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

The user Sicilianmandolin started a vote on the Scottish people talk page. He proposed Sean Connery instead of Gibson so... i know you want him to so if you want state it under the vote thing again. M.V.E.i. 19:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Italian invasion of Albania to T:DYK

Great work on Italian invasion of Albania - it would be perfect for WP:DYK (nominations are at T:DYK). However, one minor thing - you haven't used any inline references, which are required for WP:DYK. I did not propose the article to DYK yet, as these inline references need to be added and I think that you would like to nominate the article yourself anyway. Also, little cleanup and those references - and article should easily pass good article review.

BTW, very happy to see that you've returned to Wikipedia. I hope it is for good, don't let the trolls drive you away again.

-- Sander Säde 20:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I do not think its good enough for "Good article", reason is simple, lack of good sources. In internet I found only handful of pages and they all have very similar information. This conflict is effectively forgotten due more famous events close to it. I do not see this article as some really good work myselfly. Just I felt that its ridiculous that this event does not have any article about it at all, so I created it with some basic information avaible(which is really limited especially about details of invasion itsself), and hopefully other editors with better knowledge(that most likely means mainly Albanians and to lesser extent maybe also Italians) will expand it in future. My position in improving it is comparable to Albanian's position in improving Estonian War of Independence article.
Btw, I usually do not let trolls to drive me away, just I can get bored/busy(or both) and that can cause pauses in my wiki activities. :) --Staberinde 21:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The sources do not have to be on internet, you can use books and other offline sources as well - but inline citations are needed. And you will very probably get good suggestions and help if the article makes it to DYK (I see no reason why it shouldn't), which will later help with GA.
As for trolls, are you aware of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren?
Did some quick googling - freely available sources are indeed not all that good. However, there seem to be quite a lot of scientific papers about this - and at least one book has partial preview, Albania at War, 1939-1945 by Bernd Jürgen Fischer. There are some Wikipedians who can also access those scholarly papers for free, unfortunately I am unsure who they might be. -- Sander Säde 08:42, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a little suggestion/advice - you can use <ref name="somesource">....</ref> and then later use the very same reference just as <ref name="somesource"/> in the rest of the article, it is automagically parsed correctly. Also, there are various {{cite}} templates, such as {{cite book}} and {{cite web}}, which are PITA to use, but required to pass GA nomination. -- Sander Säde 17:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allies of World War II

What's going on? You yourself said, at Talk:Axis powers of World War II:

This article does not qualify USSR as axis power, it does not even qualify it as co-belligrent. It simply qualifies USSR as controversial case, mainly because of USSR participation at invasion of Poland.--Staberinde 09:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Grant | Talk 16:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the point, USSR participation in invasion of Poland deserves to be mentioned. We may change the wording a bit if that one is problematcial, but the fact remains same.--Staberinde 16:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, what do you think about current version?--Staberinde 16:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice compromise!

Nice compromise! No doubt that suits more. P.S. Again sorry for the atack on you in the Template article. In case you haven't read the explanation yet, here it is, i copied from there:

Ok i see you really dont understand the case, so i owe you an appology and an explanation. This metter of taste, brought to a conflict about the images NPOV. People were blocked, it was areally big and brutal argumant. A huge discussion, whole history pages of reverts. The compromise was a map. If you would remove any image, it would be understood. There were two parties who weren't going to find a compromise, and the powers were equal by number. I started the first party claiming for replacement of the image you returned, and a second party defending the old one led by Dna-Dennis. And there was Oberiko who tryed to offer to form an image together, but the discussion wasn't going to well so it didn't help. Then someone proposed to insert a map insted (can it get more NPOV then that?). 99% of the first and the second parties (including me, Dna-Dennis and Oberiko) joined that third party. And since then the concensus was kept. What you did could have started a second war over the image, thats why i so brutaly came against it. Now i see that you just haven't known the story so sorry. M.V.E.i. 18:58, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pacific war

Please see the talk page regarding the casus belli. Grant | Talk 12:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)