User talk:Sander Säde

Note: Until 2007-07-06 I was editing as DLX

Please note that I will reply to your messages on this page, not on your talk page. If you prefer to have my replies on your talk page, please let me know.

Michael Sittow

I suggest you compare the two on Google Scholar, noting the original languages of the references. Only the NGA Washington, among major English sources, uses Michel, but it is clearly normal in German and Estonian. You will be pleased to see we now have an article on him. Johnbod 19:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Heh - was writing to you before receiving this message. -- Sander Säde 19:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree - there is a clear preponderance of "Michael"s in the scholarly refs of English origin. You are obviously used to thinking of him as Michel, but I am used, from English sources, to Michael, and this is the English WP. Johnbod 19:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I reply here - I like to keep discussions in one place.

There are several recent English publications that refer to him as Michel - for example, [1], [2], The Retablo de Isabel la Católica by Juan de Flandes and Michel Sittow (250 pages, Amazon), [3], [4]. Sources using Michael seem to mention him only passingly - and we have at least one scholarly source discussing him in-depth which uses Michel.

However, I don't think it is all that important - but could you please at least add a mention that most of the world knows him as Michel Sittow, ie. bolded name in the lede as it is done in cases such as this. Thank you for creating the article - it was on my to-do list, which seems constantly get longer, not shorter...

-- Sander Säde 19:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Military history Baltic states task force

please take a look at this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Baltic_states_task_force --Termer 17:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, I would be happy to help out. -- Sander Säde 06:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The task force is all set up and ready for sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Baltic_states_military_history_task_force#Participants --Termer 06:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Musicians

Please stop your category changes to Estonian musicians. There is a long-established way of categorising musicians by nationality, instrument and genre - see WP:MUSCAT. Your alterations do not follow that pattern. In addition, speedy deletion of empty categories is only for where categories have been empty for 4 days, not 4 minutes! Bencherlite^Talk 07:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Also please read WP:OCAT#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth - one-member categories such as Category:Estonian classical organists are specific exceptions to the general rule that small categories should be avoided. Bencherlite^Talk 07:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop reverting changes. Having categories with one entry - and no hope for additional articles in that category - is very much pointless and goes against the idea of having categories. Otherwise, every article could have a little category of its own. I am trying to make category tree more logical and easily accessible for users. -- Sander Säde 07:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you are the one whose changes to categories are against the consensus demonstrated at WP:MUSCAT. If you disagree with the prevailing consensus, then discuss the matter there. Alternatively, nominate these categories for merger at WP:CFD. Unilaterally depopulating and improperly attempting to delete speedily these categories is disruptive. Bencherlite^Talk 07:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

And why is there no possibility of further articles in these categories, anyway? Bencherlite^Talk 07:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Because they are about Estonian organists - and there are no notable classical organists in Estonia, especially those who have been primarily organists. Even Rudolf Tobias was mainly composer - and is remembered as such, not as organist (he also played several other instruments, including piano, violin (he is better known as violinist then organist) and guitar, if my memory serves me right). And "classical" organist - inclusion of the genre seems to be extremely arbitrary here.

I very much think we should apply common sense here and avoid overcategorization, even if it means contradicting WP:MUSCAT - which, by the way, is not a guideline for Wikipedia, it is a guideline for a wikiproject. If there are additional articles to be added into those categories, then I am all for keeping those, but like I said, having categories with one entry is just creating pointless clutter and imho should be avoided. Categories are for grouping similar articles and should be used for that, not for telling that someone played organ or flute - that is what articles are for.

-- Sander Säde 07:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Classical" is not arbitrary and I'm puzzled that you think it is - it puts the category into the whole Category:Classical musicians by instrument structure, with Category:Estonian classical organists being part of the Category:Classical organists by nationality scheme, etc. If you remove these categories, then the utility of the overall category structure is greatly diminished. I am fully aware that WP:MUSCAT is "merely" a project guideline, not Holy Writ, but its approach has been applied across thousands of categories and tens of thousands of articles. If you disagree with this well-established approach, the onus is on you to take these categories to CFD. It is not up to you to decide that Estonia is to be treated differently. Please undo your category changes, then list Category:Estonian classical organists and Category:Estonian classical violinists at CFD for a wider input. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 08:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Feel free restore the categories if you honestly really think it is useful to Wikipedia and its users. I do not see this overcategorization to be useful or needed, as I have patiently explained. -- Sander Säde 08:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope I have been equally patient in explaining my viewpoint; if I came over as too harsh in my initial comments, I apologise, but I was concerned when I saw speedy delete tags being applied when the criteria weren't met. Our discussion has assured me that you were acting in good faith in the interests of WP (even though our ideas of how to meet those interests differ...(!)). Regards, and best wishes. Bencherlite^Talk 08:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I should apologize as well - as an excuse, I have been lately overworked and rather stressed. Thank you for being patient in this discussion, very welcome change from "shoot first and ask questions later" users I have to deal with occasionally. -- Sander Säde 08:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Apology unnecessary. Thanks for your support elsewhere, too - an unexpected bonus! Bencherlite^Talk 08:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hopefully you'll enjoy your well-deserved admin tools. -- Sander Säde 08:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Bill Rebane

Small edits to the entry for Bill Rebane where undone, using an automated process, these are related to his new blog and to his new book. These are fact, I have spoken to Mr, Rebane in person as I live only 25 minutes from him and am the computer consultant in process of helping him get web sites set up and have read the text of the book now being printed.— Preceding unsigned comment added by WolfWindshadow (talk • contribs)

Please see the official policies - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and reliable sources. Anticipated events must be verifiable by a reliable source - and personal communication with someone is not an acceptable source. What complicates things further is WP:BLP - biographies of living persons - which requires all information to be sourced reliably, see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Sources.

As of now, ISBN has no match in Amazon, so that info must be removed from the article - blog page is up, but registered to Michad Computer Consulting, not Bill Rebane. So unfortunately, that info must be removed again until there is some independent, verifiable sources about his book and blog. Feel free to add the information after the book has been released or blog started and registered to Bill Rebane.

-- Sander Säde 08:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For tirelessly assessing articles for WikiProject Estonia, I award Sander Säde the Working Man's Barnstar.--Termer (talk) 10:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Sander Säde 12:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My RFA (Random832)

Thank you, Sander Säde, for participating in my RFA, which passed 35/1/0. I look forward to helping out. If you have any concerns or suggestions/advice, my talk page is always open.—Random832 14:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? was updated. On 24 November, 2007, a fact from the article Alfred Käärmann, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Aksi_great (talk) 19:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sander, thanks for the nomination. :o) Martintg (talk) 07:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Vikiseminar

Tere, Sander!

Eesti Vikipeedia vikiseminar toimub 15. detsembril 2007 Tallinna Ülikooli uues hoones (Uus-Sadama 5/Narva mnt 25) ruumis U-238 kell 12–18. Vaata ka et:Vikipeedia:Üldine arutelu#Vikiseminari teade. Meil on kavas ka diskussioon eesti Vikipeedia perspektiivide üle. Ajakava on veel täpsustamisel. Palun ka teavita teisi siinseid tegijaid. Andres (talk) 07:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Tänan informeerimast, lisasin teate WP:WPET lehele. -- Sander Säde 10:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing the userspace

Sander Säde, please consider editing the userspace in a different spirit than you do.[5] You must know that Ghirlandajo would not choose to have this message sitting on his user talk. Don't restore it again, now. Don't revert Irpen on Ghirla's page. Don't wikilawyer. Don't follow the dictates of spite, and don't triumph. Surely that is not how you see yourself? Think about it. Please. Bishonen | talk 12:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen, why do you think you have a right to move non-trolling, non-abusive message left to another user? You - or Irpen, or any other Wikipedian - has no right to play psychic and delete messages left by another user. You are not a god. You are a wikipedian. Although apparently many administrators do think of themselves as almighty Wikipedia gods. -- Sander Säde 12:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You mean like these guys? Suva Чего? 12:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly - and there have been a lot of other cases like that lately. And Jimbo is making weird noises how nothing is secret, everything is open etc. -- Sander Säde 12:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are the Ghirlandajo, you don't dictate what he likes there and what he doesn't. Everybody has right to leave messages to users, and users have right to remove messages sent to them. Unless there is clear bad faith behind the comments or they are clear form of vandalism, you, Irpen or anybody else don't have the right to remove them. OTOH, I have to agree that editwarring on user talkpages is silly. Suva Чего? 12:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Do not pretend to be psychic. The only one that knows what Ghirla thinks is him. Do not harass people for resisting some bizarre buddy spirited censorship. You have not earned the right. I have right to an opinion just like you. And a right to express it where I like. And at this point, the team spirrited attempt to protect your buddy from my well wishes wherever he is, is rather silly.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

At the same time, I have to disagree with the pics Irpen posted. I didn't notice Wikipedia changing into Black And White after Ghirla left. Quite the contrary -- After the conflicts calmed down the wikipedia is much more colourful. I can see previous opposing "cabalists" working together, and previous allied cabalists having and solving disagreements. Thus I see no point stirring things up again, and I would prefer Alexias comment remain removed, whatever the intentions were, it's unnecessary. Suva Чего? 12:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? All I said was truthful to the core... And, as it seems I stepped on someones toes. The page is protected.:D Its really weird to see people get their nickers in a roll all over some well wishes and truth. Oh well. Tomorrow I will be busy with real life again. But something IS amiss when well wishes are being removed from others user pages... Somebody is failing at assuming goodwill again...--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 13:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop trying to demoralize an inactive user (who is your content opponent) when others are attempting to the opposite, both of you. El_C 18:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Content opponent? No, see this. Just a liar and hate-monger. -- Sander Säde 18:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is the "liar and hate-monger" whom your refer to? El_C 18:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo, I presume...? El_C 18:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

_{(edit conflict)}Sorry, apparently I misunderstood your comment. Can we now stop this silliness, please? Alexia's comment was maybe a bit flippant, but definitely not something that she should be threatened with a block. It was not trolling, it was not personal attack. -- Sander Säde 18:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

If you edit war, then yes, block warning is perfectly appropriate. And it was hardly a positive gesture, which you should not have edit wared to restore. As for the indignant insult, I'm not sure what there is to misunderstand (at any rate, whatever there may be, you are not making clear). El_C 18:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit warred? One revert is now called edit warring? I did not restore the comment once it was removed again. Please - at least familiarize yourself with the subject before throwing accusations and starting to block users with clean block log. -- Sander Säde 18:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I read the revision history fine. You participated in the edit warring, and, clearly, your stance toward this user is venomous and not in our interests to allow to run uninhibitedly. El_C 19:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

"Our interests"? Who made you the judge, jury and execution squad? -- Sander Säde 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Such hostility ("Liar and hatemonger") is not, nor has it ever been, allowed here. El_C 19:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Does it mean that it is okay to insinuate that other editors are fascists, racism and personal attacks are allowed? Or is that something only Ghirlandajo is allowed to do? See linked ArbCom evidence page above about his behavior - and scroll up for further diffs about him. Stangely, he was not blocked. Anything I've ever said about other editors is not even close to that - which is naturally not an excuse. That is just an example of double standards. Oh, and what happened to warning(s) for incivility? How impartial... -- Sander Säde 19:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

The one warning above was enough; you don't get additional "civility"-specific warnings. El_C 20:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

Edit warring over negative comments to a user's talk page was bad enough; the "liar and hate-monger" is simply unacceptable. El_C 18:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

How am I "personally involved," exactly? Do you intend to back up this claim up? Because others may wish to see it verified. El_C 18:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You were the one who decided that Alexia's message was harassment [6]. Impartial behavior was Jehochman's behavior. Yours most certainly was not.-- Sander Säde 19:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I attribute Jehochman's behavior to him not paying close enough attention. Yes, in my capacity as an uninvolved admin., I did. And, five minutes later, in that capacity, I deemed your "liar and hate-monger" to be block-worthy. El_C 19:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sander Säde (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Blocking administrator is personally involved and not impartial, correct procedure should have been to warn or report to AN/I. While my comment may have been a bit out of line, I was already apologizing for that - and do so sincerely. As an excuse, Ghirla has caused very much grief to other editors - and I tend to get overemotional when he is involved. I will try not to do so in the future. -- Sander Säde 18:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Clear enough to me that your comment was bad behavior. You've apologized. That's good, but I still see no reason to unblock you immediately, this is not a long block, only 24 hours. Mangojuice^talk 20:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC) Addendum - I'd like to remind you of the result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. I considered but have decided against placing you on an editing restriction under that ruling, because of the contrition you have expressed already. Mangojuice^talk 20:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Good evening. Could you provide some examples of the Administrator not being impartial? For example, links to AN/I threads (which you generally cite) which portray a lack of neutrality, a factor which is necessary in Administrators handing out Blocks. I'll be watching this page for your reply. Anthøny 19:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Evening - mine hasn't been all that good, though. [7] - failure to presume good faith, which still continues, see [8], [9], [10] and [11]. He accused me of edit warring [12] while there was just one revert where I restored Alexias message [13], as I saw removing a relatively friendly (although somewhat flippant) message as a censoring of another user. Overall, El_C could have handled this situation with far, far more finesse and impartiality. In any case, I believe that my "crime" and punishment are not balanced. -- Sander Säde 20:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I still fail to see how any of that makes me impartial. I'm trying to put an end to all the bad blood, but some simply do not know when to stop and go do something else, despite ample warning. El_C 20:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

---

I think I'll just leave Wikipedia. Don't know if it is for good or temporarily. Some users seem to have get-out-of-jail card, some administrators behave like Hitler with adrenaline overdose. Goodbye my half-finished projects, planned articles, GA candidates, scripts and images. Hope you'll find some caring user who will look after you. -- Sander Säde 20:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for getting you in trouble :(

Never intended to do that... I just wanted to tell Ghirla that even tho I will not be personally over joyed to see him active again I don't hold any grudges... And now its a bloody mess again. :( I hope you get unblocked, this is really uncalled for.--Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, Alexia, that your message was not meant badly - that is why I restored it. However, you know how it is when it comes to certain editors. Same as you, I am losing my faith in Wikipedia - while the idea is great, administrators are now behaving like they are infallible gods chosen to rule over mortals. There are good administrators - but an average administrator behaves nowadays like a [censored] on steroids - I presume you are aware of Durova affair and the whole follow-up mess? Maybe it is time for me to quit Wikipedia as well - although it is somewhat hard even to think about that after countless hours and almost ten thousand edits. -- Sander Säde 19:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Offtopic (since I cannot leave it to your user page): did you know that Putin got as much as 109% of the votes in recent Russian elections ([14]). Would make a great WP:DYK entry.