User talk:159.148.87.183

February 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Please refrain from removing mention of the USSR from Soviet-born players. This isn't the Cold War. Львівське (говорити) 01:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

My corrections were right

This is in no way a cold war related issue. There was a scandal recently about this in Brussels regarding the exactly same reason when some Belgian officials were thinking that Latvian citizens should have been issued valid USSR birth certificates. As it turned out, it is illegal to write USSR as a birth place because that automatically denies the continuum of the present day Latvia which was re-instituted on the grounds that there has never been a legal USSR regime in Latvia -- the way it is recognized by the international society. Although the annexation of Latvia was made to look legal, there were a couple of points breached that made it illegal. Therefore, legally the country named Republic of Latvia had never ceased to exist.

As long as there is no practice to specify, i.e., that people who were born in France from May 1940 to December 1944 were born "in Nazi Germany" there also cannot be a practice to do otherwise for the countries occupied by the Soviet Union.

The birth-place of anyone born during that time in the current territory Latvia is Latvia (geographical place name). This is 100% official, it is written so everywhere in all personal ID documents and other places where person's birth place is registered. In no place, other than the USSR issued birth certificates (which have been rendered illegal since 1990) does it say otherwise. So please stop interfering with these changes just because you are not informed well enough.

People born in Vichy France were still born in France, as France was never incorporated into Germany. The Latvian SSR, however, was the de facto government, and rightful government in the eyes of other countries. What Brussels thinks in 2013 has no bearing on history.--Львівське (говорити) 15:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Read history books before arguement. Few countries except for the USSR ant the sattelites saw the USSR as the rightful government. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Few countries except the USA and NATO satellites saw Latvia as the rightful government. --Львівське (говорити) 15:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you even have an idea what you are talking about? There is no such thing as NATO satellites. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Warsaw Pact = NATO. Both are blocs.--Львівське (говорити) 15:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, just one of them is a voluntary organisation of democratic countries and the other one of puppet regimes. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

What does democracy have to do with anything?--Львівське (говорити) 16:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it is necessary to argue whether the country was called Latvian SSR (de facto) or Republic of Latvia (de jure) at the time. The common practice is to use the geographical name to avoid these discussions which is simply "Latvia". (talk) 22:45, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The common practice is to display the country they were born in, which was the USSR.--Львівське (говорити) 16:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

They were born in occupied Latvia. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

"Occupied Latvia" wasn't a country --Львівське (говорити) 19:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Latvia was. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Sandis Ozoliņš

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sandis Ozoliņš. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Resolute 14:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

As you seem intent on continuing to edit war, I have created a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding your actions on this article. Resolute 16:26, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Warning regarding Sandis Ozoliņš

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you continue to misconduct yourself on pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

—Darkwind (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)