User talk:Djsasso

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This talk page is automatically archived by Cluebot III. Any sections older than 30 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived.
  • Archive index - Index of all archive entries.
  • Archive #1 - Entries archived from January 2005 through December 2007.
  • Archive #2 - Entries archived from January 2008 through May 2008.
  • Archive #3 - Entries archived from June 2008 through December 2008.
  • Archive #4 - Entries archived from January 2009 through October 2009.
  • Archive #5 - Entries archived from November 2009 through August 2010.
  • Archive #6 - Entries archived from September 2010 through April 2011.
  • Archive #7 - Entries archived from May 2011 through December 2011.
  • Archive #8 - Entries archived from January 2012 through March 2013.
  • Archive #9 - Entries archived from April 2013 through 30 days ago.

I'm tired of You[edit]

Stop Your crusade. What is Your point on this edit warring. You claim that BRD is on your side, that You are only restoring, but actually before You and Your friend interrupted none of these articles states birth places as Soviet Union. It is mutually agreed that the birthplaces on Estonian born are stated as Estonia, not Estonian SSR, Republic of Estonia or Soviet union. estonia is as this country has been known all of these times. You have chosen some random articles changed it there and now barricade edit war on those. And so with the 1918-1940 article. The claims there are factually incorrect. Even these kind of technicalities must be done correctly. Again please read these State continuity of the Baltic states, Occupation of the Baltic states. What is Your problem? --Klõps (talk) 15:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

About this. I do not need sources that it was called the Republic of Estonia in 1918-1940, I said it clearly, that the article states that The Republic between 1918 and 1940 is different from the one from 1992 onwards. Before I made it to look something like an article the crap You were defending started with claim Estonia from 1918–1940 was an independent Republic after gaining independence from Russia. But in fact (and You have been given sources) the Republic of Estonia itself and the the overwhelming majority of historians in the democratic world have agreed that Republic of Estonia is the same since 1918. And that infobox itself was factually incorrect and violeted the rules for this infobox. --Klõps (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a crusade, it appears to be you whom has a crusade. I could care less about these pages other than to stop POV crusaders such as yourself who like to edit war to massive length to attempt to get their way. So yes, I will tend to act when I see you doing it. The article name and the infobox did not claim they were separate entities. In fact the infobox actually perfectly laid out exactly what you are claiming. If you would step back from your fanaticism on the topic maybe you would actually see that. As for birthplaces it has never been mutually agreed to list them that way, in fact that has been a massive bone of contention wiki-wide with Baltic state editors. They have tried to push that convention onto articles and have even had secret mailing lists to try to circumvent wiki policy on the situation. The wiki as a whole has had a consensus that they are listed as what they were at the time of their birth using the Soviet Union and the ESSR. A few Estonian editors over the last couple years have tried to sneak Estonia back in by converting articles slowly back over to Estonia and when we notice the changes we change them back. -DJSasso (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
The point of this article has been to deny the state continuation. So If You do not care then PLEASE give me Your noncearing view what in my version You find so unsuitable, that You need to editwar against it.
I say that History of Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) is perfectly neutral because it does not deny state State continuity of the Baltic states and Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) is unneutral because it denies this. And History of Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) is on a line with other articles as History of Poland (1945–89), History of the Soviet Union (1927–53), History of the People's Republic of China (1989–2002)
But Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) goes in line with articles like Slovak Republic (1939–45) implying a Republic of Estonia other than the current one existed in 1918-1940. It is not neutral and it is misleading.
And the AfD just ended no consensus, because there were lack of interest. And no consensus doesn't mean that the article now has to be fossilized in stone for ever asi it was. --Klõps (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
If I may interject. The Afd at Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) was to Keep as an article. So far, you've been going against that consensus. GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
If I may correct... against that NO consensus--Klõps (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Just in case you are unaware, a result of no consensus on Wikipedia per policy defaults to a Keep status quo. -DJSasso (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok, but I left You 2 miles of arguments, only thing You have to say on all of this is... this?--Klõps (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Because I am not going to fight with someone who had to resort to edit warring and name calling instead of discussion from the get go....if you would have stopped and discussed at the beginning then things probably would have gone a lot smoother. Instead you immediately started edit warring and name calling which was really just stupid. -DJSasso (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Talking about name calling, You are the one who constantly calls me and others nationalists, and love to reduce my arguments saying that I am a part few who think... Fact is that You figth to keep the title unneutral... Please give me Your reasons why You do this. Between Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) and History of Republic of Estonia (1918-1940) it is VERY HARD te see why we should keep the unneutral and misleading one. And what is nationalist about the other. I cant see Your reason inside Your head if You don't tell me that! Saying that it is because of this faild AdD is just a joke. No Consensus does not mean that the article is now sacred. The AfD was about deleting it, and no consensus was reached to do so--Klõps (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Because that name isn't unneutral, the name of the country at the time was Republic of Estonia and the article is about the time period 1918-1940. Both of those facts are true. There for it is completely neutral. When you start adding in History it starts to slant it in an unneutral way because while a lot of people do consider it a continuation, there is still a significant amount that don't. By adding in the History you add in the slant of one opinion. By sticking to the name and date you avoid that debate and are completely neutral. -DJSasso (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
there is still a significant amount that don't
Thats what I am asking give me names and adresses of those.
Meanwhile in the real world outside Your Russian POV it is not debated – it is, in fact, a fact. Read here State continuity of the Baltic states, Occupation of the Baltic states, Baltic–Soviet relations, United States House Select Committee to Investigate Communist Aggression and the Forced Incorporation of the Baltic States into the U.S.S.R., Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.
Sticking to the name and date is completely unneutral because it states that there was a country named Republic of Estonia that ceased to exist in 1940. But in reality the the fact is that Republic of Estonia exists from 1918 until today, and it is the same republic. Putting history in front says that it is about certain time period in the history.--Klõps (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh You little a soapy guy. You forget that we have article history in wikipedia and it is other way around. These articles have been created with Estonia as Birthplace. It has always been so. But there are a few soviet fanatics that have changed those. Anyway if You step back from your fanaticism then Estonia is a neutral version. It is not Republic of Estonia for people born after 1992. etc. Think about peole from Scotland. And please go and move Burma to Myanmar and then come back with Your stories.--Klõps (talk) 16:25, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

NB! You are acting strange. I gave You clear points to answer, but You give Your counterarguments on completely other subject.--Klõps (talk) 16:35, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

NNB! If I'm the troll whose fighting POV as You claim, then why do You only fight for the title and the other technicalities (misleading infobox and the direction sentence that says that there is another Republic of Estonia) why wont You change the article that I made so that It has Your sourced views.. the noncontinuity of Baltic States etc.--Klõps (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

On birth places where You say that You are protecting them. Let's take this one: Juri Kurakin It was created 26 February 2007‎ and it was perfectly ok to state that he was born in Tallinn, Estonia. And it was so until 20 january 2014 when edit warring began and You came along. And so it is with majority of these other articles it is within last year when these have been changed to Soviet Union. So the BRD is to keep them Estonia.--Klõps (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's take others where You or Your friend are edit warring Karl Burman created 16 August 2006‎, died Tallinn, Estonia until 3 January 2015

Marko Asmer created 20 March 2006‎ was born Tallinn, Estonia until Your friend came 23 January 2015.

Andrei Borissov created 4 September 2007‎ .... and Your friend is here

Riin Tamm created 13 December 2012‎, Estonia changed to Soviet Union in March 2014

Tõnis Mägi created 13 June 2011,‎ Estonia to Soviet Union in 25 September 2014

Ilja Glebov created 28 February 2007,‎ Estonia to Soviet Union in January 2009 back to Estonia in March 2009 and then 6 years went past until Your friend came 25 January 2015

Heiko Niidas created 12 June 2009‎, Estonia to Soviet Union (what a surprise by whom) 3 February 2015

Grethe Grünberg created 23, January 2007 Estonia to Soviet Union 13 October 2013

Katrin Siska created 2005, Estonia to Soviet Union 15 March 2014

I can keep on going with this list, but facts are that these articles, where You have been protecting Soviet Union as a birth place, in fact have all been created as born in Place, Estonia or have been so many years. Facts show as that it is opposite of what you argued, I cite: A few Estonian editors over the last couple years have tried to sneak Estonia back in by converting articles slowly back over to Estonia and when we notice the changes we change them back. This is a produce of bovine digestive tract the reality is that a few editors over the last year have sneaked in and changed Estonia to Soviet Union.--Klõps (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said, as they are noticed they are fixed to the standard. Just because you found some that sat as Estonia for awhile doesn't invalidate what I have said. Many of them do get created as Estonia first because editors might not be aware of the standard. And as people notice them they fix them. But it isn't hard to take a look over the last two years where you can see a couple of editors changed hundreds of articles over in some mass edits in their attempt at Wikipedia:Fait accompli so that people such as yourself could claim there was consensus on the issue, look at all the articles that use it that way. But the fact of the matter is, most people are not as fanatical about making hundreds of edits to undo the work they did so some have sat unreverted for a long time. A number of the ones you point to above are perfect examples where H2ppyme went and changed a large number of articles away from their long standing version, when he was reverted per WP:BRD you then proceeded to edit war back to your preferred version instead of discussion as BRD asks. -DJSasso (talk) 20:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Be careful around this topic, DJ. I don't want to see you going through what I went through, concerning another topic, years ago. Anyways, perhaps a discussion will 'someday' be opened to settle the Baltics dispute, for years to come. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:EDITCONSENSUS A lot of people think that the standard is as it is. You and Your friend think the standard is other way around. I gave You a list which shows that the edit consensus had been for a years just Estonia, until You came along! I don't see mass changes of Soviet Union to Estonia as there isn't such a thing.. (if You excuse me! I have to call it a lie until it is proven true). But I see a few user doing opposite. And I really went through all the history of those articles and I chose those because these are the few on which You or Your friend are editwarring--Klõps (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Klops, I don't want to see you go through what I went through (a few years ago) either. I'm asking you to change your approach on this topic, please. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
I have given arguments. I constantly emphasize that what I do is for neutrality. I have pointed out what is neutral and what isn't and why. What I don't get is the answer to my question why is it so important for You that there isn't word History in front of Republic of Estonia. And why You needed to editwar to reenter the sentence that says that there have been two different entities named Republic of Estonia?--Klõps (talk) 21:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Edit consensus requires there to be no controversy over the situation, as you can clearly see by the many people that have reverted the names to either version and have been involved in the debates on many pages, you can see that the format is controversial, therefore edit consensus does not apply. That sentence did not say there have been two different entities. Not even remotely, it said that the page the person was on covered the Republic of Estonia from 1918-1940 and if you want history for the current era go to the Estonia page. -DJSasso (talk) 12:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
It is very easy. Use google. about 1 in 100 articles of Estonian biographies birthplace has soviet union or SSR and 99 have Place, Estonia.
The sentence in question is This article is about The Republic of Estonia from 1918-1940. For The modern Republic of Estonia, see Estonia
There cant be two ways to understand it. And it is unnecessary. And the new lede already specifies that, but the old crappy one that You defended says that it was a separate entity from the modern one.And You still haven't produced a single argument...--Klõps (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hi. I'm an uninvolved third-party editor, but I am not an unbiased observer. I have Djsasso's talk page watch-listed because DJ is deeply involved in editing sports-related articles and following his talk page discussions is a good way for me to track what's going in various sports topics. Imagine my surprise when I saw a discussion about the Republic of Estonia pop on my watch list.

My first bachelor's degree was completed in East European Studies at two major American universities (Virginia and Florida), and I completed 50 hours of university-level credits in communist and socialist political theory, socialist economics, Russian language, Russian/Soviet history, Eastern European comparative politics, etc., at the height of the renewed Cold War in the early 1980s. Some of us here were already adults in the waning days of Soviet-led communism, and some of us even studied the political systems of the USSR in a structured academic environment of respected universities. Some of us not only know the real history, we lived it.

I can state unequivocally that it is uncontested fact that Estonia was officially known as the "Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic" from 1940 to 1990/91, during which time Estonia was an unwilling constituent member state of the USSR. Denying that reality of a Soviet military/political occupation of the three Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) during the period 1940–91 is no less a propaganda falsehood than the Russian claims that it was a voluntary relationship; we all know that it is not a coincidence that these were the first three Soviet republics to declare/reclaim their legal independence as the USSR came unglued following the attempted coup d'etat against the Soviet government of Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991. So, no, the Estonian SSR (1940–91) was not the same government, but it was the de facto successor to the Republic of Estonia (1918–40); the two governments were not the same, and you would be hard-pressed to find any scholarly source outside the Russian language that would accept such a claim. What the Red Army did in the Baltic States in 1940 (and again in 1944–45) is no different than what the Nazis did in Austria and Czechoslovakia in 1937–38, or Poland in 1939. The Estonian SSR government was the de facto government of a constituent state of the USSR; you don't have to like it, but you should be able to acknowledge that reality in an intellectually honest manner.

As for people born in Estonia during the Soviet occupation, yes, their birthplaces should be listed as [City], Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics -- or however you may decide by consensus to consistently abbreviate the names of those now-defunct communist entities. This is no different from how Wikipedia treats persons who were born in other parts of the Soviet Union, the former German Democratic Republic, the former Czechoslovakia, the former Yugoslavia, the former Austro-Hungarian Empire, the former Russian Empire, or any other political entity that no longer exists. We do not anachronistically rename territories with modern names that did not exist in some prior historical period.

FYI, I have several Lithuanian ancestors, and I can tell you that none of them were Russian/Soviet/communist sympathizers. Quite the opposite, in fact. This is simply a matter of historical accuracy in stating the correct name of the country as it existed during the time period in question (1940–91). Nothing more, nothing less. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The discussion You see here isn't anything as intellectual as Your post, because It is not possible with his attitude.
we have two problems here. First one is History of Republic of Estonia (1918-1940)
The question of birthplace is secondary here, there has been 500 miles of discussions... You can start reading here Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth
No consensus has ever been established, but mutual consent, exept a few users, is for baltic stats to use just the common name, whithout specifying if it was Republic of ... or ... SSR, as in both cases these countrys were known with their names. What Djsasso and GoodDay are practising is to use form Tallinn, Soviet Union or other provocative forms diff. Even British biografies won't say Edinburgh, UK.
  • Until the format has been agreed, these articles should be kept on current line.
  • Politics and fighting should be kept away from BLPs until the agreement has been made!--Klõps (talk) 20:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
What's provocative about correcting a birth/death place? From 1940 to 1991, it was Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic, Latvian Soviet Socialist Republic and Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic. No matter what occurs on Wikipedia, that's what those places were. If that bothers anyone? tough. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Anyways, as for Wikipedia? I've learned over the years that if enough editors demand that 'blue' is 'orange', then 'blue' will be shown as 'orange, or atleast there'll be a long drawn out debate over whether or not 'blue' is 'blue'. Just one of the project's unavoidable failings. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Between black and white there are thousand shades of gray. If it is as simple as You say why then are there these long debates Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Country of birth, Country of birth, for historic (and current) bios, part II and many more... without any result.--Klõps (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
And between blue and orange You'll find thousand shades of brown. --Klõps (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Though I 'gnome' edit via the Random button, I guess it's likely best that I avoid correcting these articles. It seems my corrections are only gonna be stalked & reverted. Very frustrating, but that's Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Formatting of season schedule tables[edit]

DJ, please take a look at these threads: [1] and [2]. I am not opposed to change, but I do think we should carefully consider the proper way to implement changes in contravention of well-established practice. Your feedback on the relevant talk pages is requested. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)