Baltic States notice board, archive 1

Insert newly archived sections at top

These are archived discussions. Do not modify. If you wish to comment, please create a new entry on the notice board page.

Amnesty Wikinational

Just wanted to bring your attention to declared Eastern European topics editor amnesty and caveats/guidelines going forward. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be so optimistic - this one is rather Polish/Lithuanian/Russian speaking editors dispute related. Estonia might be still under attack..--Lokyz 18:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Still, a bit of precedent to fall back on (as in quality of edits, sources, etc.) Jury's out, of course! — Pēters J. Vecrumba 03:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a precedent, although a very bad one. However, even this precedent does not apply to the case currently in front of the ArbCom. The Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus differs from the current case in a very fundamental way. The Piotrus' case involved top-notch editors (no, I am not "top-notch") from all sides dangled into their content disagreements and largely revolved around the notion of "ethical conduct", also very important but much more difficult to judge or remedy. However, the Digwuren case is about a clearly disallowed pattern of behavior spelled out very well in our policies and guidelines. --Irpen 03:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also targeted a whole group of otherwise uninvolved Estonian editors in your ArbCom case, exposing your true sentiment, I'm sorry to say. Martintg 00:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration on the use of the term "Soviet occupation"

First my apologies for having been less than active in the Baltics. ...5-6 hour commutes to the only job available at the time, rebuilding a dead PC of late, the slaying of some other Wikidragons, and some new more pleasant activities, including webmaster to the Latvian Song and Dance Festival in Indianapolis this July, have seriously eaten into my Wikitime.
     After combining mine and the other article on the Soviet occupation of Latvia, things were quiet for a while. After which there was some POV tagging (but no real vanadalism)--I spent a fair amount of time responding to each "it was not an occupation" statement on pretty much all the Baltic articles, including as the result of being solicited to respond to some of those. Then I got sidetracked on "what ever happened to" the OMON who killed freedom demonstrators in the Baltics (and found them in Transnistria)....
     Lack of time and energy kept me from getting embroiled early on as the whole Soviet occupation of Latvia began boiling to a head--to the point where arbitration has now been requested.
     Under the request for arbitration workshop, I have taken the opportunity to state my position as (still) the primary author and requested protection against POV tagging for the use of the term "Soviet occupation" as it relates to the Soviet presence, for its entire duration, in all three Baltic States. Please take the time to read, comment, and contribute: see arbitration request and workshop (template includes provision for comments by "others"). Whatever is decided will likely apply to the Wiki portrayal of the Soviet occupation of all three Baltic states.
     Finally, and most of all, I sincerely thank Constanz for having the fortitude to try and get this settled once and for all. — Pēters J. Vecrumba 17:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vecrumba, I came here accidentally to announce a Janis Tilbergs article I wrote and I see this stuff above. Just to let you know, if your personal ethics somehow did not warn you, the WP:Canvassing is generally frown upon. --Irpen 07:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article you link to quotes an arbitrator, Irpen: "Briefly, I think a reasonable amount of communication about issues is fine." Since this issue is central to any article about the Baltics 1940-1991, i.e., the period of occupation, and affects many a relevant article -- Pēters' announcement seems to me to be... fine, and very necessary. --Pēteris Cedriņš 13:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A New Impetus

Our own home page, LATVIANS.COM, starts off with the introduction: "Get to know Latvia and the Latvians through our personal pictures and travelogues and our reference materials. While the 'CIA World Factbook' article on Latvia ranks #1 on Google when searching on 'Latvia' and is rich with statistics, it's not the most insightful." Well, I hadn't checked in a few months and today found that the CIA Factbook has been dethroned. The King is dead, long live the King! Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania now rank as the #1 choices for their respective countries. If there were ever a time to insure quality, now is that time! If there were ever an opportunity to document that Russia's position that the Baltics were "not occupied" is untenable, now is that time! If there were ever a time to celebrate the uniqueness and ancient richness of the Baltic cultures—to show our love for our cultures and make a difference—now is that time! Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? (...as if it were necessary to ask...) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it is (necessary to ask), Ghirla did mention it's been quiet here lately. (and moved to bottom) —Pēters J. Vecrumba 20:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. A relentless campaign by various trolls and other creeps have evidently caused many contributors to find it difficult to focus on the necessary job to help build this encyclopedia from a Baltic perspective, where it is applicable. Thank you, Ghirlandajo and Pēters, for your help in putting many of these disruptive influences in their place, over and over again. And for not tiring or wavering in the face of it. Yes, thanks. Dr. Dan 03:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome :) --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

< Return to Baltic States notice board