User talk:Jaan/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Invitation to join a discussion

Dear Erikupoeg,
I invite you to leave some comments on the Talk:Eastern Bloc regarding the map of Eastern bloc and related issues. I realize that our points of view do not coincide (and sometimes even are opposite), so it makes your point of view a fortiori valuable for me.
With respect,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Mina1.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Mina1.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Quibik (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Your disruptive editing

Please, stop dispruptive editing on Wikipedia generally, and on the article Sofia Rotaru in particular.--Rubikonchik (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Rotaru template

Whatever you did broke the template. FYI, I reverted. -- Y not? 19:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:WQA

I've opened a thread on Wikiquette alerts about your ongoing edit battles with Rubikonchik. You can view it at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#Two editors stalking each other. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XXXIX (May 2009)

The May 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

You've been mentioned at ANI

You may wish to add your own comment at WP:ANI#Repeated edit warring between two users. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a courtesy notice that you've also been discussed at User talk:EdJohnston#WP:ANI.23Repeated edit warring between two users. Nothing to be alarmed about, but I do urge you to discuss any controversial changes. EdJohnston (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jaan. You have new messages at Mariah-Yulia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sofia again...

I don't know much about Sofia Rotaru so I can't help, but there asking for help on 1 of her LP's here. Mabey you can be of assistance... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 12:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Estonian SSR as a birthplace

As far as I can remember, there was a consensus in Wikipedia that birthplace is given as a geographical area, not state. I believe Martintg knows more about it, as he was involved in these discussions. So Estonian SSR really is not suitable there - perhaps you could roll those edits back? -- Sander Säde 13:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I was following the guidelines for the Birth_place line of Template:Infobox Person, stating explicitly: "Place of birth: city, administrative region, sovereign state," which in the Estonian case 1944-1991 is clearly not: "city, Estonia" (as not a sovereign state neither the official name of an administrative region) but: "city, Estonian SSR, Soviet Union". In the opening paragraph, the MOS:BIO does not require birth place at all, therefore I do not know specific consensuses on it, however, would it not make sense for the infobox and the opening paragraph to convey the same info for no confusion? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave a message to Martintg's talk page - there was a lengthy discussion about this, but I wasn't involved in it, so perhaps he'll know more. -- Sander Säde 14:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The Estonia article gives the full history, including the period of the SSR. The fact that it changed political status does not mean you can't use the main article describing the place of birth. It is clearer and simpler to say that someone was born in City, Estonia. I agree, however, that birthplace does not need to be at the very top of the LEDE. It should be in the first paragraph of the body of the article, as in, "Mart Uhl was born in Talin, Estonia." -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Talin must be one of Estonia's Eastern colonies. ;) Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 14:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Talinn. The information in the infobox should not control how the person's country of birth is described. When a reader of this international encyclopedia sees the article for an Estonian person, everything he or she could possibly want to know about the country of the person's birth is contained in the article: Estonia. The fact that the Sov. Union was in control of the country at the time and that there is a sub article devoted to describing the SSR at that time is not in conflict with the main article on Estonia, it merely supplements it. I think it would add confusion, not reduce it, to refer to the sub article instead of the main article. Keep it simple: it's an encyclopedia, not a textbook on the late 20th century Soviet Union. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) For the Baltic states, geography tends to be much less contentious as they (and most) don't recognize themselves being part of the Soviet Union, so for those born in the Baltic "SSR" is tantamount to stating the occupying power they were born under was legitimate. There's periodic wailing and gnashing of teeth as anti-Baltic editors go around periodically attempting to insert "SSR" for any Estonian politician born before the collapse of the USSR. No SSR, please. The Estonian, Latvian, and Lithuanian SSRs did not legally exist, nor has anyone, including the USSR and now Russia, ever produced any scholarly evidence to that effect. Control of a territory is not relevant to where someone was born. PetersV       TALK 14:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

As I see Erikupoeg has already reverted some of his recent edits, removing the SSRs from birth places. Also I'd like to point out how much we don't need the "Governorate of Estonia or Governorate of Livonia" in every article, it just makes it long and confusing. For example Johann Voldemar Jannsen has "(May 16, 1819, Vändra, Governorate of Livonia, Russian Empire - July 13, 1890, Tartu)", but so far no mention of Vändra actually being in today's Estonia. Can't we keep it simple and just write Vändra, Estonia as his (or anyone else's) birth place? The area was still Estonia and perhaps it doesn't matter everywhere which state controlled it. --H2ppyme (talk) 15:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

The area was not Estonia at the time. People did not call themselves Estonians and there was so such thing as Estonia before Jannsen himself. There is a point in avoiding Estonian SSR, suggesting that Estonia as a country never ceased to exist but the territory was merely occupied by another country, but to project the reality of Estonia as a state to the more distand past for the sake of simplicity? Why can we not just present the reality of the historic time? There is no point in making Estonia as a country older than it is? What is so complicated about the fact that Vändra belonged to the Governorate of Livonia of Russian Empire? MOS:BIO requires to state the nationality of the person. Just add it to the articles where it is missing and settle it for good. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the area was still Estonia and the people living there were Estonians, but OK - I haven't changed any of these cases to just Estonia so far. All I am saying is that it might not be complicated for you, but it still is long. If you add one governorate for birth place and another for death place, it might even take up more than one row. Also, if the person was born in the northern part of the Governorate of Livonia, there should be a note that it is in today's Estonia. --H2ppyme (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

An outside example from Copernicus: "Nicolaus Copernicus was born on 19 February 1473 in a house on St. Anne's Street (now Copernicus Street) in the city of Toruń (Thorn). Toruń, situated on the Vistula River, was part of Royal Prussia, a region of the Kingdom of Poland." I guess, your version would be: "Toruń, Poland". I agree, the birth place in the lead need not be the administrative division nor the sovereign state but a catchy geographic term, but it must be a historical name to establish historical context. Something like: "Vändra, Governorate of Livonia, Russian Empire (present territory of Estonia" or "Vändra, Livonia (present Estonia)" if you are afraid of a lengthy description. I mean, if it is such a complicated issue, we can leave the birth place out of the lead and mention it only in the infobox. However, the lead should not leave an impression of the person born before 1918 in a geographic region called Estonia, as the term is simply not valid for the time. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I was asked to make a few comments. There was loooooong discussion about this issue at Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/Country_of_birth after someone started putting for example "Riga, USSR" into info boxes, omitting the constituent republic altogether. We couldn't achieve consensus because there were so many exceptions to the rule that no rule could be found. The biggest issue is when people's lives span two or more political entities. A footballer who was born in the Soviet Union in 1989, but spent most of his life in independent Estonia, it seems irrelevant and confusing to WP:Dear Reader to see he was born in Tartu, ESSR. Another issue specific to the Baltic states was the fact that the Soviet annexation wasn't recognized de-jure by most countries and even passports issued by the independent consulates that continued to exist were recognized as valid travel documents by the USA for example. However there was some agreement in the Centralized Discussion that there should be different treatment between info-boxes and the body of the text. In the body of the text it should be for example "born in Tallinn, Estonia, then the Governorate of Estonia within the Russian Empire". The infoboxs are treated differently because of the limited space within them it is not really practical for a full treatment, so the geographical location rather than political entity should be used in the infobox. We should develop some rules specifically for the Baltic states and create a country specific Manual of Style, similar to Wikipedia:MOSPOL, otherwise this same issue will come up again and again, especially if the usual content warriors decide to make it an issue to battle over. --Martintg (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:SylvieVartan1.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:SylvieVartan1.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the GFDL or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Draftlock (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XL (June 2009)

The June 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–India relations

Can you help add references to Estonia–India relations? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Rotaru (again)

Hey. So two things: first, I opened up a thread on the talk page about your removal of a link and marking with dubious. If you could go and speak to that, that'd be great. Second, I know that you're getting annoyed at this constant edit warring, but edit summaries such as "learn to behave" are inappropriate and really only make matters worse - and it starts to dip into WP:NPA. I think everyone editing that page needs to chill out a bit. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:04, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind weighing in on the Rotaru page? Olahus keeps making that Moldavian -> Romanian change, and I'm pretty sure we're all in agreement that it shouldn't be that way. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sofia Rotaru. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at WW2 Casualties

Please review my post at Talk:World War II casualties#Civilian Casualties in Asia. What is your opinion?--Woogie10w (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Military history of Estonia

Seems like your subject, help needed @ Military history of Estonia. Thanks!--Termer (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Erikupoeg)

Hello, Erikupoeg. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Erikupoeg, where you may want to participate. Rubikonchik (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC) . --Rubikonchik (talk) 22:04, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Samantha Jones.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Samantha Jones.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

WWII. The "Allies gain momentum" section

Dear Erikupoeg,
I put a modified version of this section on the article's talk page. Since a part of text that describes the battle of Narva may be altered in the new version, I am waiting for your ok before I introduce it into the article. (Obviously, your comment on the rest of the section's text are equally warmly welcomed).
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

A question

Dear Jaan,
I found an interesting document that may have a direct relation to the Molotov Ribbentrop pact (the details you can find there [1]), and I want to know if it is a forgery. You probably can help me. Do you know the fate of the pre-war Estonian diplomatic correspondence? AFAIK, it was seized by the Soviet, but, probably, some part of it was saved? In addition, did Russia return seized documents after 1991? Anyway, I am interested in one letter. This is a letter from the Estonian embassy in London to Tallinn that was send on August 10th. Its number is N99. If this letter really exists we can check if the document presented by the Russian intelligence is genuine or it is a blatant forgery.
Thank you in advanse,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Jaan for your help.--Paul Siebert (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLII (August 2009)

The August 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Image problems

Hi, I nominated File:Bobbie Gentry2.jpg, File:Mina.JPG, File:SylvieVartan.jpg, File:Mina with microphone.jpg, File:Mina Asi se fundo Carnaby Street-1-.jpg, File:1964 Mina.jpg, File:Mina Young.jpg, File:Singer Mina.jpg for deletion. The Bobbie Gentry picture is promotional and Lawrence Wilkinson is not indicated as the author of the picture, and the pictures in "Asi se fundo Carnaby Street.pdf" are not assigned photographers. Both would need evidence of permission from the copyright holders. Please check the image pages to see how to provide evidence. Regards Hekerui (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Bobby Gentry is still alive, so a fair-use image can't be used. Hekerui (talk) 18:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Divisional symbol

Hi Jaan, why did you upload the symbol from the Estonian War of Independence to commons [2] and tag it {{:tl:nazi_symbol}}, even placing a German copyright notice on it? Sure a variant of it was more commonly used as a collar patch, but as far as I know, this symbol was never officially a unit symbol sanctioned by the German command, but one that the soldiers adopted informally. The official unit symbols were on a shield, as referenced here. Replacing the official unit symbol in Waffen-SS divisions with an informal collar patch is unencyclopedic. Could you revert your changes please. --Martintg (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jaan, did we decide to restore the original divisional symbol until better sources are found? --Martintg (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Military history coordinator elections: voting has started!

Voting in the Military history WikiProject coordinator election has now started. The aim is to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months from a pool of sixteen candidates. Please vote here by 23:59 (UTC) on 26 September!
For the coordinators,  Roger Davies ^talk 22:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Altro

The article Altro has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unsourced album; the article does not support the claim

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Oo7565 (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Mina1972.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Mina1972.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 04:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIII (September 2009)

The September 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the Military history WikiProject or World War I task force, you may be interested in competing in the Henry Allingham International Contest! The contest aims to improve article quality and member participation within the World War I task force. It will also be a step in preparing for Operation Great War Centennial, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIV (October 2009)

The October 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 18:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Bobbie Gentry2.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Bobbie Gentry2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Your message

Sorry, can't help. The guideline is for 64kbps samples in terms of 'non-free' content though Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mina10.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mina10.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mina Se stasera sono qui.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mina Se stasera sono qui.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Seprate table WW2 casualties

This table is to reconcile to Soviet/Russian figure of 26.6 million--Woogie10w (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Why does the article need two different figures for the Soviet Union? The Baltic states were never legally part of the country. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

For clarity, it lets readers know that the Soviet/Russian figure includes the annexed territories. Readers will be able to see that Estonia is included in that figure of 26.6 million. --Woogie10w (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Like it or not that figure of 26.6 million is widely quoted, readers see its components.--Woogie10w (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Vera Lynn

Hi, I took a look at your edit history and see that you are interested in music. The song by Vera Lynn posted below in the youtube link was a favorite of my father who was an American soldier in Europe in WW2.

We'll Meet Again - Vera Lynn [3]

Regards--Woogie10w (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Dusty Pet Shop Boys.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Dusty Pet Shop Boys.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted images or text borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 08:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Mina

Sending the source (Grande Grande Grande-Arranged by Pino Presti, Mina's arranger from 1971 to 1978

www.minamazzini.com

Mina (1971) » Grande grande grande Tracklist Dettaglio brano back

1: E penso a te 2: Capirò (i'll be home) 3: Le farfalle nella notte 4: Non ho parlato mai 5: Sentimentale 6: Alfie 7: Grande grande grande 8: Amor mio 9: Al cuore non comandi mai (Plus fort que nous) 10: Something 11: Vacanze 12: Mi fai sentire cosi strana

play audio Anno: 1971 Autore testo: Alberto Testa, C. Baltasar, Amart Autore musica: Newell, Tony Renis Arrangiamento: Pino PRESTI Durata: 3'57 Editore: italcarisch, pdu Musicisti: ORCHESTRA: PINO PRESTI

Questo brano è contenuto in: The Platinum Collection Colección Latina Mina Studio Collection Minantologia Oggi ti amo di più Mina live '78 Del mio meglio n.2 Grande, grande, grande / Non ho parlato mai Mina (1971)

Regards Belestin (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the source for the Continuation War article

If your request is not noticed by an administrator, I'll try to remember to add the source provided by you when the article becomes unprotected again. Have a nice day ! Boris Novikov (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I see that you haven't provided the exact page numbers for your source above. Nor have you provided the related quotes on the talk page. That may cause a problem, as with the ongoing trend in the Continuation War article, all sources must first be introduced and/or discussed on the talk page.

Nevertheless, the Soviets began attacking against the Finns before the Finnish submarines laid those small minefields between Suursaari and the Estonian coast, "according to pre-war defensive plans of Finland and Estonia".

Please stay put for multiple sources for that fact, which is not in disagreement with the Soviet "official" admitting of the Soviets having started the war. Boris Novikov (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

RE: YOUR RESPONSE TO THE YELTSIN STATEMENT:

The comment about President Yeltsin's statement presented on the Continuation War' talk page has to do with who was the aggressor of the war.

Yeltsin denounced "the aggressive attacking politics of Stalin against Finland". As The Nobel Piece Prize -winning President Ahtisaari has reported, President Yeltsin has also admitted in private talks with him that the Soviets were the aggressor.

Please notice that the particular link given has not been used as a source in the article. Sources from credited historiography about Yeltsin's related views/statements may be introduced later.

However, this all is rather irrelevant, as that question has been solved a long ago:

"The Soviet Union does not even try to deny its own initiative in the launching of the massive offensive. In contrary, it is being emphasized. The question who started has been solved: The Soviet Union admits in an official publication to have started the air raid in Finland and the Nordic."

The source above: (in Finnish) Professor Jokipii, Mauno, "Jatkosodan synty" ("The launching of the Continuation War"), page 607. 1987.

COURTESY NOTICE: Multiple more sources about the first attacking against Finland having started shortly after 6am on June 22, 1941, will be added soon. Boris Novikov (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Boris Novikov (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The importance of the arranger in the success of a song

You are writing about Mina's biography, and you don't know Pino Presti, Mina's arranger (86 songs) from 1971 to 1978? Can you understand how important are the arrangements in songs such as Grande Grande Grande, E poi, L'importante è finire and many more?Belestin (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Regards

You are welcome to restore the statement only this time cited by a wp:secondary source. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 11:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"Senza Rete"

Hi, I changed your translation of "Senza rete" in the "Independence" subsection of the "Mina (singer)" article from "Unplugged" to "Without a Net".

To perform an act "without a net" in both English and Italian popular expression is to do so without any safety gear in place (as for instance a high-wire act in the circus that literally works without a safety net). It doesn't refer to the 'Net (the Internet), if that is what you wished to avoid in your translation.

I do, however, see your point in making it "unplugged" if, that is, the show was recorded without a large supporting orchestra or electric instruments, etc, so I won't change it back.

Just wanted to clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egoody3 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Yes, it is an uneasy bit of translation. The title of the show should definitely translate into a musical term denoting the fact that no electric instruments nor playback was used, while there was a large supporting orchestra. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

moved out of article talk

I don't want to clutter the article talk page, so I moved it here.

Please avoid comments on wikipedians which may be considered as personal attacks. Please discuss the suggestion basing on verifiable information. Please keep in mind that "in Wikipedia" is invalid argument. The valid argument is "in reliable sources". - Altenmann >t 18:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Please avoid comments on wikipedians which may be considered as personal attacks.—I have not commented on any wikipedians. My comment was on over-eager Nazi-hunters who jump the conclusions in general, including those outside Wikipedia.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The topic is sensitive, and the goal of my remark was to defuse any potential escalation of personal conflict. I don't see how your remark can be helpful in resolving the issue, besides venting your frustration. - Altenmann >t 20:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:Please discuss the suggestion basing on verifiable information.—Sorry, I do not have verifiable information on that. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Then you have to have a verifiable information (or logical reasoning based on verifiable information) against that. - Altenmann >t 20:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

But I am not objecting the suggestion.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Re:"in Wikipedia" is invalid argument. The valid argument is "in reliable sources"—I just said:" In Wikipedia, a collaborator is no more and no less than a person or an organisation regarded a collaborator by mainstream historical and legal research," which means I demand WP:RS for every listing on a Wikipedia category. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 19:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Then you have had to just say so: "please provide WP:RS which describe [this or that] as collaborator", and the talk would have ended much earlier. What is more, in such cases it is reasonable to demand that the corresponding text added to wikipedia article (since categories, like any article content, must be verifiable and it is impossible to attach a reference to a category). - Altenmann >t 20:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have said it several times and the talk is still on. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you did not, therefore the talk is still on. You did not clearly place your opponent in the position of defense, i.e., you did not explicitely request him to provide sources (at least I failed to see such request). The whole long talk in this page is "a battle of wits", not of sources. - Altenmann >t 20:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Here I discourage his OR and lay the burden of evidence on him. Is that not enough? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Your deletion

was reverted. Actually the source you are giving, says on page XXI that the divisoon was involved, it is only unclear in what role. Regards --Dodo19 (talk) 16:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello. Please can you stop your slow rolling edit war on Sofia Rotaru, Dusha and Karel Gott. Edit warring is NOT acceptable, even if you haven't broken WP:3RR. I notice that none of the issues being warred over have been discussed on any of the relevant talk pages. Please can you use the talk pages to discuss your issues. If not, you may be blocked, and the article may be protected. Thanks. GedUK  11:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, edit warring is bad but you obviously have read the talk page only superficially. The issues have been under intensive discussion for a year already and none of them have been resolved. A further look at the talk page and the page history would reveal that it has been extremely difficult to voice concerns on the talk page. There was a 3O process, which failed as a user simply ignored it and reverted everything that was suggested and edited by the 3O. Maintenance tags are only appropriate in such situations. Did you miss Talk:Dusha#Stefanovich as the source for the viewing numbers of his film? ? Also, the edit summaries have been informative, like [4]. And finally, the , and tags make it absolutely clear what the problem is and what kind of action is requested, without any further discussion or commentary needed. It is abnormal to remove such tags must not be removed before the problem is solved. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, your signature is slightly misleading as it shows a name other than your username, I didn't realise that you had been talking on there. Nevertheless, just because the discussion on the talk page is struggling, that's no reason to edit war on the actual article. Have you considered a Request for Comment to get independant third party opinion? GedUK  13:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I have already turned to all RfC pages I could find, including Wikipedia:WikiProject Musicians and its Russian subpage. There was a 3O process, which failed as a user simply ignored it and reverted everything that was suggested and edited by the 3O. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 13:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid the argumentation of Jaan Pärn is intentionally misleading in the light of his consistent bad faith in editing the aforementioned articles. Please provide references, without your personal subjective interpretation where I have iognored whatsoever. Again, I will not rediscuss already discussed issues. In a nutshell, Jaan Pärn does not like Sofia Rotaru and anything related to her, he has even suggested to delete the whole article about her all together (please see the talk page for this very exact citation) and had recourse to mere lies on a number of times. Therefore, I suggest to keep deleting his/her bad faith repeated same "edits", unless a relevant and consistent argumentation is given on the talk page, strictly applying the appropriate rules without Jaan Pärn's free interpretation of both Wikipedia rules and provided sources.--Rubikonchik (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

St George's Night Uprising

Tervitus, Jüriöö ülestõusu artiklis kasutad kuningatest rääkides jutumärke või kursiivi. Minu arvates seda tegema ei pea, kui 'kuningat' tolleaegses kontekstis mõista. Ironiseerivat suhtumist kuninga tiitli suhtes ei loe välja ei Renneri, Wartberge ega Marburgi Wigandi kroonikatest. Eestlastest ja liivlastest rääkides võtsid nad seda kui loomulikku kohalikku tiitlit. Jutumärkidega annab edasi vaid tänapäeva arusaama sõna 'kuningas' sisust. Kuningate jutumärgistamine on suuresti pärit nõukogude ajalootraditsioonist, sest pärilusaadlita eestlaste kuningaid ei saanud käsitleda võrdselt näiteks vene vürstidega. Näide mujalt maailmast. 17.-18. sajandi idaranniku indiaanikonföderatsioonide juhte nimetati tollal kuningateks ning inglisekeelses ajalookirjutamises on nad kuningateks jäänud tänapäevalgi, ilma jutumärkide ja igasuguse irooniata. Sõnal 'kuningas' oli kolonistide jaoks kontekstiti (Inglismaal ja kolooniates) lithsalt erinev sisu. Ehk võiksime neis õppust võtta. --Vihelik (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

File:Mina Nessuno.ogg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mina Nessuno.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dawnseeker2000 20:24, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mina Nessuno.ogg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Mina Nessuno.ogg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Narva (1944)

The article Battle of Narva (1944) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Battle of Narva (1944) for things which need to be addressed. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 16:59, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!! Your article is now GA. Here is a lovely user box you can add to your page if you like. Diannaa ^TALK 23:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This user helped promote Battle of Narva (1944) to good article status.

Thank You! Guess I should congratulate and thank you as well for major improvements. How do you reckon, are the Tartu Offensive and Tallinn Offensive articles good article material as well or can you point out possible problems with them? --Jaan Pärn (talk) 18:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those two articles are very good and I think we should groom them with an eye to nominating them for GA really soon. However right now I have to finish Battle of Netherlands which is on hold for GA right now. I will get back to you in a few days and we'll get them ready! Regards, Diannaa ^TALK 19:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

All right, I appreciate that. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 05:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Continuation War

Just a minor thing... Just why are you tagging changes to the actual page as vandalism when the editor even posted comment and a reason for the edit in the respective talk page and then reverting the changes from the main page without commenting it at all on the talk page? By same logic any chosen edits could be deleted as vandalism as well. That is to say as the discussion could still be viewed as being unresolved editing the result is not be a good idea but deleting and tagging other users edits as vandalism without any explanations is also a bad thing (and not far from the said vandalism). - Wanderer602 (talk) 17:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You are not stupid, as I presume, and therefore you know that there is no consensus for your edit. Still you choose to edit war for it. The only way to describe such behaviour is vandalism. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 20:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As it happens i have no connection (at least none that i am aware of) with the edit or editor in question. Just wanted to ask for a rationale for deleting that change. - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Deleting info, especially from an infobox, without consensus is vandalism. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason for the changes on the page (infobox) after all you seemed to agree with using 'see also' option in the respective talk page? - Wanderer602 (talk) 05:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

It just does not seem to have reached consensus and I hate to watch that edit war. Otherwise, yes, the infobox could point to a chapter, but agreement has to be made by editors.--Jaan Pärn (talk) 07:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Just thought to notify you as there has been no comments on the infobox issue for the month i assume that people have read and have no problems with it. If they have they need to actually say something instead of reverting. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually they have simply said what they have to say and there is no consensus for changes in the infobox. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:24, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Currently listed result is disputed as well. Shouldn't by wiki's rules be removed then as well? - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

According to the policy, the last stable version stays until consensus is reached for change. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

It hasn't been stable - it has a long history of edits. It has only been forced by reverts to stay stable. There is a difference. - Wanderer602 (talk) 09:45, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, there has got to be a version of the result section of the infobox that has been more stable than others. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Tallinn Offensive

Tallinn Offensive seems in pretty good shape; I gave it another going-over. If you could give it a review it will be ready for its GA nomination shortly. Does it need more citations in the first paragraph of the Prelude section? Diannaa ^TALK 02:07, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I have now posted the nomination. Please go ahead and add your name as co-nominator, if you like. Diannaa ^TALK 21:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste moves

Re [5]: please do not copy and paste content between articles to change the title: use the "move" tab to change the title. For more information on moving pages, see WP:MOVE and WP:CUTPASTE. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

A move is impossible when a page with such name already exists. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 06:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

In that case, make a request to move the page via WP:Requested moves. If the short discussion indicates that a move is a good idea, an admin can move the page over an existing name. Best, Knepflerle (talk) 09:43, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)

The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Mina Mazzini's article

Hi, excuse my imperfect english, I'm italian. Writing you about the modifications on Mina Mazzini's article. I'm a musician, worked fifteen years with Mina, sure that her real name is Mina Anna Mazzini. Many times I've listened to Mina saylng: "Many people call me or write my name on magazines: Anna Maria Mazzini, I don't understand why, because my real name is Mina Anna Mazzini". There are many references and you can look also at Wikipedia.it, .fr, .es etc. I have a question: why you start the article with the married Mina's name? Why not the same for all the singers and actresses of the world? Thank you. Regards CoolJazz5 (talk) 13:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies): "For people who are best known by a pseudonym, the legal name should usually appear first in the article." This means we need a wp:secondary source that relies on legal documents containing her legal name. The opening statement of the Mina (singer) article currently cites two sources. One of them is the Sanremo Encyclopedia, a highly regarded source, which claims she was born under the name Anna Maria Mazzini. The second is the official report of Mina's marriage by the la Repubblica newspaper, which appears to rely on official marriage documents. The fact that Mina works for the paper indicates that she at least tolerates the name. The start of the main body of text lifts off with the 1989 report by la Reppublica, stating that her legal name at the time was Anna Maria Mazzini Crocco. This inevitably reads that before her marriage to Virgilio Crocco, her legal name was Anna Maria Mazzini. While it seems that Mina likes to be called by the names Mina, Mina Mazzini or Mina Anna Mazzini, we have evidence that she never officially changed her name into anything like that. If you have other evidence, go ahead and present it. Note that Mina's own statements on such a controversial topic are not good as a reliable source on Wikipedia and therefore neither are biographies that rely on Mina's statements only and do not cite official documents.

Good luck! --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)