User talk:Xil

Archives:

/Archive 1, /Archive 2, /Archive 3, /Archive 4

Hi! I wanted just to notice that you have two "User religion" templates on your userpage. --Edgars2007 ^{(talk/contribs)} 11:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FRK, don't you believe in redundancy to help to rub in the message? :) (thanks, fixed) ~~Xil (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zigrids Meierovics.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Dianna (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at WP:ANI about this user. You can leave a comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Copyright_violations_by_User:Danish_Expert. TDL (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Baltic Way, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stone bridge and Drabeši (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Xil! We are looking for editors to join the Europeana 1989 challenge, a multilingual Wikipedia Challenge where all of the participants are invited to improve Wikipedia articles related to the European Revolutions of 1989 in their own language. We have selected a short list of topics that may be improved or translated. As you have already edited some of the listed articles, we thought you might be interested, and accept the challenge. Hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!

--Kippelboy (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. Your latest version (daughters of Latvians etc.) is fine. I am puzzled, though, whenever a non-native speaker of EN seeks to overrule a native. The comment you added to your latest amendment does not mean anything in English that I can discern. Still, we can both live with the latest version. Good luck, I respect anyone who makes a contribution to Wiki.Tdls (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly "X ethnonym son/daughter" must mean something as the same construction is used elsewhere - see, for example, American Son and I wound plenty other examples online. Frankly I am puzzled why somebody to whom the text seems meaningless would find themselves qualified to translate it, no mater what their native language is. But as I said - I am not interested in arguing about this ~~Xil (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. It is obvious that you are extremely interested in arguing about it. For that reason, despite your indefensible rudeness, I will try to explain it better.

If you really, honestly, truly can’t understand that a native speaker might have something to teach you about a language you speak imperfectly, there may not be any point, but I’m willing to try.

Adjectives of nationality do not translate simply between LV and EN: latviešu/latvju can take many forms in EN. For example: latvju/latviešu karavīri can be Latvian soldiers, soldiers of Latvia, the Latvian soldiers, the soldiers of Latvia, Latvians’ soldiers, the Latvians’ soldiers and more. Latvju/latviešu valoda is normally just Latvian, sometimes the Latvian language, very occasionally the language of the Latvians, etc. Most foreigners agree that they have great difficulty sensing which usage is right in each case. Their only option is to trust a native speaker.

The other way around is the same: when is Latvian cuisine Latvijas virtuve and when is it latviešu virtuve? I don’t know. I rely on a native speaker to tell me.

This is called usage. Any person who has made a serious attempt to master any foreign language encounters usage problems, and needs a native speaker for help. Es taču neiedomājos, ka es labāk runāju latviski nekā paši latvieši? It sevišķi nianšu jautājumos? Valodas apgūšanai vajag pazemību. Bez tās neviens neko nevar mācīties.

The Latvian daughters is grammatically correct but wrong usage. Your latest suggestion, the daughters of Latvians is perfectly good English, but suggests that you are referring only to children (you will be a son/daughter of Latvia until you die, but once you are an adult most people would not think of you as a son/daughter of Latvians, even though you probably are) – this is true whether you believe me or not. In addition, the daughters of Latvians is prosaic and therefore inappropriate for a national anthem.

That you refer to American Son rather shows your limitations: firstly, American Son does not mean the same as The American Son (a difference that most Latvians are blind to); secondly, it is singular and not plural; thirdly it is not part of a sentence; fourthly, any native speaker will tell you that it is a striking and strange combination of words; fifthly, of course, it refers to the American son of non-American parents and is therefore irrelevant to the Latvian national anthem.

Again, you can choose to take my word for it, or to imagine that you know better. I will now amend the national anthem on Wiki. If you subsequently choose to override my corrections with a cack-handed translation, I cannot stop you. But by doing so, you will make Latvia look silly. And you will send a message to the world that Latvians are arrogant know-alls. Un tas, kā mēs abi zinām, nav īstenība.Tdls (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I am being rude, it is because you are being rude and the fact that you reverted my latest change, even after agreeing that it is fine, goes long way to show that you are simply interested in waging a flame war. The text has been there for pretty long time, I am pretty sure you are not the first native English speaker to see it, surely there have been other people, some of whom might even be bilingual and speak Latvian natively. Poetry is not exactly the form of speech where you find common constructions and the point of translating the thing is to give people who don't speak Latvian idea what it actually says, not to make it say what you think it should say. Latvia and Latvians, and also happiness and joy are different things. If you had taken some time to read "history" section of the article you might have noticed that the lyrics were written half a century before the country was ever established and speaks of Latvian people wanting to establish their own country and live there happily ever after, rather than people of that (back then hypothetical) country frolicking around joyfully at the present time. Thinking this through I decided that this is more important than some arrogant know-it-all thinking it makes Latvian people look like children, pretty sure people who care will understand that it is not what it means. ~~Xil (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I suspected, there was no point trying to explain it to you. Much of your remarkably peevish reply is irrational or irrelevant. However, I am not going to contradict you. I simply can’t be bothered. Your fury when gently questioned about a trifle is a sign of immaturity. And your resort to ad hominem insolence puts you beneath my contempt. Your point of view therefore has no value for me. No need to answer this, I won’t read it. I’m just not interested. I’ll leave you alone with your unsubstantiated certainties and your bad temper.

Hi, I missed your message (also haven't edited en.wiki in quite a while.)

If you ask me, Latvian "vēlējuma izteiksme" (e.g., darītu) should be only called "conditional." I have actually debated removing "conjunctive/subjunctive" from the list of moods in Latvian grammar#Verbs. The names "subjunctive" and "conjunctive," imo, stem from Romance languages where a subordinate clause or a subordinate clause introduced by a specific conjunction require a specific mood (congiuntivo in Italian, subjuntivo in Spanish.) For example, Italian: speriamo, che compri or Spanish esperamos que compre ("[mēs] ceram, ka viņš nopirktu") instead of [lui] compra / [él] compra ("viņš pērk.") There is no such a thing in Latvian (and no other languages that I know of, besides Romance.) Romance languages do, however, have a conditional which actually matches Latvian vēl. izt., in Spanish, for example, ending in -ía - [él] vendría si podría - "[viņš] atnāktu, ja varētu." These can actually be translated directly without sounding awkward and more importantly just like vēlējuma izteiksme they imply a condition.

But English language literature should be consulted probably. As far as ailab/liis.lv and Latvian "filologi" go, I have very little trust that they can get anything right. I actually try to avoid quoting liis as much as possible because it's year 2013 and they still haven't done as little as correcting the encoding on their essays on grammar (Icelandic and Portuguese letters, like â and ð show instead of ā or š.) This could be corrected with one line of HTML - specifying UTF-8 as encoding, but I guess that's too advanced for them (and plain embarrassing for me!)

Furthermore, I have doubts that they are able to get even the most basic grammar stuff right, as the "zina" fiasco showed, for example. It belongs to the same exact conjugation as dziedāt, i.e., "viņš dzied, viņš zin." They, I guess, decided that it should be delegated to the subcategory of iterative/frequentative verbs with the suffix -in- (-ināt, -ināties,) except, zin- is one of the most common PIE roots in existence, as in Lith. žin-, Slavic zna-, Germanic kna-, kno-, ken-, Greek gno-, etc. Basically what I'm trying to say with this example is that, in my opinion, it's best to avoid any Latvian language sources (even if they're written in English) because (imo) they seem clueless about the most basic of morphology, grammar, etc. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, have you ever read Wikipedia:No original research? As far as I am concerned those sites are grammar reference which represent mainstream views. Minor coding problems (they don't use foreign letters, rather they have set the site to Baltic encoding which mostly displays incorrectly unless you switch to it manually) and you disliking Latvian linguists are not valid reasons to ignore or remove these sources. You should rather represent main stream views and then mention opposing views from other sources. But anyways my concern was that it would be best to pick terms that aren't applied to different mood in other sources, it would be confusing for readers, it's just a minor issue I noted, I am not going to protest, do as you wish ~~Xil (talk) 08:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that message I left borders on a full-blown rant. Even Encyclopaedia Britannica has many errors, those liis type sites, however, I trust very "selectively" and in the event there has been an error identified in, say, Britannica it does not mean that it should still be added (granted any reference is better than no reference, but in that situation simply finding another source would be better.) In reality you actually suggested another name for atstāst. izt. not vēl. izt. (which I'm rambling about above.) The thing is, it already has three names: quotative, relative and inferential and those names actually make sense (quote = citēt, relate = atstāstīt, infer = spekulēt.) Ailab calling it "conjunctive" (a common name that would be most closely translated as "vēlējuma izteiksme") does not help it adds confusion, which I'm trying to avoid. And then I went on a rant that there might not even be "conjunctive/subjunctive" (in the "vēlējuma izteiksme" sense) but only conditional in Latvian. I wouldn't include that in the article unless I find discussion about this in (preferably English-language) books. And I most definitely know what WP:OR is, I like as many references as possible and for these references to actually make sense.

So, there could be discussion whether to call atstāst. izt. quot., rel. or infer. (I kind of prefer quotative, Idk why) but otherwise I don't see the need for extra names (esp., if they are suggested by a source that, imo, cannot be fully trusted and better sources are available.) Neitrāls vārds (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While it's of course important that we provide up-to-date information, I mostly undid this edit, because you did not provide a source. The source can very well be in Latvian, but a source is needed. Currently hoping this article could be posted to the In The News section of the Main page, but it's required that good sourcing at least for the core facts is used before that can be done. --hydrox (talk) 07:22, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is useless to try to get firm victim count, when there still are people in the ruins and other facts are as uncertain. This is likely to change fast and really it would be more important to get out the latest count, than try to find written and accessible source for it. This can be done later, there are plenty articles with sketchy sources ~~Xil (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It took me less than 30 seconds to find a source with the alleged figure and Google Translate it. I have previously worked on several disaster-related Wikipedia articles, and found that requiring sourcing is the only way to keep rumours and hysteric people from messing up the article as the big picture of the event develops. If we don't require sourcing, Wikipedia becomes as "useful" news source for this kind of event as Twitter and other medias where anyone can claim anything. Even at the expense of temporarily having slightly outdated info in a situation like this it's still a strength to require sourcing, not a shortcoming. --hydrox (talk) 07:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hysteric people don't need English Wikipedia for news in this case. Also fire&rescue services twitter is currently the best source along with television. It is your issue if you don't even want to trust one of the main Latvian news agencies. I would appreciate if you didn't revert my figures just because they are not up on your google translation yet ~~Xil (talk) 07:55, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have misunderstood. I welcome Latvian news agencies' reports. All I am saying is that "who said what" (citing the source) is required even in disaster articles. --hydrox (talk) 08:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , Please notice, ip user 111.243.0.198 and ip 114.39.7.129 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/111.243.0.198 , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/114.39.7.129, Vandalism a lot of articles , please stop these ip user , thank youMBINISIDLERS (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should go to WP:ANI with this, I am not admin on this wiki, so I don't see how I can help you with this ~~Xil (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Zane page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Latvian cuisine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Livonian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you're welcome to propose your own wording for the opening paragraph of the Baltic States. The main thing that does need changing is to stop talking about the history of est&lat in the same sentences. Their histories are too different for them to be included in the same sentence. For example, Estonia has not been ruled by the baltic german élite for over 700 years. This is a factual mistake. The modern history of Estonia started with the rule by the danes. Later, the swedes themselves were governing Estonia. The history of the baltic germans in Estonia is shorter than in Latvia. The current wording belittles the swedish and danish influence over Estonia.

This is what the swedish empire looked like in the 17th century: https://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rootsi_suurv%C3%B5imu_ajastu#/media/File:Sweden_1658.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaanMatti (talk • contribs) 13:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn't need to stop talking about history or to reshape the way it talks to be in line with modern Estonian policy of seeking closer relationships with Nordics and nationalist POV. If you feel that factual accuracy belittles you then I'm sorry, but that's just the way Wikipedia works ~~Xil (talk) 13:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

That's what I'm saying.... your claim is not factually correct. If you think it is, then you should be able to find proof for it. Because it's easy for me to find proof for my claim. And instead of just undoing your edit, I'm hoping to work together on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaanMatti (talk • contribs) 13:38, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--

Anyway, what I'm proposing is that on the Baltic States opening section, we will have a couple of sentences for each Baltic country separately, because of the differences in history. The similarity of the three countries is misleading and the three countries cannot be talked about in the same sentences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JaanMatti (talk • contribs) 13:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need additional sources for slmething extensivly reflected in the article. Did you actually look at the map you posted? It also shows half of Latvia under Swedish rule. The article describes region, articles on each country are meant for describing them seperatly. The only thing I agree with is that Danish Estonia could be mentioned, I left it out because it didn't fit well into flow of text and it's very early history (the text discusses modern simmilatities), plus it too was dominated by German nobility (check the link) ~~Xil (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

~~[[User:Xil|<font color="#FFBA13">'''''Xil'''''</font>]] <small>([[User talk:Xil|talk]])</small> : ~~Xil (talk)

to

~~[[User:Xil|<b style="color: #FFBA13">''Xil''</b>]] <small>([[User talk:Xil|talk]])</small> : ~~Xil (talk)

—Anomalocaris (talk) 18:59, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for updating your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, would be great to get your opinion on this thread:

[Timeline Table]

SørenKierkegaard (talk) 17:52, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Latvija Aloja.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned map.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what exactly is the ideal end goal for the article for you? What should it say? We should find common ground here. I feel like we're wasting energy without any reason because our end goal should be the same. This is not about tearing the concept apart or building some imaginary line between EE and LV. It's a common region with a common history. I just want the etymology part to be exact and cover the full history. Blomsterhagens (talk) 13:53, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re Estonia being "Nordic" - please stop bringing this up in each discussion, that topic is 1+ year old and I've not said or done anything about it. It has nothing to do with anything on the current topics. If you want to have a "nordic" discussion then you should first understand where the word came from. It was an early 20th century racist invention which included all peoples in northern Europe, including EE & LV. Estonia is no more "nordic" than Latvia is, taken from the original meaning. Sweden is no more "nordic" than Estonia is. So this whole conflict around it makes absolutely no sense. Latvia can be both baltic and nordic if it so wishes. This is not a black-and-white thing. But if one country wishes to explore that topic and the other doesn't then that's the individual choice of both nations. It doesn't make one nation more "nordic" than the other one though. It's all wordplay anyway. And in any case, it doesn't matter what I think. Wikipedia builds on what's happened, based on references. Blomsterhagens (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am glad you have realized that racism and hopefully also propaganda is wrong, but still it is pretty dubious to claim something based on passing mention of those countries as Baltic states - it might just be practical attempt to group countries around sea, instead of idea that these countries form a common region ~~Xil (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only interested in relevant sources and a balance of sources. It's very easy for the article to get a one-sided view. Define "common region". EE & LV indeed have been more or less the same region historically for a long time. But what exactly forms a "common region" between EE and LT? Especially before 1918? I'd like know what your definition of a "common region" is. Yes there's a lot of partnership between the three as there should be. All three suffered under the same hardships in WW2 and during occupation. And all those sources should be covered. But Estonia is de facto also deeply connected with Finland. And economically and administratively speaking, much more so than with LV or LT. Exports & imports are dominated by Finland, and the countries also share the same databases. So what does "common region" mean? Feel free to give weight to LV and LT, but you should then give equal weight to Finland as well. Blomsterhagens (talk) 09:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In any case - I'm not looking to draw a wedge between the countries. I want the article to show the full history and show the rich & interesting history of all three countries. Instead of arguing about some lines in etymology, we should expand the interwar era section and nowadays. That's when the countries actually were a "common region" and also flourished. Blomsterhagens (talk) 09:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And here are some links to hopefully get you to understand that I'm only trying to accurately describe the de facto realities of today. Kersti Kaljulaid's speech on the 100th anniversary of Estonia - please count the mentions of Finland & nordic vs. "baltic"" ; Speech on the occasion of Finland's 100 anniversary. So - let's create a good, in-depth article that is worthy of the interesting history of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. But please do not forget that Estonia also has a northern neighbour. Talsinki ; Common public transport ; Blomsterhagens (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't start this again - the region currently grouping together Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania exists disregarding of you liking it or not and there is going to be article on it and its historical development. This article should not be turned into discussion on if Estonia is (more) Nordic or closer to Finland - it is not relevant to the topic, I've told you repeatedly to expand upon these issues in the article dedicated to that issue. And let's keep content discussion to the talk page of the article ~~Xil (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't start what again? I have nothing against the "baltic states" concept. I just want the article to be balanced. Saying that I'm against the concept or what I'm advocating some "nordic" issue is a nice way to kill the discussion of course. Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the idea of an encyclopedic article is to give concise information in prose about its subject matter, not to list random facts that are somewhat related to the title. It is not balanced to give large coverage to issues important to one country in the region, but not the region as a whole, what is balanced is to give it passing mention, if it is relevant to the content, and/or link to articles about the country and the particular issues it is having. Estonian issues with Baltic and Nordic identity got a mention and I have encouraged you multiple times to expand on it in the dedicated article (perhaps try to get it up to WP:FA status? You might learn more about how to write a quality article and stay on topic in the process). And I don't really see how the bi-lateral relations between Estonia and Finland are at all relevant to the entire region. I don't get why instead of just writing about issues you clearly care about, you are dead set on covering them in an article that actually is about something else ~~Xil (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My only issue has been when 1) The article completely ignores Estonia's northern neighbour. 2) Didn't cover the full development of the term ; Those things are OK right now so case closed. Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping we can work together on common topics from now on. I've added Oeselians and Curonians to the intro on the Vikings page. Oeselians have enough references but Curonians could use some more. I don't know latvian so it's been a bit difficult for me to find good enough resources. I know there are enough in latvian historic literature though. Prieka Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't believe these peoples are considered vikings from modern scientific point of view, so I wouldn't be able to source valid references ~~Xil (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This topic would have way more relevant content than the "Baltic states" article page, which needs to somehow also manage Lithuanian history in it, which is completely different. Wikipedia doesn't have a dedicated article on this though. Unless we use the Livonia article I suppose. Or maybe a separate Livonia section needs to be brought into the Baltic states article somehow? I don't know. Blomsterhagens (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is Estonia-Latvia relations, but it's kind of about current diplomatic relations. I think history on Baltic States page should be limited to what it is now since it's not a history article and there's allready plenty of it. Otherwise I don't know, there are plenty of articles covering various stages of history that could be fleshed out more, but maybe an article outlining common history could be created? You could ask on Wikipedia:WikiProject Latvia and Wikipedia:WikiProject Estonia what other people think. ~~Xil (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for chipping in. Regarding the Baltic States page in general - I'm still lost on what the focus should be. No answers on the talk page either.

1) If it's about the geopolitical term "The Baltic States" - That means we should focus on the history of the term and the history of the three countries after they started using the term. This means not talking about the medieval history of Estonia & Latvia on that page. "The Baltic States" did not exist in reference to those countries back then.

2) If it's about the history of Latvia, Lithuania & Estonia - then I'm not really sure what to do. I don't think medieval history of Estonia belongs on the "Baltic States" article page, which is about a geopolitical term. Blomsterhagens (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I allready made focus, stop being pedantic to prove a point and maybe you'll see it. As it happens it's the first one, because it's kind of weird to start in the stone age as the article used to do. The difference is that you are trying to narrow focus too far - this is not an official union, the governments did not come together scraching their heads to come up with a new cool name, instead people just kept using an old word, which chamged meaning as situation developed and as name of the sea changed this word also changed over multiple translations. And the focus is to show how the term developed and give insight in history of countries it currently refers to as far as it helps to understand everything better. Nobody is claiming there were Baltic States in the Medieval ages or that previously the word Baltic had the same meaning, on the contrary - it clearly shows that the term meant something else and changed over time. It is relevant for encyclopedia as people come here to look up information on something they want to understand, not just what the exact definition of the word is right now. If your dream comes true and everyone stops calling Estonia Baltic and then the term actually evolves to a linguistic one, it should still explain to a reader currious about what it meant right about now what the situation used to be. And in the same way if the reader comes accross a reference to Baltics in an earlier era and comes looking for explanation how it was used, they need to know that too. And also my correction was because you inadvertantly widened meaning to other parts of the Swedish empire ~~Xil (talk) 07:05, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this part: "And the focus is to show how the term developed" which is why some content should be added about countries like Denmark and Sweden as "Baltic States" or "Baltic Lands", instead of talking about the medieval history of the swedish provinces of Estland and Livland. Those provinces should only be included if a source somewhere says that those provinces are the reason why Estonia and Latvia (and Lithuania) are now called "Baltic States". Blomsterhagens (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark and Sweden currently are not considered Baltic States and I have not seen any source mentioning they were considered part of this particular region and as far I remeber you brought it up before and also couldn't really show that they were in the region, not simply mentioned as countries next to Baltic sea. There are only references to Finland and Ingria, as far as I remember this is mentioned, personally I don't feel like there's need to go into further details about it as it's not relevant to further developments ~~Xil (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dūda. Since you had some involvement with the Dūda redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 18:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have reverted your recent changes to Dūda because the "messed up" formatting there is intentional. It is to avoid incorrectly categorising the article while it is still only a draft, and will be "fixed" when and if the draft goes live. Geolodus (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Latvija Akniste.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Latvija Aizpute.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Latvija Ainazi.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:Lacplesis.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

low resolution, not used

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Xil! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 04:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect (Līgo). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 4#(Līgo) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Estopedist1 (talk) 11:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of tourist attractions in Riga has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Policies violated by this page:

WP:NOTDIRECTORY "Simple listings without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit."

WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia is not a travel guide. We have Wikitravel for that, and many of these pages could be recreated (or already are) there.

The core content policies are: 1) neutral point of view, 2) no original research and 3) verifiability. This page violages policies 2 and 3.

WP:VERIFY What are the criteria to meet to be in the list? This page has vague or no criteria. By definition, then, there is no way to verify the inclusion or exclusion of any particular site in the list.

WP:NOR Original research "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Who says that each of the items in the list are tourist attractions? Given the lack of inclusion criteria, that's understandable, as there is no need to justify being in a list that doesn't have standards for inclusion. However, that also points to original research as being the source for inclusion.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Logo-13850.jpg. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]