Talk:Jaan Kaplinski
Latest comment: 13 years ago by A little insignificant in topic Sockpuppet edit war
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Sockpuppet edit war edit
user:Aleksa Lukic user:Sander Säde user:Anna Frodesiak and whatever other sockpuppets you use - I make each of my edits separate so they can be un-done by themselves. There's no need to undo all of them! Change the ones you feel do not improve the article and EXPLAIN THE CHANGES. 24.202.35.184 (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Stop accusing others of sockpuppetry and be civil - obviously various users disagree with your changes. Also, explain your edits, as you haven't sourced even a single one of them. Use edit summary to explain why you did the changes and why do you think they are needed. --Sander Säde 14:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Information needs to be sourced when it is newly added to an article. Not when you are changing or removing thigs. 24.202.35.184 (talk) 14:54, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
PS - Nice move on removing my comment on your talk page. I suppose I'm not the first person to have accused you of inappropriate behavior seeing as you don't want others to read it on your talk page. 24.202.35.184 (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) And when you remove details from an article without any explanation it is considered to be vandalism. I will revert your edits once more and clean up the article a bit. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, I recommend you radically change your attitude - and remember that banned users should not edit even anonymously. --Sander Säde 15:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Removing unsourced content from an article about a living person is in line with Wikipedia policy. Thank you for accusing me of being a previously banned user. The behavior of Wikipedia "regulars" like you is exactly why I have absolutely no desire to ever obtain a Wikipedia account. 24.202.35.184 (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- From your behavior and attitude here, I think that is a win-win situation. --Sander Säde 15:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Removing unsourced negative content from BLPs is what you are referring to, I'm afraid. And given that you made a ridiculous accusation of sockpuppetry and treated users with whom you disagreed with sarcasm and incivility, you've made it hard for others to communicate civilly with you. But that goes for Sander too: don't raise your temper like that in an issue like this. Biting comments and one-liners belong somewhere else. ALI nom nom 15:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- From your behavior and attitude here, I think that is a win-win situation. --Sander Säde 15:09, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- Removing unsourced content from an article about a living person is in line with Wikipedia policy. Thank you for accusing me of being a previously banned user. The behavior of Wikipedia "regulars" like you is exactly why I have absolutely no desire to ever obtain a Wikipedia account. 24.202.35.184 (talk) 15:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) And when you remove details from an article without any explanation it is considered to be vandalism. I will revert your edits once more and clean up the article a bit. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, I recommend you radically change your attitude - and remember that banned users should not edit even anonymously. --Sander Säde 15:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)