Hello, Maracana, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Hey, buddy, you need to stop change stuff around to USSR. I understand that there are people who love USSR, but that was country without nationality. All of the republics in the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics were a unique political entity, at least officially. Therefore stop changing things around especially when did not start the page. best regards Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quoting following specifically for you. Initially established as a union of four Soviet Socialist Republics, the USSR grew to contain 15 constituent or "union republics" by 1956: Armenian SSR, Azerbaijan SSR, Byelorussian SSR, Estonian SSR, Georgian SSR, Kazakh SSR, Kirghiz SSR, Latvian SSR, Lithuanian SSR, Moldavian SSR, Russian SFSR, Tajik SSR, Turkmen SSR, Ukrainian SSR, and Uzbek SSR. (From annexation of the Estonian SSR on August 6, 1940 up to the reorganisation of the Karelo-Finnish SSR into the Karelian ASSR on July 16, 1956, the count of "union republics" was 16.) Please, refer to this link for more information. best regards Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please stop edit warring. There are valid reasons to keep the countries of birth to the USSR, there are reasons to keep them as Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, etc. There is no valid reasons to have an edit war here. Please start a discussion on a talking page somewhere and advertise it so everybody could participate. Or just drop the edit war and do something non-controversial instead. If you will continue the mass changes without reaching some sort of consensus first I will block you. I will revert all the changes of the birthcountries to the stable versions Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it appears you're working against consensus. I think I've previously backed you up on the issue, but if the majority are working the other way, it will only be looked upon as vandalism. - 13:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
If you read the centralized discussion you would see, that I am not the one working against consensus. There have now been two polls, both with the outcome of adding the consistuent state, e.g. Soviet Union. To say that I am off consensus is directly wrong, I am actually trying to defend it against the persons who don't respect it. User:Maracana
The Baltic states were never legally part of the USSR. I have no issue noting the territories were SSRs, as in "Estonia (SSR") versus "Estonia" for places of birth, but please stop vandalizing articles with your POV demanding respect (per your own words above which prove you are only out to push a POV and not contribute) for a despotic and dead regime which invaded the Baltics and murdered and deported their inhabitants long before Hitler arrived. Thank you. —PētersV (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Olof Ask, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Olof Ask seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Olof Ask, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, sorry. I'll try to be more careful in the future. User:Maracana
3 revert rule
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.
Last Warning
Marakana, edit warring on a large number of articles around such a trivial matter as infoboxes is not acceptable. Please do not continue to change infoboxes unless you have a clear consensus on a particular article talk. If you continue I will block you for disruption. See WP:DE for details Alex Bakharev (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the above. Maracana is inserting factual material. The idiots who keep removing it should be dealt with though. пﮟოьεԻ5709:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. As I work mainly in the Israel-related sphere I see more than enough fact-deniers around and I have no qualms about dealing with them harshly. пﮟოьεԻ5712:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, enough is enough, you're up to 6 reverts during last 24 h and 33 min on Jaak Aaviksoo, please self-revert your last edit immediately and stop that kind of behavior. Maybe you're right, but you know, WP:3RR is here for reason, you have to work with others, edit-warring is not an option. Ptrt (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. The edit war at Jorge Cadete is getting a bit daft now. I've started a discussion on the talk page to try and come to a solution. Could we please try come to a solution so we can move forward. Peanut4 (talk) 21:22, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Maracana! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 12 of the articles that you created are Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondarysources to these articles, it would greatly help us with the current 15 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
Look at Military brat to define. Jong-il's daddy may have been military at some point in time, but Jong-il himself was not the child of an active duty military person. Nor is the term used in Korea to describe people like him. Funny, yes, but WP is not an appropriate place for such humor. Still, thanks for the note.--S. Rich (talk) 01:24, 8 February 2011 (UTC)03:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I retract my comment about being funny. You are quite right about the military brat material being US centric, but most if not all of the RS on the subject will be American or western. Still, the military brat article gives a parameter or description of the term as being used in particular cultures. I rather doubt that PRK has a distinctive military brat subculture similar to that defined in the article. Indeed, as they maintain quite a large military, everyone in the country would fall into this ill-defined military brat subculture. In Kim Jong-il's case, he and his dad lived on the military base where Kim Il-sung was the commander until Jong-il was 3 or 4. Does he consider himself a "military brat"? Perhaps, but no RS says so. Back on the military brat articles themselves, perhaps the definition of military brat should be narrowed to those children or adults who consider themselves as military brats. This would give the articles and definition more precision, which is lacking.--S. Rich (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. I have also posted the same on the discussion page of Miltary brats as it IMO is in this category's inclusion criteria the problem/solution lies. The category is close to not notable, but since it is there it should include all people who during childhood had their life influented by parent's military career. Not only Americans. Maracana (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
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.
