User talk:Dojarca/Archive2

Thanks for creating

You could also consider withdrawing your AfD proposal. This is in fact what I suggest you do. -- Petri Krohn 21:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A-Class articles should have all at least attained

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 05:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since neither you nor Joe Kress look like you are going to pursue this interesting issue, I am researching it a little and drafting up something for WP. However, I am unable to substantiate your comment on Leo the Wise. Unfortunately, I do not read Russian. I would be grateful if you could give me an English translation of the passage in the book you refer to that discusses this point, as well as the English title and the author of the book, and, most particularly, the primary source of the information.

Thanks, --Chris Bennett 20:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Digging a little deeper, I am assuming this is based onn Leo VI's Basilica, althouhg I haven't found an explicit statement to that effect. I have added some text based on your input and that of Joe Kress about this topic. Take a look and adjust as you see fit --Chris Bennett 22:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move pages without consensus. Various titles for the page have been discussed at length, and

In my opinion and of hearing the case, I believe that the POV tag should be added to the article until all parties can reach an agreement. If you do not agree with this decision you may request another medcab case or get a third opinion. If you find it necessary, you could request a real mediation case. Jac _roe^Blank 18:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the change you have made to the Digwuren Arbitration

The reasins indicated here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupation_of_Baltic_states#Occupation_of_Baltic_states and in the meditation case.--Dojarca 07:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tag refers to talk page, I see no new talk since July. The tag was newly placed today without any discussion on talk. Pointing vaguely to a closed mediation case and refusing articulate the issues on the talk pages when requested indcates this may be

Martintg 08:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The prevous issue unfortunately has not been resolved :-( so all the presented reasons still valid.--Dojarca 09:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you again apply the tag without any further discussion on the talk page. Do you even know what these previous issues are? You seem to be having difficulty specifying them. This is very disruptive as we cannot read your mind, and thus stops the improvement of the article. It is your intent to disrupt or improve this article?

Martintg 09:35, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You can read all the issues here: [1] and in the archive. I don't understand why do you experience difficulties with it. --Dojarca 09:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dojarca, I think you need to calm down a little. Actually, not a little but a lot. Here is a simple trick. Before replying to a talk page entry that angered you, give it a couple of hours not to. Such messages can always wait even much longer. Same applies to reverts. Mother Russia won't collapse from some Wikipedia's article's being at the version which seems "wrong" to you for some extended time. --Irpen 16:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to