User talk:Peteris Cedrins

Young Latvians

I think that the article should be moved and renamed to New Latvians. The term jaunlatvieši is derived from jauns as in new, not jauns as in young. The key thing about them, as you may remember, was that they considered themselves Latvians, after the German rule and assimilation. Would you agree with that? Solver 22:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a difficult question, but I don't agree to a move or renaming because the name derives from the German "Young Germany," and it was first applied to the Lettophiles by the Baltic Germans, in German (it translates to "young," not new, in German -- in Latvian, as you know, it could be either). Also, many nations have a similar term for (similar or very different) movements -- Young Poland, Young Turks, Jeune France, etc. Some books and articles in English use "young" for the Lettophiles, others "new" -- I've never tried to count to see which is the most popular, but I think a redirect from "New Latvians" will do... though you are definitely right that it's a hard decision to make. --Pēteris Cedriņš 22:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. A redirect is certainly a good decision, but I guess I'll ask some Latvian linguists for their opinion on whether jauns is used as new or young in the context. Solver 22:52, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I and others just checked numerous serious sources in a few languages, and almost all of them give the term as "Young Latvians" ("le mouvement des Jeunes Lettons," "Grupo de los Jóvenes Letones de la Universidad de Dorpat," "ifjú lettek mozgalma," etc.). The only sources that use "New Latvians" seem to be written by those unfamilar with the origin of the term. So I urge that we stay with "young" and will make a redirect (if I can remember how to do that...). --Pēteris Cedriņš 01:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah -- you'd already made a redirect. Paldies! --Pēteris Cedriņš 02:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I've also checked around today and "young" indeed seems to be the correct usage. Nav par ko! Solver 14:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abrene region

Privet! You made a note to my rewrite that "the article still needs much revision." What do you have in mind? I plan to add more information on the international law aspect, and will add references), but I would be interested to know what you think the article needs. --Pēteris Cedriņš 13:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

sveiki! I moved this to your talk, since I have no intention to contribute significantly to this topic. I supplied some edit summaries with my corrections. Basically, the problem is that the article is one-sided towards the Latvian POV on the dispute. It is not your fault since you base your writings on the Latvian sources. I will ask some Russian editors that I know to have knowledge of the subject to look at it. I corrected only what seemed obvious to me. See my summaries for the reasons. Regards, --Irpen 16:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My sources are actually wide-ranging. Loeber, for instance, is a German expert in international law, arguing that the annexation is a clear-cut violation of international law, and I did not make it as clear-cut in my article only because I know that certain persons would doubtless come around to revert or delete. The actual facts on the annexation come from Soviet archives and not Latvian documents. Not to oversimplify, but this is not a Russian vs. Latvian debate, and if "annexation" gets replaced by "liberation," I am not the one biased towards a POV. Equating a victim with a murderer does not lead to NPOV. Vsego khoroshego, --Pēteris Cedriņš 16:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt that it was annexation. I did not insert "liberation" and have no intention to do it. My problem, for example, is with using "return to Latvia", because every piece of land in Europe can be transferred to a number of countries and this could be called "return". Under this logic, Kiev or Smolensk could be "returned" to Poland, Warsaw could be "returned" to Russia, Gdansk to Germany and Bretagne to the UK. Similarly, talking about the lack of plebiscite, is like talking about the lack of multiparty democracy. It is a tautology to raise this in every USSR-reraled article. Stuff like "can't visit graves" looked strange in your version because it is not clear what exactly the problem is as I explained in the edit summary. I only corrected the obvious things and it will take a more knowledgeable editor to do more. Please, no flames. --Irpen 17:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I further explained the graves, trying to clarify -- it is a priority for the actual victims (you must know how Balts and Slavs are about graves), and the case is bilateral -- the trouble is that they live outside the border zone, many in the town of Balvi (still in the former Abrene district, but outside the zone where one can get cross-border privileges, etc.). I do not desire to flame you, and I realize that you try to be reasonable (I went through your some of your controversies!). Your critique does not stand up so far though, sorry -- Poland has a border agreement with Russia, etc., and there is a difference between satellites and Soviet "republics." Legality ought to have a place in an encyclopedia. De jure, Abrene belongs to Latvia -- de facto, it was annexed to Russia. Your logic is not my logic! Yes, much territory moved and many people moved (many into graves), but the law is the law -- international law is maybe POV? --Pēteris Cedriņš 17:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been moved to Talk:Abrene region and continues there.

Karlis Ulmanis

Sveiki again! I'd like to ask for your opinion on one matter. There has been an editing dispute now between me and User:69.142.194.250. He removes references to Karlis Ulmanis as President of Latvia and states that Ulmanis was a politician, and never President. I, on the other hand, insist that, while Ulmanis became President illegally, he was President nonetheless and is considered such by Latvian history sources as well.

I'd appreciate it if you would see the discussion at User talk:69.142.194.250, which started after we had reverted each other a couple of times. Thanks! Solver 13:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lūdzu! --Pēteris Cedriņš 17:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please take part in the improval of this article

Hello. I would like to inform you that there is an ongoing discussion at article Territorial claims of the Baltic States (formerly was known as "Lost territories of the Baltic States", but was recently renamed; some users seems to disagree with that renaming). Recent edits as well were accused of POV, and, in fact, article was disputed for a long time already. There are currently no Latvian contributors to that article, therefore your opinion is much needed (and it seems you already contributed much to Abrene district article, therefore I guess you are interested in the topic). It would be nice if you would add that article to your watchlist and continue helping to improve it until a decition will be reached about its future (there is currently a poll about it in the article's talk page). I hope together we all will be able to make that article neutral. Kaiser 747 10:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added some comments to the talk page of the article. --Pēteris Cedriņš 16:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Please continue to watch that article and its discussion so that the final solution would be as neutral as possible. Kaiser 747 08:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will notify you now by the way that I am leaving to Frankfurt; I won't be on Wikipedia for long. Please don't forget to watch that article during the time. Good luck! :) Kaiser 747 09:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russians in Latvia

I will reply to your message at the article's talk. But I have an unrelated to the article question to your note. You wrote that after reading my talk page you "know that you are not the only editor who takes this view". I just don't get what you meant by that. Not that it is important for the article though. --Irpen 05:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, for instance, that "good Ghirlandajo, bad Ghirlandajo" comment. I've only seen the "bad Ghirlandajo" and it's just not very inspiring to participate if people run around with nothing but the intention to wreck. I do not see you telling Ghirlandajo that his behavior is inappropriate. If you would like me to be frank, the fact is that you seem to function almost as a tag team -- Ghirlandajo comes in waving his revert bludgeon, and then you drift in all cool and collected to suggest something between his wild and insupportable accusations and what's in the article, offering a middle ground to water down inescapable fact (this is my experience with both the Abrene district article and this one). A kind of "bad cop, good cop" routine. It is no wonder that a good part of the Eastern Europe "editorial staff" consists of raving nationalists, chauvinists, and apologists having at it -- personally, I think the sort of environment being created by editors like Ghirlandajo is enough to drive anybody interested in collaborating on serious, balanced articles away, and am considering quitting. --Pēteris Cedriņš 06:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peteris Stucka, Translations

Hello Peteris, I started recently to translate a few articles, missing in the German wikipedia, from the English one. I'm not a professional translator and would be glad, if my work was only half as valuable as your's on several of these. Those include de:Jungletten, de:Neue Strömung, de:Lettische Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, de:Janis Rainis, de:Krisjanis Barons. I noticed however that there is an article that could go the other way, provided you or somebody else is interested. de:Peter Stucka, missing in English. Best regards de:Benutzer:gf1961

Responded on de:Benutzer:gf1961's talk page ("Stučka, Übersetzungen"). Pēteris Cedriņš 11:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One rather trivial note: "Rainis" the nom-de-plume is by itself; though it is sometimes wrongly given as "Jānis Rainis," it should really be written without the given name, the pseudonym for Jānis Pliekšāns.

Hello again,Pēteris. I changed that in the meantime, Thank you. As well for your explications and the infos on your plans. I am not a scholar and therefor, the translation of texts missing in German is a good niche for me to be useful though I don't feel fit to develop any articles of depth myself or even to do original research on my own.

I will keep you informed of major changes and new articles, and you might look at the new Latvia portal and sign the guestbook!

I'll have an eye on you and your articles and will continue to make use of it for translations, leaving it to others to polish my translations if needed. The German wikipedia is still quite free of POV-Discussion in the sort, I've seen on the English one, Abrene being an example. On the other hand I've come across some tendency to overrate the German role for the development of the region and the first national awakening.

Regarding 1905 -- as a librarian, can you confirm that maps in Transehe-Roseneck's Die Lettische Revolution (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1906) would be in the public domain?

Again no specialist on this subject, I would agree. German copyright laws give works to the public domain 70 years after the death of the author, in this case the cartographer, which can be assumed by now. --de:Benutzer:gf1961

Latvia Copyright

Hello. I was wondering if [1] is the correct copyright law of Latvia. If so, I wish to upload copies of the Latvian hymn onto Wikipedia (unless you wish to do that yourself). Thanks. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 03:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks right to me, but to be extra sure -- I can contact a leading professional in the copyright field here. But please do tell me what exactly you mean by "copies of the Latvian hymn" (source, form, etc.), though. Regards, Pēteris Cedriņš 05:11, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic board

I notice that you author most of the articles announced at the Baltic board. Would you consider cross-posting whatever articles you consider relevant also to Portal:Russia/New article announcements? Thanks, --Irpen 08:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If specifically Russia-related, I may. There are, however, notice boards for Québec and Wales, though neither is a nation-state like the Baltics are. A lot of boards overlap, so those interested in the Baltics can visit the Baltic board, whatever their main interest and even if the articles regard the Baltics when they were part of the Russian Empire or occupied by the USSR. I would rather write and edit than spend so much time categorizing and listing. --Pēteris Cedriņš 14:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tatjana Ždanoka

Hello Peteris, I'm afraid the link to EHCR judgement of 2006 is not persistent, since there's a session-id involved, your id didn't work today and mine probably won't last much longer. Best regards, --Gf1961 08:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- hmm. Is there any way around this that you know of? It's a very valuable link in the context, since it covers the issues in a way that illuminates them from various angles, as the PCTVL links do not. --Pēteris Cedriņš 17:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When searching around on that page. I found another link at the bottom of the "Notice"-tab. I am not sure, but that may last. Applied it. Best regards --Gf1961 07:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria

I appreciate your interventions in Transnistria related articles. There are some editors, who constantly delete info which is not liked by Transnistrian (Russian) authorities. Mauco is working full-time on this, others only part-time. Please be bold and put info again in the articles, if they dissapear. Maybe you will want to vote on talk page Transnistria, about the links which should be included in the article--MariusM 11:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Transnistrian referendum, 2006 there is a paragraph with true and sourced info which is permanently reverted. Your opinion on this article will be appreciated.--MariusM 17:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transnistrian referendum, 2006, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transnistrian referendum, 2006.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC).

Mediation

Hello! This message is in regard to Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Transnistrian referendum, 2006. I'll be happy to help all of you out here, but first I've left an important message on that mediation page which requires your response. I would also appreciate it if you could watchlist that page so that we may facilitate discussion and communication. I look forward to working with you! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transnistria

Hi Peteris. As you are Latvian I suppose you speak Russian. Please join our discussion in Talk:Transnistria, where we are debating some Russian language sources, and give your input.--MariusM 14:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for sourse(s)

Hi, Thank you for your contribusions to the discussion on issues regarding Moldova and Romania. In the Talk: Transnistria you wrote: and Almond, the chairman of a group that has defended pretty much every pro-Russian dictator and a couple of strongmen in Africa, will give testimony about arms sales This article is now under point-by-point review. The controversy of BHHRG is reflected already in the Wikipedia article, however I have not seen anyone questioning Almond's scholarly works (books and articles). Is your remark above referring to Mark Almond's books and articles, or only to his activity through BHHRG? If the former, can you, please, indicate me some links that I can use to understand his scholarly work. Thank you very much.:Dc76 23:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the latter, sorry -- I'm referring to his activity through the BHHRG only. --Pēteris Cedriņš 00:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Thank you anyway.:Dc76 02:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945

A group of comrades still active.Constanz - Talk 14:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibreak!

I will not be contributing to Wikipedia in the near future, as I simply do not have the time (or inclination) to do battle with the petty propaganda of fake personae, an activity far removed from editing an encyclopedia. Between being accused of creating sock puppets (by someone who, unlike me, is evasive about his identity -- Mauco) and Ghirlandajo's wildly twisted renaming of an article I began, without discussion but with extreme prejudice (see the Baltic States notice board), I do not think I want to hang about this corner of the "community" at the moment -- an almost stereotypically "Eastern European" corner where hateful disinformation is given increasing weight and serious debate has very nearly wiki-evaporated. I can be reached through my blog. --Pēteris Cedriņš 14:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the page with Mauco's accusations which was not closed and clarify for long time, I suggest you contact User:Flcelloguy which is the mediator in the still-open dispute from Transnistrian referendum, 2006 and ask him to clarify the issue and close the case. Anyhow, you quitting Wikipedia is exactly what people like Mauco want. Don't make them happy!--MariusM 21:46, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Marius. --Pēteris Cedriņš 07:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back, kinda

Because I can't resist remarking upon some of the debates re articles I think are vital, I'll be around now and then. If you want a quick response, though, please e-mail me at cedrins@gmail.com in addition to talking here. --Pēteris Cedriņš 08:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Proposed_community_ban_for_sockpupeteer_William_Mauco

Anti-Russian sentiment

Hi, Pēteris. I think you would like to take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Russian_sentiment. Thanks.80.235.53.82 17:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pērkonkrusts

I've been slowly cleaning up the article on Pērkonkrusts. Do I have your permission to remove the "accuracy" tag? —Zalktis (talk) 10:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:IMG 3104.JPG listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:IMG 3104.JPG, 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. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 12:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Peteris Cedrins. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]