Template talk:Soviet occupation

message: I removed the redirect.  As I understand it, template discussion links are suppose to link only to the discussion about the template, not to another articles discussion page. Remember 13:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirect to [[Talk:Soviet occupation]] 

message: Yeah, this has just gotten incivil and POV from all sides.  The discussion above and the outcome of the AfD merit the consensus that the template should stay at Soviet occupations, special consideration to the keeping of the parent article of the template.  Move protected.  Keegantalk 06:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no discusson on move on the AFD in question. Most non-involved users voted for deletion of the template.--Dojarca 07:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dojarca, the discussions took place in three different venues, and you were the only user advocating and edit/move warring the page to the title you prefer.  Wikipedia is not a democracy, AfD is not a vote, and you must edit with a neutral point of view.  If you or other editors involved in this dispute, cannot edit without claiming bias perhaps you should consider Wikinfo.  This fork of Wikipedia allows editing with a sympathetic point of view.  Happy editing to all.  Keegantalk 19:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the template should be written from the neutral point of view, not some nationalist or anti-Soviet bias. This is rule of Wikipedia. Adminiatrators should enforce established rules, noit help turn Wikipedia into mess of propaganda.---- Dojarca (talk) 21:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's keep in mind that you walk in your shoes and the other users walk in theirs.  You perceive the title to be biased and POV because of your own point of view.  As I've stated before, I have little to no passion for this subject and I like to think of myself as a neutral third party here (before this I have never had any interaction with any user on this page, including DrKiernan).  I assure you, Dojarca, that there is nothing incorrect with the title of this template biased or otherwise.  "Soviet occupation" vs. "Zones of Soviet occupation" is just playing symantics.  Everyone is welcome to debate how information is presented here and that's what these talk pages are used for.  Consensus is to be the end result.  My point is that in my point of view, both sides of this argument are exerting way too much passion into a discussion that is moot and unnecessary.  There are better topics to debate on the presentation of the USSR than this.  Martintg, Dojarca, Sander Säde et al.  please move on and have a quality discussion rather than dueling nationalism from both sides.  I take great pains to emphasis that as no one "won" this conflict and I have not protected The Wrong Version.  I have used the power of discretion placed in myself by the community to decide consensus in this discussion.  Let us all move on, or take it to Requests for comment if interested parties would like to engage in dispute resolution.  Keegantalk 06:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Move protected

message: Despite obvious consensus (no one supports his changes and viewpoint) he keeps pushing his POV. What shall we do about it? He sees nothing wrong in his actions whatsoever. I am out of good faith and ideas. -- Sander Säde 08:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who pushes POV here is you, not me. Neutrality should be enforced in Wikipedia.--Dojarca 07:41, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So where is the POV? You've been crying that all the time - and yet you haven't managed to bring any sources to support your point of view while others have literally dozens of sources. How about some verifiable, independent sources before you start accusing other editors? -- Sander Säde 07:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: It is you who delete any sources from articles which do not confirm with your point of view, claiming that you have "consensus" on not to include the source.--Dojarca 08:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to give an example? Or just empty words again as always? -- Sander Säde 08:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In every article you claim you have consensus. Any arguments rejected based on no rules other than that "you have consensus"--Dojarca 10:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, the great omnipotent "everywhere" argument, without any actual diffs as usual. How nice. I wish I had a dollar for every time this has been said and those users have then failed to come up with any actual evidence - I could retire and go to some tropical island every winter. -- Sander Säde 10:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What shall we do with Dojarca? 

message: Why are Austria and Germany listed under "Allies", with a link to Allies of World War II?  Also, why put those two countries in a separate row from Europe??  None of this make sense to me.  Maybe we should have Eastern Europe and Western Europe as row-headers (besides Asia)?  Also, where to fit Finland in all this?  I think this is a useful template, but we need to rethink those headers — any better ideas on what to do?  Turgidson (talk) 01:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Headers in table

message: can be mentioned in this template events before II World War e.g. Occupation of Ukraine? --Riwnodennyk ✉ 15:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Occupation of Ukraine