User talk:Kruusamägi

Hello Kruusamägi, after I had encountered some of you edits on articles where you had added text without citing any sources for it, I took a look at you edit history. I was baffled by the fact that even though you have been here for quite some time, you still do not include proper references for your edits. Or if you do they are just bare urls. While your photos are great and your style is good, it is absolutely necessary that you also include info about where you have obtained the facts, otherwise you just leave behind a lot of work for other editors who have to do the adding for you. Please read the Help:Referencing for beginners if you are uncertain about how to do this. Best, w.carter-Talk 10:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thous few articles that I've made are in English Wikipedia are mainly shortened versions of articles from Estonian Wikipedia (like Jaan Künnap or Urmas Tartes) or exact translations (like 100 great Estonians of the 20th century or Harku Manor). Normally it is nearly impossible to find any references to sites that are written in English + some information can't be referenced to a web page as this is from other sources + some of the source articles in et wiki didn't also had any references. I have not used bare URLs for sure, but I do avoid templates because I consider thous a total waste of time + we've had so many problems with the use of templates in Estonian Wikipedia, that I am somewhat allergic to them by now (some years ago one user transferred a great bunch of templates from English Wikipedia, that means it now possible to just copy-paste references from English Wikipedia without checking them + new user are too eagered to use thous, but they don't fill in any fields and create a total mess with templates).

And about thus references. If I have written a ref in way like "Climbing the Ararat 180 years after Parrot", then how exactly is this url "bare"? Or what else there is to add (check link do see yourself)? If I do add references, then thous have enough information with them. Ivo (talk) 12:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that you took the time to answer. I am aware that many other Wikipedias have some serious problems, I myself come from the Swedish Wikipedia where there are issues similar to the Estonian. On the EngWiki there are so many ways that you can leave references, they do not have to be in English, they can be from books (those are actually preferred), journals, encyclopedias and all kind of sources. You can find them all at Category:Lua-based citation templates. When you use sources that are not in English you can leave the title in Estonian as is done in this article: Anija. It is even better to add the parameter |trans_title= | to the reference, where you provide a translation of the title, like I have done with the Swedish tiles in this article: John Bauer (illustrator). For an explanation about the bare ulrs, there is a guide here: Wikipedia:Link rot. As to the ref you provided, per WP:MOS which states how articles should be written, that should be something like this:

<ref>{{cite web|last=Tammiksaar|first=Erki|title=Climbing the Ararat 180 years after Parrot|url=http://www.muuseum.ut.ee/tuur/f1/eng.txt|website=www.muuseum.ut.ee|publisher=Tartu Ülikooli muuseum|accessdate=8 February 2015}}</ref>

Resulting in:

^[1]

References

For translating articles from other Wikipedias, this is an answer I gave at the Teahouse on a similar question some time ago:

• WPs in different languages have very different rules and standards. Articles and facts that are good to publish on one WP are not automatically OK for other WPs. That said, the English WP have one of the highest standards for articles among the WPs, so most articles that you find here could be considered on other WPs.

• If you translate texts from one WP you must also "bring along" the references for that text. If the text in the original language is unreferenced, you must find references yourself to support the text you have translated. Some WPs allow references in a foreign language, other prefer not to have them. You must ask this at the WP in the language you are planning to translate articles to. Most WPs have something similar to the Teahouse where you can ask. (Some of the are called "Cafés") A translators role on the WP is very different from translators in other places. When you translate a piece of text to a WP, you become responsible for that text in the same way as if you have written it yourself, you can't blame the first editor who wrote it if anything is wrong in it.

• You must put a template on the articles talk page about the translation. These templates should contain information about what article version the text is collected from and which version on the other WP that it is inserted to. See Template:Translated page, and here it is used on one talk page translated to the English WP. It is the small box with two flags. This is so that the editors that originally wrote the text get credited. There are similar templates/boxes on the WPs in other languages.

I think that about covers it. Looking at some more Estonian articles, I saw that most of them had the same problem with the references, no doubt inherited from the Estonian Wikipedia. I have a friend here at the EngWiki who writes articles about Estonian things, I can refer you if you have some specific Estonian questions. Best, w.carter-Talk 13:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I would actually even say that we have higher standards in et wiki than there are in en wiki (example: exact translation of FA from English would have very limited chance of getting even QA status). But due to the small number of editors it is very hard to provide constant quality and very high % of articles are work in progress.

This translation template is somewhat in disgrace in et wiki and we actually have rather few exact translations anyway.

I have no plan to learn the local templates in en wiki and this is one of the reasons why I have made so few edits in here over the years. People who are more familiar with it can do it much more easily. It's not that I am aiming for QA-s or anything. More like filling in some empty blanks with short articles to have at least something in a topic. Ivo (talk) 13:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The rules are exactly the same for all articles her, be they stubs or FAs. It's just that this WP too have too many editors who are unwilling to make the effort of treating every article with respect, saying like you do that that's how you're used to do things and I will continue to do so regardless of the rules. Very few editors know Estonian and cannot fill in the missing parts the way you can. w.carter-Talk 14:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Ooo, I know the rules. It is just that the ideal article and reality are two separate things. You got to start from somewhere and I would argue that a decent sub article is far better than the lack of it. Now naming the references I have made as "bare url-s" is something I would not agree in any position. Saying that I don't treat my articles in a good manner ... well, I would not agree on that one either. And there are actually quit a many Estonians around in this WP version. Finding additional sources isn't a thing that only I can do.

I'm also not saying that citing sources should not be done etc. It's just that I'm never going to contribute much to en wiki, as I don't see any good reason to study the local way of doing things (aka templates). I know perfectly well on how to do stuff in et wiki, but doing the same things here would require too much learning. It is easier to just avoid editing in this wiki and that's what I have done for most of nearly 9 years I have been around in WP.

Stating that I have responsibility to make thous articles perfect is just foolish. And it's also not like that I have translated some articles without taking references with them. In many cases I added new references to the source text in the process i.e. reworked the et wiki article. Ivo (talk) 19:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. We clearly have very different ideas about how to improve the English Wikipedia. All the best, w.carter-Talk 19:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess that any contribution that helps towards building a better encyclopedia is a good thing. Kind regards, Ivo (talk) 22:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Tartu Ülikool 350 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Philafrenzy (talk) 23:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

On 7 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tartu Ülikool 350, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in Tajikistan there is a mountain peak named after a university in Estonia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tartu Ülikool 350. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I reverted it because the picture had nothing to do with the article. No where in the article does it talk about light pollution. If you want to add info about light pollution within the article (with sources) and then add an image of it, that would be fine. But if you're just going to add a random picture in the lead with no talks of it in the article, it doesn't belong. Also, the content of the caption wasn't the best. I mean, just because light pollution interferes with an astronomical viewing, isn't the best way to convey light pollution. Take a look at the second image in the light pollution article. That image of New York would be a much better image to use to convey light pollution. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MicroLink, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BNS. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Please see Template:Infobox_film#Image - simply upload a new image over the existing file, and please do not edit war. Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

You continue to edit war. Please stop. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm following the general guidelines. That file should be deleted based on speedy deletion criteria. You have no right to revert that. Ivo (talk) 10:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at File:Truth and Justice (2019 film).jpg. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. ——Serial ^# 10:49, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Serial Number 54129. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:Lugnuts that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ——Serial ^# 10:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

The article Orkjärv bog has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable and has no citations since its creation in 2016. A search of possible citations in the news or JTOR reveals nothing

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:01, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Melchior Wakenstede is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melchior Wakenstede until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Ovinus (talk) 18:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Kruusamägi. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Kruusamägi. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— Meghmollar2017 (UTC) — 17:35, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:56, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@The Bushranger and what edit is that, that you are referring to? Ivo (talk) 00:59, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The overall tone is less than ideal, but specifically This one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:27, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

So, if I draw attention to a person who has gotten many blocks and whose edit history mostly consists of highly controversial edits, then instead of looking into that, it is better to tell me not to rock the boat? Or to be more accurate, around this hot topic, there are multiple users whose edit histories are all highly suspicious, but for some reason, no one seems to want to pay attention to that, and all the users who point out the problems in content are called sockpuppets and dismissed like this (?) Latvian. I have not really been active in en wiki, but what I am reading is not really looking great. And this is something that is very directly affecting content. If multiple users seem to work together on pushing a very specific point of view into hundreds of articles, then at that point, it is no longer only about the content, but also about protecting Wikipedia against manipulations. Why is there still no investigation? Ivo (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

If you have specific allegations about behaviour that needs to be investigated, make your case at an appropriate venue and support it with diffs, but vague references to "controversial edits" and "multiple users whose edit histories are all highly suspicious" is not helping anything. In any case, do not cast aspersions like "Russian propaganda sympathizers" on anyone, whether a specific editor or even (as you did) without naming anyone in particular. I would have thought that goes without saying, but anyway, it has now been said. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:03, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I have loads of diffs already. It's just a lot to read through, as some editors have been active for a long time. My question is more on the part on how it is possible that this clearly disruptive editing has gone almost unnoticed. How is that so? This is what I have a problem with. Ivo (talk) 17:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Again, since you don't point to specific issues, it's difficult to know what you're referring to. But I assume you realise that the English Wikipedia has nearly 50 million pages (7m+ articles) and over 50 million registered users? A lot of things can go unnoticed in amongst that. We can and will respond to issues that are raised, but if they're not raised, they don't necessarily get picked up by admins or ArbCom or whoever you feel should pick up on them. (And even if they are raised, the matters don't always get resolved to everyone's satisfaction, of course. Ask ten people how things should be done, and you probably get ten different answers!) I don't think that necessarily means there is some great conspiracy at play, if that's what you're alluding to. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I have been a long-time administrator on the Estonian Wikipedia, and I know well how annoying it is to deal with that. But it would not be even remotely that easy to push for a specific agenda in et wiki, and it would be really difficult not to get noticed. But here it is not hidden on some obscure topic and happens in plain sight, but there don't seem to be people questioning that. And in here I am referring to specific patterns that should raise alarms right away. Combining that information is just more time-consuming and cannot be done in a few evenings. But that is so obvious, and no one seems to stop to check that (you would not need to dig deep to notice that something is clearly off). That is a lot bigger problem than how someone's birthplace is classified. I was also born during the occupation time. This is a debatable and tricky issue that is not easy to solve, and that is understandable, and mistakes happen. That discussion would be reopened anyway, and it would get a better solution. But the bigger question is about how that happened, as editing patterns clearly show this was not a random thing. What I want to understand is the scale of that, and how vulnerable is en wiki. There is no way to build solutions without understanding the problem first. Ivo (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

iasiins iilm etsasthyyabsull eservitieservit ieheaiwoaw asilmadse stkahiuxonme iesurmawae nlasisii nmetzasjuban iipalioet ne ndegawaid leminemingi testaus atestwal imist estiaer apooletu testuur imistest ons amaliht sameelnenag usortzides uunaspi mesila pitil auakoorma gawehkimine tombakorr ax hingeningan naenda learuetkur iteostmit teteatami neon samu tikurit egunii etpal unteatak uhuwaia kiw ikottin ingloos ervitieik kaservitie ~2026-15103-5 (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

You have recently edited a page related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotitbro (talk • contribs) 05:14, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

What is the point of this? They have this same alert two posts above. And you didn't even sign. LordCollaboration (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Hopefully an honest mistake and not a passive-aggressive attempt at getting in the last word after the thread at Talk:Kaja Kallas got closed. Indrek (talk) 14:16, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

My bad, since the EE CT template is barely any different [in content] from the standard {{Contentious topics/alert/first}} template, mistook that alert for a standard one and not one specific to EE (need an update there sometime on). Gotitbro (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2026 (UTC)