This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
The reason I made those detailed changes was that putting "Russian Children" first and then the amount of women and girls made it look like 2 million babies were born if you didn't read it carefully. Wouldn't you agree it's better structured the way I put it? -- Steverci ( talk) 00:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Someone is trying to paint /info/en/?search=Ben_Klassen as Ukrainian.-- Galassi ( talk) 15:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
At ANI but called something about trouble ahead. Doug Weller talk 06:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I hope you are doing well, and wish that you'll have a pleasant new year. RGloucester — ☎ 22:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Iryna, I do not think that blanket removal of galleries in "ethnic pages" is such a good idea. By the same logic, one should remove all images of people in these pages. And remember that there was no edit wars on most pages with such images. I think that having even a random sample of notable people of certain ethnicity is actually informative in the aspect of how they look like. My very best wishes ( talk) 00:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Iryna, thanks for editing my contribution of Palestinian Canadians, but I disagree with the removal of my contribution, because your editing affected negatively the article, you removed along with the figures the flags also! back to the figures, I think your editing is not such constructive because all these figures are Canadians of Palestinian descent and all referrals were linked to Wikipedia, so by removing them you only damage the article. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stifan ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Can you please redo the page to 02:47, 21 December 2015?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.Brooklyn.Muller ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
ви хоча б поверніть статтю як було до мене!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stifan ( talk • contribs) 01:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Romanians reverted first with "Undo vandalism." then with "As per sources. There was no 2014 census and the other figures were falsified". What's falsified? Am I missing something? Please ping, watchlist full. Cheers Jim1138 ( talk) 09:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I saw you called the discussion at the ANI regarding Volunteer Marek's behavior "silly". I started that thread because of a pretty obvious violation of WP:TITLECHANGES ("Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged....Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made") I'm sorry that a user appeared who started unrelated threats against other users, but what has this to do with my request? The closing of the threat just shows that nobody actually cares about WP:RM. And once again, it wasn't about the dispute, it's about the sheer ignorance of rules. HerkusMonte ( talk) 06:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I put references in White Peruvians. I revert this reference in white colombians, the source is on a promotion duel between Shakira and Sofia Vergara is not a serious source, sorry but I'm more concerned about the reliability of Wikipedia that you-- You'll come back ( talk) 00:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I have offered my description as description, not definition. Do you have a reliable source indicating that such a roundup and resulting arrests did not take place? Diranakir ( talk) 04:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- LouisAragon ( talk) 02:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
It is very kind of you to give me the benefit of the doubt. but I am afraid I can't return the favour. Indeed, you have removed my edits twice in a matter of minutes without explanation. You cannot remove well sourced content from Wikipedia just because you do not like it and ask those who want to keep it to demonstrate that it is relevant. The onus is clearly on you to demonstrate that it is irrelevant. Göndul ( talk) 01:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
"Indeed, you have removed my edits twice in a matter of minutes without explanation."Where? !) My single revert for the article complete with edit summary. Do not cast WP:ASPERSIONS as to other editor's behaviour. 2) My single reversion to the talk page complete with edit summary. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 03:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
"It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial.". This does not cover WP:POINTy changes to the neutral heading to WP:POV heading as you did here.
"Also your reverting me in a matter of minutes in support of the other editor is highly suspicious."and
"... go to the talk page instead of issuing threats."Where have "threatened" you? Do you even understand what "threat" means for the purposes of Wikipedia. Enough. I'm not engaging with you any further until you make an attempt to WP:LISTEN. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 05:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Iryna -- I'm reading the article on Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich of Russia, and I've got to ask you something. In the last paragraph in the section Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich of Russia#Military career is the following sentence:
I wondered whether "Preobrazhenskoy" should be "Preobrazhensky", which would match the linked term two sentences back. Corinne ( talk) 22:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Iryna, I hope you've had a lovely Christmas and Silvester. Sorry for bothering you about this again, as I'd understand completely if you didn't want to have anything to do with this by now, but I feel there might finally be a solution to this issue regarding Poland. This time it seems as though the question here is phrased better and allows for a more productive discussion. Plus it seems to me like the best and most encyclopedic option out of all the possibly feasible compromises between the two camps. I'd love to hear your views on the matter, whether you'd support the idea or not - your input in previous discussions about this was more mature and insightful than most of what I read (and wrote) there. -- Samotny Wędrowiec ( talk) 15:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Iryna. It's necessary to delete the ethnic galleries in Afro-Latin Americans and Afro-American peoples of the Americas? -- Bleckter ( talk) 06:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Iryna Harpy. I don't think Special:Contributions/Bizertshine these are in accordance with what was covered in that RfC and what is not in WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. I guess there's a chance of WP:POINTY since it is a fairly new account, but they might have been made in good faith. Any suggestions on how to proceed? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members, because selecting them is normally original research, and often contentious (see the corresponding discussion).
Hi Iryina. I tried to add material to the infobox of Australia Act 1986, which needs the Australian and UK versions listed separately for reasons that are outlined in the article. But, whatever I attempt, some material in both parts doesn't appear. Can you assist? Wikiain ( talk) 13:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
G'day, Iryna! Thanks for your thanks for my edit on Sameboat's talk page. Perchance, are you also interested in SVG? cmɢʟee⎆ τaʟκ
I have re-edited that contentious paragraph on Romani People, since it seems to ignore the content and purpose of the pragmatica and aims to picture it solely as an instrument of persecution. This is historically incorrect and contrary to what is claimed in all historical sources. I also do not feel that saying it failed because "the rest of the population rejected it" is a statement which can be made given the weakness of sources (one passing/sweeping statement in a generalist book of European history). There are a number of specialized studies specifically on this topic and none make such a statement. If required I will provide them. Thanks. Asilah1981 ( talk) 11:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, as mentioned, I would suggest you discuss on talk page any qualms you have in terms of supporting sources before reverting my edits. It is a more constructive attitude and in line with assuming good faith. I have added more secondary sources but can provide more. Asilah1981 ( talk) 10:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I apologise if I was rude to you on Talk:Belarusian phonology last year. Peter238 ( talk) 00:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Did you even read what I've said?Regarding Russian History Template Box...It displays properly on my screen so I have no issues with that there...If you use 150px image(in your version) then there are overlapping words.Which doesn't look nice and it's hard to read it(in 1991 section) ...I'm using my laptop with screen size 1360 x 768 (16:9) Perhaps it is different on other resolutions and/or your screen. However as I'm speaking for myself. With my screen resolution there are overlapping words...(test it yourself if you don't believe me...) The only downside that I see with 300px image is that it's not to the so called "norm" however it is not overly exaggerated ,or ugly either, for that matter .On my screen it looks perfect. As I've said before ...Either fix the overlapping text or don't touch it. I will personally try my best to make it look properly and have the same layout as other templates. However ,I value(as I imagine others also do) quality over quantity...I would rather have everything properly displayed and in place than having it be to the same standard but looking ugly and out of place. Hope you understand where I'm coming from...
Freaking thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobrom ( talk • contribs) 02:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I have re-edited that contentious paragraph on Romani People, since it seems to ignore the content and purpose of the pragmatica and aims to picture it solely as an instrument of persecution. This is historically incorrect and contrary to what is claimed in all historical sources. I also do not feel that saying it failed because "the rest of the population rejected it" is a statement which can be made given the weakness of sources (one passing/sweeping statement in a generalist book of European history). There are a number of specialized studies specifically on this topic and none make such a statement. If required I will provide them. Thanks. Asilah1981 ( talk) 11:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, as mentioned, I would suggest you discuss on talk page any qualms you have in terms of supporting sources before reverting my edits. It is a more constructive attitude and in line with assuming good faith. I have added more secondary sources but can provide more. Asilah1981 ( talk) 10:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I apologise if I was rude to you on Talk:Belarusian phonology last year. Peter238 ( talk) 00:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Did you even read what I've said?Regarding Russian History Template Box...It displays properly on my screen so I have no issues with that there...If you use 150px image(in your version) then there are overlapping words.Which doesn't look nice and it's hard to read it(in 1991 section) ...I'm using my laptop with screen size 1360 x 768 (16:9) Perhaps it is different on other resolutions and/or your screen. However as I'm speaking for myself. With my screen resolution there are overlapping words...(test it yourself if you don't believe me...) The only downside that I see with 300px image is that it's not to the so called "norm" however it is not overly exaggerated ,or ugly either, for that matter .On my screen it looks perfect. As I've said before ...Either fix the overlapping text or don't touch it. I will personally try my best to make it look properly and have the same layout as other templates. However ,I value(as I imagine others also do) quality over quantity...I would rather have everything properly displayed and in place than having it be to the same standard but looking ugly and out of place. Hope you understand where I'm coming from...
Freaking thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobrom ( talk • contribs) 02:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi.
My intents were to showcase those nationalities with considerable immigration numbers with a reliable source. 66.50.193.57 ( talk) 03:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Glad you understood. Thanks! 66.50.193.57 ( talk) 03:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
Thank you for your valuable contributions to Victor Maghakian. I created that article quite some time ago and didn't notice how much work was needed. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 03:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC) |
Hi, could you clarify the situation for me? Re: "Please wait until the unfree photo is approved on WikiCommons." As it was a non-free image, I did not upload it to the Wikimedia Commons, but to Wikipedia for exclusive use in the article. (At least that was my understanding of the process). I used Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. It's also my understanding that non-free images, which are not used in any article, are subject to automatic deletion. That is why I added it to the article. So it's unclear to me what the next step is or what to expect. I would appreciate your insights. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm watching what is going on and back you up. The IP is mistaken. Akld guy ( talk) 08:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
How are you?
According to Stats New Zealand the number of Jews (recorded in the 2013 Census) is 1,353. You state your source is the 2013 Census - but it cannot be - please refer to the URL below.
I don't believe you are deliberately providing misleading information - simply that your figure is out of date.
Awaiting your reply.
Thanks & Regards,
Wiki corrector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.103.3 ( talk) 08:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Iryna,
I've just done a little more delving and it appears that the 6,800+ figure is from the 2006 Census (or possibly earlier), the 2013 Census does state 1,353 recorded as Jews.
Please reply - or, if you wish, just correct the Wiki page.
Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.103.3 ( talk) 08:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
"The Israeli/Jewish ethnic group...".
Hi. An anonymous editor (IP) ignores my edits and tries to insert his/her personal commentary in Tajikistan. Would you please write your opinion on talk page? Thanks. Talk:Tajikistan#Anonymous_editor_.28IP.29_and_Russian_language -- Zyma ( talk) 13:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
It is well recorded by multiple sources, books and newspapers, as you can see in the article Kalustyan's. I can add citation in the Armenian Americans article if you like.
See for example:
Incidentally I have personally observed the neighborhood getting transformed since 1970s (but you don't have to trust me) Malaiya ( talk) 05:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Iryna,
I've filed a dispute resolution request and named you as a party. Link in here:
Hopefully we can talk this out productively
128.97.68.15 ( talk) 19:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Show a reliable source that explains that there are 300,000 Afghan Americans. The internet is full of false information and extreme POV pushers, such information has to be verified. It must be removed if it is unsourced, especially if it based on own research and contradicts U.S. government sources. You're from Australia, you don't know much about America.-- Krzyhorse22 ( talk) 09:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
"A general estimate of the Afghan population in the US is over 300,000."
Hi, you left me a message because I edited the page Manx American without explanations. Actually the thing is that I noticed a member ( Elevatorrailfan) has edited the page English American and change the related ethnic groups and say English American are related to other Germanic Americans rather than Welsh Americans, Scottish Americans, Scotch-Irish Americans and Irish Americans. He also edited a description about Scottish Americans which I found correct that said despite their presence in the northern states, they were mainly found in the southern states such as the Carolinas, Kentucky, Tennessee and Texas.
I know English people have germanic roots but in the past centuries, they have been more mixing between English and other celtics group (Welsh, Scottish and Irish) rather than Germans, especially in America since this page is about English American.
This member persists to linked English American with German American or Dutch American. I also saw on his talk page that he had had several complaints and has been blocked by the administrator because of its changes. The question I want to ask you is whether it was possible to put the pages English American, Welsh Americans, Scottish Americans, Scotch-Irish Americans and Irish Americans like it was before (only the related groups and the description for Scottish American).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.214.36.134 ( talk) 00:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Would you be interested in helping translate Russian articles on the Great Patriotic War - principally units and battles? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hallo there.
Can I ask why you reverted my edit when all I did was correct a mistake? The other editor had wrongly linked to the Republic of Crimea article when the link should be to Republic of Crimea (country). I can't believe that my edit is controversial so why revert it? Qaz1984 ( talk) 22:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
-- LetraCarta ( talk) 01:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
The reason I made those detailed changes was that putting "Russian Children" first and then the amount of women and girls made it look like 2 million babies were born if you didn't read it carefully. Wouldn't you agree it's better structured the way I put it? -- Steverci ( talk) 00:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Someone is trying to paint /info/en/?search=Ben_Klassen as Ukrainian.-- Galassi ( talk) 15:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
At ANI but called something about trouble ahead. Doug Weller talk 06:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I hope you are doing well, and wish that you'll have a pleasant new year. RGloucester — ☎ 22:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Iryna, I do not think that blanket removal of galleries in "ethnic pages" is such a good idea. By the same logic, one should remove all images of people in these pages. And remember that there was no edit wars on most pages with such images. I think that having even a random sample of notable people of certain ethnicity is actually informative in the aspect of how they look like. My very best wishes ( talk) 00:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Iryna, thanks for editing my contribution of Palestinian Canadians, but I disagree with the removal of my contribution, because your editing affected negatively the article, you removed along with the figures the flags also! back to the figures, I think your editing is not such constructive because all these figures are Canadians of Palestinian descent and all referrals were linked to Wikipedia, so by removing them you only damage the article. Thanks— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stifan ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Can you please redo the page to 02:47, 21 December 2015?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter.Brooklyn.Muller ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
ви хоча б поверніть статтю як було до мене!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Stifan ( talk • contribs) 01:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Romanians reverted first with "Undo vandalism." then with "As per sources. There was no 2014 census and the other figures were falsified". What's falsified? Am I missing something? Please ping, watchlist full. Cheers Jim1138 ( talk) 09:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I saw you called the discussion at the ANI regarding Volunteer Marek's behavior "silly". I started that thread because of a pretty obvious violation of WP:TITLECHANGES ("Changing one controversial title to another without a discussion that leads to consensus is strongly discouraged....Any potentially controversial proposal to change a title should be advertised at Wikipedia:Requested moves, and consensus reached before any change is made") I'm sorry that a user appeared who started unrelated threats against other users, but what has this to do with my request? The closing of the threat just shows that nobody actually cares about WP:RM. And once again, it wasn't about the dispute, it's about the sheer ignorance of rules. HerkusMonte ( talk) 06:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I put references in White Peruvians. I revert this reference in white colombians, the source is on a promotion duel between Shakira and Sofia Vergara is not a serious source, sorry but I'm more concerned about the reliability of Wikipedia that you-- You'll come back ( talk) 00:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I have offered my description as description, not definition. Do you have a reliable source indicating that such a roundup and resulting arrests did not take place? Diranakir ( talk) 04:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- LouisAragon ( talk) 02:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
There is an RfC at Template talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes concerning what should be allowed in the religion entry in infoboxes. Please join the discussion and help us to arrive at a consensus on this issue. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:10, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
It is very kind of you to give me the benefit of the doubt. but I am afraid I can't return the favour. Indeed, you have removed my edits twice in a matter of minutes without explanation. You cannot remove well sourced content from Wikipedia just because you do not like it and ask those who want to keep it to demonstrate that it is relevant. The onus is clearly on you to demonstrate that it is irrelevant. Göndul ( talk) 01:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
"Indeed, you have removed my edits twice in a matter of minutes without explanation."Where? !) My single revert for the article complete with edit summary. Do not cast WP:ASPERSIONS as to other editor's behaviour. 2) My single reversion to the talk page complete with edit summary. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 03:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
"It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better header is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial.". This does not cover WP:POINTy changes to the neutral heading to WP:POV heading as you did here.
"Also your reverting me in a matter of minutes in support of the other editor is highly suspicious."and
"... go to the talk page instead of issuing threats."Where have "threatened" you? Do you even understand what "threat" means for the purposes of Wikipedia. Enough. I'm not engaging with you any further until you make an attempt to WP:LISTEN. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 05:34, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Iryna -- I'm reading the article on Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich of Russia, and I've got to ask you something. In the last paragraph in the section Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich of Russia#Military career is the following sentence:
I wondered whether "Preobrazhenskoy" should be "Preobrazhensky", which would match the linked term two sentences back. Corinne ( talk) 22:30, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Iryna, I hope you've had a lovely Christmas and Silvester. Sorry for bothering you about this again, as I'd understand completely if you didn't want to have anything to do with this by now, but I feel there might finally be a solution to this issue regarding Poland. This time it seems as though the question here is phrased better and allows for a more productive discussion. Plus it seems to me like the best and most encyclopedic option out of all the possibly feasible compromises between the two camps. I'd love to hear your views on the matter, whether you'd support the idea or not - your input in previous discussions about this was more mature and insightful than most of what I read (and wrote) there. -- Samotny Wędrowiec ( talk) 15:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Iryna. It's necessary to delete the ethnic galleries in Afro-Latin Americans and Afro-American peoples of the Americas? -- Bleckter ( talk) 06:56, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Iryna Harpy. I don't think Special:Contributions/Bizertshine these are in accordance with what was covered in that RfC and what is not in WP:NOETHNICGALLERIES. I guess there's a chance of WP:POINTY since it is a fairly new account, but they might have been made in good faith. Any suggestions on how to proceed? -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Articles about ethnic groups or similarly large human populations should not be illustrated by a gallery of images of group members, because selecting them is normally original research, and often contentious (see the corresponding discussion).
Hi Iryina. I tried to add material to the infobox of Australia Act 1986, which needs the Australian and UK versions listed separately for reasons that are outlined in the article. But, whatever I attempt, some material in both parts doesn't appear. Can you assist? Wikiain ( talk) 13:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
G'day, Iryna! Thanks for your thanks for my edit on Sameboat's talk page. Perchance, are you also interested in SVG? cmɢʟee⎆ τaʟκ
I have re-edited that contentious paragraph on Romani People, since it seems to ignore the content and purpose of the pragmatica and aims to picture it solely as an instrument of persecution. This is historically incorrect and contrary to what is claimed in all historical sources. I also do not feel that saying it failed because "the rest of the population rejected it" is a statement which can be made given the weakness of sources (one passing/sweeping statement in a generalist book of European history). There are a number of specialized studies specifically on this topic and none make such a statement. If required I will provide them. Thanks. Asilah1981 ( talk) 11:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, as mentioned, I would suggest you discuss on talk page any qualms you have in terms of supporting sources before reverting my edits. It is a more constructive attitude and in line with assuming good faith. I have added more secondary sources but can provide more. Asilah1981 ( talk) 10:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I apologise if I was rude to you on Talk:Belarusian phonology last year. Peter238 ( talk) 00:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Did you even read what I've said?Regarding Russian History Template Box...It displays properly on my screen so I have no issues with that there...If you use 150px image(in your version) then there are overlapping words.Which doesn't look nice and it's hard to read it(in 1991 section) ...I'm using my laptop with screen size 1360 x 768 (16:9) Perhaps it is different on other resolutions and/or your screen. However as I'm speaking for myself. With my screen resolution there are overlapping words...(test it yourself if you don't believe me...) The only downside that I see with 300px image is that it's not to the so called "norm" however it is not overly exaggerated ,or ugly either, for that matter .On my screen it looks perfect. As I've said before ...Either fix the overlapping text or don't touch it. I will personally try my best to make it look properly and have the same layout as other templates. However ,I value(as I imagine others also do) quality over quantity...I would rather have everything properly displayed and in place than having it be to the same standard but looking ugly and out of place. Hope you understand where I'm coming from...
Freaking thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobrom ( talk • contribs) 02:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
I have re-edited that contentious paragraph on Romani People, since it seems to ignore the content and purpose of the pragmatica and aims to picture it solely as an instrument of persecution. This is historically incorrect and contrary to what is claimed in all historical sources. I also do not feel that saying it failed because "the rest of the population rejected it" is a statement which can be made given the weakness of sources (one passing/sweeping statement in a generalist book of European history). There are a number of specialized studies specifically on this topic and none make such a statement. If required I will provide them. Thanks. Asilah1981 ( talk) 11:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, as mentioned, I would suggest you discuss on talk page any qualms you have in terms of supporting sources before reverting my edits. It is a more constructive attitude and in line with assuming good faith. I have added more secondary sources but can provide more. Asilah1981 ( talk) 10:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. I apologise if I was rude to you on Talk:Belarusian phonology last year. Peter238 ( talk) 00:48, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Did you even read what I've said?Regarding Russian History Template Box...It displays properly on my screen so I have no issues with that there...If you use 150px image(in your version) then there are overlapping words.Which doesn't look nice and it's hard to read it(in 1991 section) ...I'm using my laptop with screen size 1360 x 768 (16:9) Perhaps it is different on other resolutions and/or your screen. However as I'm speaking for myself. With my screen resolution there are overlapping words...(test it yourself if you don't believe me...) The only downside that I see with 300px image is that it's not to the so called "norm" however it is not overly exaggerated ,or ugly either, for that matter .On my screen it looks perfect. As I've said before ...Either fix the overlapping text or don't touch it. I will personally try my best to make it look properly and have the same layout as other templates. However ,I value(as I imagine others also do) quality over quantity...I would rather have everything properly displayed and in place than having it be to the same standard but looking ugly and out of place. Hope you understand where I'm coming from...
Freaking thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobrom ( talk • contribs) 02:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi.
My intents were to showcase those nationalities with considerable immigration numbers with a reliable source. 66.50.193.57 ( talk) 03:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Glad you understood. Thanks! 66.50.193.57 ( talk) 03:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
Thank you for your valuable contributions to Victor Maghakian. I created that article quite some time ago and didn't notice how much work was needed. Étienne Dolet ( talk) 03:44, 30 January 2016 (UTC) |
Hi, could you clarify the situation for me? Re: "Please wait until the unfree photo is approved on WikiCommons." As it was a non-free image, I did not upload it to the Wikimedia Commons, but to Wikipedia for exclusive use in the article. (At least that was my understanding of the process). I used Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. It's also my understanding that non-free images, which are not used in any article, are subject to automatic deletion. That is why I added it to the article. So it's unclear to me what the next step is or what to expect. I would appreciate your insights. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm watching what is going on and back you up. The IP is mistaken. Akld guy ( talk) 08:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
How are you?
According to Stats New Zealand the number of Jews (recorded in the 2013 Census) is 1,353. You state your source is the 2013 Census - but it cannot be - please refer to the URL below.
I don't believe you are deliberately providing misleading information - simply that your figure is out of date.
Awaiting your reply.
Thanks & Regards,
Wiki corrector. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.103.3 ( talk) 08:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi Iryna,
I've just done a little more delving and it appears that the 6,800+ figure is from the 2006 Census (or possibly earlier), the 2013 Census does state 1,353 recorded as Jews.
Please reply - or, if you wish, just correct the Wiki page.
Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.74.103.3 ( talk) 08:52, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
"The Israeli/Jewish ethnic group...".
Hi. An anonymous editor (IP) ignores my edits and tries to insert his/her personal commentary in Tajikistan. Would you please write your opinion on talk page? Thanks. Talk:Tajikistan#Anonymous_editor_.28IP.29_and_Russian_language -- Zyma ( talk) 13:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
It is well recorded by multiple sources, books and newspapers, as you can see in the article Kalustyan's. I can add citation in the Armenian Americans article if you like.
See for example:
Incidentally I have personally observed the neighborhood getting transformed since 1970s (but you don't have to trust me) Malaiya ( talk) 05:03, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Iryna,
I've filed a dispute resolution request and named you as a party. Link in here:
Hopefully we can talk this out productively
128.97.68.15 ( talk) 19:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Show a reliable source that explains that there are 300,000 Afghan Americans. The internet is full of false information and extreme POV pushers, such information has to be verified. It must be removed if it is unsourced, especially if it based on own research and contradicts U.S. government sources. You're from Australia, you don't know much about America.-- Krzyhorse22 ( talk) 09:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
"A general estimate of the Afghan population in the US is over 300,000."
Hi, you left me a message because I edited the page Manx American without explanations. Actually the thing is that I noticed a member ( Elevatorrailfan) has edited the page English American and change the related ethnic groups and say English American are related to other Germanic Americans rather than Welsh Americans, Scottish Americans, Scotch-Irish Americans and Irish Americans. He also edited a description about Scottish Americans which I found correct that said despite their presence in the northern states, they were mainly found in the southern states such as the Carolinas, Kentucky, Tennessee and Texas.
I know English people have germanic roots but in the past centuries, they have been more mixing between English and other celtics group (Welsh, Scottish and Irish) rather than Germans, especially in America since this page is about English American.
This member persists to linked English American with German American or Dutch American. I also saw on his talk page that he had had several complaints and has been blocked by the administrator because of its changes. The question I want to ask you is whether it was possible to put the pages English American, Welsh Americans, Scottish Americans, Scotch-Irish Americans and Irish Americans like it was before (only the related groups and the description for Scottish American).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.214.36.134 ( talk) 00:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Would you be interested in helping translate Russian articles on the Great Patriotic War - principally units and battles? Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 22:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hallo there.
Can I ask why you reverted my edit when all I did was correct a mistake? The other editor had wrongly linked to the Republic of Crimea article when the link should be to Republic of Crimea (country). I can't believe that my edit is controversial so why revert it? Qaz1984 ( talk) 22:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
-- LetraCarta ( talk) 01:50, 14 February 2016 (UTC)