Stop erasing sourced info you dislike. iki rule is to include RS covering all sides of the issue. If there is a side not represented it should be ADDED, rather than erase sourced material. You're new at Wikipedia and need to learn the rules. The topic in question is Russian-US relations and not the history of Crimea or Ukraine so we depend on experts on Russia and USA. see wp:DUE Rjensen ( talk) 00:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Turnless, I don't oppose your recent reverts here or at Commons. I do oppose your revert on the French Wikipedia which I will explain.
First, it is important to remember every Wikimedia project is separate. It is absolutely fine that your reverted my change to the file at Commons, it was a major change and there is no reason I can't just upload at a different title. On top of this, Commons isn't the place for Wikipedia-related content disputes. This is because each Wikipedia project is separate, so can of course choose to use different files for the same topic. Now, this is where I have an issue. You said I can't go around changing other wikis without discussion. Yet, there is no place for inter-Wikipedia discussions on content, and that isn't endorsed by any Wikipedia policy. If you are inferring I should start a discussion on the French Wikipedia, then you are also ignoring FR:WP:N'hésitez pas ! (largely the same guideline employed here, WP:Be bold). There is no reason why I cannot make a bold change to that template. If you are not willing to discuss the issue on the French Wikipedia, then you should not revert on the basis of lack of consensus elsewhere. If an editor on the French Wikipedia opposes, then of course I will have to discuss, following the commonly employed FR:WP:CRD procedure (here called WP:BRD). Otherwise, my edit is assumed to have consensus (per FR:WP:Consensus). So unless you are going to participate in a discussion there, could you please self-revert?
As for here, I completely respect your objections, and I will start a discussion on the matter at some point. However, I am going to wait until I have expanded the new version I uploaded to cover the rest of eastern Europe, and also when my exams are over.
Rob984 ( talk) 09:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
You have just put in a fine load of new figures for Russian cities in List of European cities by population within city limits, but now the figures don't match the references.
Where did you get the data? And could you please put the source as the reference on that page.
Thanks. Batternut ( talk) 11:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Here you go, Mr rnddude ( talk) 13:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if your updated location maps are improvements because at small size you can't really make out the watercourses. Anyway I have made the changes as requested. However I did wonder why you didn't just upload the new version of the images at the same title? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 19:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Your edits are controversial so please don't push them. Do not touch status quo and discuss only after discussion and consensus make major changes.-- g. balaxaZe ★ 20:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
As I have said before, the effects of these constitutional articles in the Belarusian and Lithuanian constitutions remains unknown, which makes it difficult to say that these countries do constitutionally ban on same-sex marriage. On top of that, by perceiving whether a country does have a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, evidences on whether the ultimate aim of writing the constitutional article was to ban same-sex marriage is needed. Armenian, Serbian, Latvian, Hungarian, Croatian, Polish, Slovakian Constitutions do clearly define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, as the aim of writing these articles were AIMED TO prohibit the legalization of same-sex marriage. There are no evidences to show that the aim of writing these articles in the Belarusian and Lithuanian Constitution were aimed to ban same-sex marriage.
According to the article 'Recognition of same-sex unions in Lithuania', a drive to amend the constitution to ban same-sex marriages was reportedly under way in 2005 by a conservative member of the parliament, who has begun to start collecting signatures for such amendment. Julius Sabatauskas, chairman of the parliament's Legal Committee, however, denounced the plan. Some MPs say Lithuania's constitution already bans same-sex marriage. This proved that not only the original nature of the constitutional article was NOT aimed to ban same-sex marriage, but also proved that there is no clear interpretation on the constitution article even among the Lithuanian politicians.
As for Belarus, the definition of marriage in the constitution may sound heteronormative, but there is no proof that the constitutional article was aimed to prohibit same-sex marriage legislation in Belarus, as no legal institutions has ever applied the article to declare that the legalization of same-sex marriage in Belarus is unconstitutional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathankwanhc ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Russia occupies Crimea and illegally annected it like Nazi Germany during WWII occupied and annected many lands. Xx236 ( talk) 07:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
In the future if you have any kind of question in regard to conflict regions please use talk page instead of walking near the path of edit warring. -- g. balaxaZe ★ 18:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban
may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by first reading the
guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
Drmies (
talk)
00:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC) |
Hello, Turnless. 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)
Stop erasing sourced info you dislike. iki rule is to include RS covering all sides of the issue. If there is a side not represented it should be ADDED, rather than erase sourced material. You're new at Wikipedia and need to learn the rules. The topic in question is Russian-US relations and not the history of Crimea or Ukraine so we depend on experts on Russia and USA. see wp:DUE Rjensen ( talk) 00:36, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Turnless, I don't oppose your recent reverts here or at Commons. I do oppose your revert on the French Wikipedia which I will explain.
First, it is important to remember every Wikimedia project is separate. It is absolutely fine that your reverted my change to the file at Commons, it was a major change and there is no reason I can't just upload at a different title. On top of this, Commons isn't the place for Wikipedia-related content disputes. This is because each Wikipedia project is separate, so can of course choose to use different files for the same topic. Now, this is where I have an issue. You said I can't go around changing other wikis without discussion. Yet, there is no place for inter-Wikipedia discussions on content, and that isn't endorsed by any Wikipedia policy. If you are inferring I should start a discussion on the French Wikipedia, then you are also ignoring FR:WP:N'hésitez pas ! (largely the same guideline employed here, WP:Be bold). There is no reason why I cannot make a bold change to that template. If you are not willing to discuss the issue on the French Wikipedia, then you should not revert on the basis of lack of consensus elsewhere. If an editor on the French Wikipedia opposes, then of course I will have to discuss, following the commonly employed FR:WP:CRD procedure (here called WP:BRD). Otherwise, my edit is assumed to have consensus (per FR:WP:Consensus). So unless you are going to participate in a discussion there, could you please self-revert?
As for here, I completely respect your objections, and I will start a discussion on the matter at some point. However, I am going to wait until I have expanded the new version I uploaded to cover the rest of eastern Europe, and also when my exams are over.
Rob984 ( talk) 09:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
You have just put in a fine load of new figures for Russian cities in List of European cities by population within city limits, but now the figures don't match the references.
Where did you get the data? And could you please put the source as the reference on that page.
Thanks. Batternut ( talk) 11:16, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Here you go, Mr rnddude ( talk) 13:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure if your updated location maps are improvements because at small size you can't really make out the watercourses. Anyway I have made the changes as requested. However I did wonder why you didn't just upload the new version of the images at the same title? — Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 19:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Your edits are controversial so please don't push them. Do not touch status quo and discuss only after discussion and consensus make major changes.-- g. balaxaZe ★ 20:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
As I have said before, the effects of these constitutional articles in the Belarusian and Lithuanian constitutions remains unknown, which makes it difficult to say that these countries do constitutionally ban on same-sex marriage. On top of that, by perceiving whether a country does have a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage, evidences on whether the ultimate aim of writing the constitutional article was to ban same-sex marriage is needed. Armenian, Serbian, Latvian, Hungarian, Croatian, Polish, Slovakian Constitutions do clearly define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, as the aim of writing these articles were AIMED TO prohibit the legalization of same-sex marriage. There are no evidences to show that the aim of writing these articles in the Belarusian and Lithuanian Constitution were aimed to ban same-sex marriage.
According to the article 'Recognition of same-sex unions in Lithuania', a drive to amend the constitution to ban same-sex marriages was reportedly under way in 2005 by a conservative member of the parliament, who has begun to start collecting signatures for such amendment. Julius Sabatauskas, chairman of the parliament's Legal Committee, however, denounced the plan. Some MPs say Lithuania's constitution already bans same-sex marriage. This proved that not only the original nature of the constitutional article was NOT aimed to ban same-sex marriage, but also proved that there is no clear interpretation on the constitution article even among the Lithuanian politicians.
As for Belarus, the definition of marriage in the constitution may sound heteronormative, but there is no proof that the constitutional article was aimed to prohibit same-sex marriage legislation in Belarus, as no legal institutions has ever applied the article to declare that the legalization of same-sex marriage in Belarus is unconstitutional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathankwanhc ( talk • contribs) 17:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Russia occupies Crimea and illegally annected it like Nazi Germany during WWII occupied and annected many lands. Xx236 ( talk) 07:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
In the future if you have any kind of question in regard to conflict regions please use talk page instead of walking near the path of edit warring. -- g. balaxaZe ★ 18:40, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This account has been
blocked indefinitely as a
sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is
allowed, but using them for
illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban
may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may
appeal this block by first reading the
guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{
unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.
Drmies (
talk)
00:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC) |
Hello, Turnless. 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)