This page 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.

Hello, Therexbanner! I see you've expanded several lists of Russian people. Thank you for your work, but I have one minor advice for you: don't make such notes as "famous geologist" or "notable biologist". Either explain why they are famous and notable, or just write "geologist", "biologist" etc., and better without linking the occupation.

Also, recently we've started a number of topic-specific task forces for Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia. You may see the list of task forces here. If you like the idea of participation in some of the task forces, sign-up for them formally, or just add the relevant task force pages to your watchlist. I suppose you might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Science and technology in Russia task force or Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Sports and games in Russia task force. Cheers! GreyHood ^Talk 22:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the tips! I'll just write the profession, as a placeholder, because it is a bit difficult adding a summary for 20+ people for each list. I may do that after I've added the people.

On a related note, I have started the sports list at> User:Therexbanner/List of Russians in sports, feel free to add or edit it in anyway.

Also, it's huge (many of the "Russian sportspeople" categories have sub-categories, etc.) so if you know of a way of getting other interested people in contributing, that would be great. Regards,-- Therexbanner ( talk) 23:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I've inserted a link to your list into Wikipedia:WikiProject Russia/Sports and games in Russia task force. I'll be glad to help you with this list later, if I have more free time. Right now I'm a bit busy with task forces. If you really need more people to participate in developing the list (rather than filling the list yourself), I'd advice you to move it into the main space, insert the link to Template:Lists of Russians and such articles as List of sportspeople and Sport in Russia. GreyHood ^Talk 23:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

your revert was unjustified you could participate in discussion rather than blind reverts, comeover and discuss in the talk page, the last participant was me, no one responded!-- Lutfi.Saad ( talk) 21:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Trying to remove an end-around of WP:EGRS that's being exploited. You've expressed interest in the past. Already 4 days into the certification poll.
-- William Allen Simpson ( talk) 05:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

The April 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
-- Kumioko ( talk) 01:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

The May 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
.-- Kumioko ( talk) 02:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The June 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
-- Kumioko ( talk) 23:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks from keeping the Russia article free from vandalism. Good job! Alphasinus ( talk) 20:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem :)-- Therexbanner ( talk) 21:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Therexbanner. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll be very careful when using it.-- Therexbanner ( talk) 21:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

United States National Archives WikiProject

Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts. There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic· t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi there! We seem to be entering a bit of a circular argument at Race and sports. I think this is not because we are in conflict, but because we are approaching the problem from a different perspective.

It might be worth thinking about what you believe a neutral point of view consists of: it should not be one's personal point of view, or even the correct point of view (what ever that may be). There is nothing negative about holding an opinion, but it can be restricting if we allow that opinion to narrow our thoughts – it is the problem of cognitive dissonance. It is possible to consider contrary perceptions whilst still maintaining belief in your own. You sound like a very reasonable and expressive person and I think you could gain so much more from thinking about why you think certain things are right or wrong. Analyse the drivers of thought processes in both yourself and others.

An ability to hold two contrary beliefs can prove a very useful tool in everything from physics to the arts. I have found this to be an immense help in my own learning, especially in relation to foreign cultures. If anything, it can help you understand why people hold such contrary opinions to your own (beyond the convenient fallacies of "because they are dumb/wrong/etc"). I hope what I'm saying is of some use to you and is not just uninvited twaddle! SFB 23:15, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is a lot of confusion in this case. What I am opposed to is singling out black people (however one can define that) when there is no reason to do so. The only research that concentrates more on the issue is fringe. I have yet to be provided with reliable good-sourced research proving this is a special issue/case.

So far it seem that stereotypes related to race/ethnicity cover various races, (from "white people can't jump", to "black people can't swim", to "asians being good at ping pong", etc.)

I am absolutely for keeping information on the actual biases, general discrepancies, and their explanations. But I am opposed to concentrating on one stereotype, which in my view, has no prevalence over the others. That is a very basic description of my stance.

My understanding of NPOV in this case is keeping a balanced point of view that represents all sides of the argument. This means including information on steretypes against people of all races (which exist in abundance), and their explanations/rebuttals. Changing the article to "black athletic superiority" violates every aspect of NPOV, starting with the title itself, no matter how you look at it.-- Therexbanner ( talk) 12:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
-- Kumioko ( talk) 14:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The September 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
-- Kumioko ( talk) 02:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:VANDAL. The edits to Scythians was not vandalism; it may be a content dispute, it may even be wrong, but vandalism is defined by policy as someone intentionally trying to damage Wikipedia. Furthermore, even if it were vandalism, it's not so bad that it deserves an only warning. I understand that this issue bothers you, but please try not to inflame the situation by using heavily loaded terms and aggression towards the IP. If the IP keeps up the disruptive editing, xe'll be blocked eventually, but it only makes things worse to label something like that vandalism. Qwyrxian ( talk) 00:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I templated the IP (geoloc. Iran) that added turkic people everywhere. It has nothing to do with the dispute on the talk page (different IP user- geoloc. USA), please pay more attention.

The vandal IP repeatedly (after being warned in the edit history) inserted unverified and clearly inaccurate information.

That same vandal (see contrib. history) insulted an ethnic group (that post was deleted later) and a person on the sycthian talk page.-- Therexbanner ( talk) 13:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

PS. The article semi-protection was requested against that vandal, and not for the content dispute. Constantly inserting text that has nothing to do with the article (and that which is unsourced, unlike everything else), is vandalism. If I went to the George Bush article and started inserting "he was Polynesian" or something, in there after warnings and reverts, that would be vandalism too. -- Therexbanner ( talk) 13:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You reverted this edit, with an edit summary calling it "blatant vandalism". 2 minutes later, you warned User:46.164.92.180 with an only warning. The logical assumption is that that revert and the edit warning are connected. Of course, I just noticed now that you issued a final warning to an IP 2 days after the IP made the edit, which is basically never allowed except in cases where you know the IP is static and has been engaged in long term, similar vandalism--remember, most anonymous editors naturally change IPs every few days, so there's never a point in issuing an IP a warning many days after the incident.

Furthermore, as I stated above the edits are not vandalism. If the user had changed "Slavic" to "Amerindian" or "Welsh", that would be obvious vandalism, because no one could think that was an actual, legitimate opinion. But the editor may well have thought that the correct people there are the Turkic people. The fact that it doesn't match the source doesn't make it vandalism--many new users don't know anything about sourcing, and simply change what they believe are wrong "facts". In short, there is nothing in that edit to make us believe that the editor is intentionally trying to damage the article. As I said, WP:VANDAL spells this out--boldly editing, accidental misinformation, and NPOV violations are not vandalism, so unless you have clear reason to believe the edits were intentionally misleading (as opposed to being simply wrong), then you should not label them vandalism. And even if they were vandalism, you should not issue an "only warning" for a trivial change to the name of a country/people. Only warnings for vandalism are for extremely blatant, excessively harmful vandalism, like replacing an entire page with pornographic pictures, or writing highly insulting information about a living person. Also, I'm aware that that IP made personal attacks on the talk page, because I was the one that warned them against that. What it comes down to is that "constantly inserting text that has nothing to do with the article (and that which is unsourced, unlike everything else)" is not vandalism, unless it is clearly intentionally false misinformation. It may be disruptive, and it may even warrant semi-protection. But it's not vandalism. Qwyrxian ( talk) 23:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In your 2nd paragraph you're not making any sense. Since when is saying Amerindian vandalism, but not Turkic? (Perhaps you have thoughts on how Turkic people are different from others in this regard? If so, please share them for the record.) It was clearly an entry by someone who's intent was to vandalize.

Once again, the warning was issued due to multiple edits of the nature (look at the edit history of the article). They were never explained and he kept reverting.

Also, as I already mentioned, the user insulted an ethnic group directly (Iranian people) on the talk page. After that kind of behavior, there can be no doubt of the user's intent. I am shocked that you would even consider that he had benign intentions after those comments (which you yourself deleted.)

It is vandalism. He repeated his edits, reverting others, and his only participation in the discussion was to post racist/discriminatory comments. He knew what he was doing and there is not doubt anyone else would call it vandalism when somebody enters random, unexplained and unsourced text multiple times without discussing it. Regardless of whether it's turkic, african-american, amerindian, or martian, or anything else.-- Therexbanner ( talk) 08:25, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Quote from a previous issue on your talk page (your own words): "In fact, given that user's response to the warnings just now was to replace them with the text "big-b a n a n a :)", it's pretty clear that this person is not here to contribute productively. As such, I'm leaving a message on xyr talk page now that they can consider this a final warning, and any more vandalism will result in a block."

And after that you claim that the IP editor was just in a content dispute? What's going on here? Or is "big-banana" much much worse than entering a random group like Turkic when the article has nothing to do with it? Give someone the green light and they'll start entering chinese on all ancient egypt and rome related articles. I mean, after all, they are similar.-- Therexbanner ( talk) 08:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm wrong here. To me, when I look at Scythians, knowing nothing about it, it looks like someone could easily be inserting "Turkic" not as vandalism, but as some form of POV pushing (just like how people edit-war/POV push about Serbian/Croatian/Yugoslavian issues all the time). But, maybe I misunderstood, and so I apologize, that that may well have been vandalism. I still don't see the justification for why one insertion of that word justifies an only warning. Qwyrxian ( talk) 01:14, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Therexbanner! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
-- Kumioko ( talk) 03:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

If you click to link( http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8) you see the truth about russia. so why did you write fake numbers or why did you change the truth numbers? i know english and russian as much as to find what i'm looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chepny ( talk • contribs) 09:42, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I replied on the article talk page.-- Therexbanner ( talk) 15:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Arkhangelsk Oblast ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Komi and Nenets

Penza Oblast ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chuvash

Vologda Oblast ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Veps

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:56, 23 December 2011 (UTC)