Lin4671

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I am writing you regarding your recent changes to the Autonomous Republic of Crimea article. As we all know, the Crimean topic is somehow controversial and it was agreed in Wikipedia since 2014 that any changes to the article that are evident to be discussed in the talk page of the relevant page. I am reverting your edits to the stable version as of 18 June. Don't take it personal, this is just how Wikipedia works (I'm here for almost 10 years now). Please explain why do you think such version for the article needs to be used, and we can discuss any changes or propositions you suggest. Have a great time in Wikipedia! A.h. king • Talk to me! 18:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I have reverted your edits since A) there's no support for it on the talk page of the article, and B) they violate WP:NPOV by not being a neutral and balanced summary of what media have reported and world leaders have said. So do not add it back again until there's a clear consensus on the talk supporting it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I agree with Thomas.W. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.187.67.25 (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Your addition to National No Bra Day has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Hitro talk 13:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I have reverted your edit, showing that I'm opposed to it, so don't add it back again until you get express support from other editors for doing so, on the talk page of the article. The police did not use rubber bullets, BTW, they did fire harmless rubber balls, though, a non-lethal ammunition that is used by virtually all police forces in Europe to disrupt rioting. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Thomas.W: It turns out rubber balls are not exactly harmless. A person lost vision in an eye because of one of them on October 1st. That happened years ago in Catalonia, and that was the reason why rubber balls were forbidden in Catalonia. The Spanish police completely ignored this prohibition, though. Victorjjp (talk) 21:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Victorjjp: Is that yet another of the false claims propagated by Russian websites and forums? Like the provenly photoshopped images they spread on the 'Net, or the wildly exaggerated numbers for how many people had been injured by the police on 1 October? Because I haven't seen a single reliable source provide any evidence for it... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:23, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Thomas.W: Well, there is even a video now, which I hadn't seen before (http://www.ccma.cat/tv3/alacarta/telenoticies-migdia/les-imatges-de-limpacte-de-bala-a-lull-en-una-carrega-policial-de-l1-o/video/5692498/). The following links contain more information: http://cadenaser.com/emisora/2017/10/04/sercat/1507113344_559028.html, https://catalunyadiari.cat/successos/conseller-toni-comin-confirma-que-ferit-tret-pilota-goma-l1-perdra-visio-dun-ull). According to the Catalan Minister of Health, the man has lost eye vision. So, please, next time save your Russian paranoia for others. It makes you look like a bigot. Victorjjp (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't know if you're deliberately trying to mislead people, hoping that noone here will be able to read the sources, or if you haven't read the links you provided yourself, because this link of yours clearly states that the man has NOT lost his eye/been blinded on the eye that was claimed to have been hit by a rubber ball ("El ferit per una pilota de goma no ha perdut l’ull"). And considering the current situation the Catalan Minister of Health has a clear COI, and can't be seen as a reliable source. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:53, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Thomas.W: I suppose you need to work on your reading abilities. In the same paragraph: "El noi continua ingressat a l’espera de saber com li ha afectat l’impacte de la pilota de goma a la visió." So, yes, he has not physically lost the eyeball. But a few days later it was confirmed he has lost the vision. Really, it is not so complicated to understand. I won't even comment on the conflict of interest you mention. Victorjjp (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Some more info from a unionist newspaper (I bet this will be a good source for you): http://www.elperiodico.com/es/politica/20171001/las-pelotas-de-goma-vuelven-a-catalunya-en-el-referendum-unilateral-del1-o-6323646 Victorjjp (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

"Despite Spanish police using batons and rubber bullets to disrupt the banned referendum..." is what the source says. Lin4671 (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

An error that has been corrected many times in many sources. The error stems from a TV news clip where the commentator said rubber bullets, out of sheer ignorance, while the video showed they were using rubber balls (this is SkyNews' corrected headline, and a clear image of one of the rubber balls). As for your post on my talk page, your edits were reverted because of being slanted and POV, as always, and not needed. The short mention that is already in the article (Spain) and a link to the dedicated article (2017 Spanish constitutional crisis) is enough. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:23, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

And here's one that alternates between using rubber bullets and rubber balls, with an image that clearly shows it was a rubber ball. If you don't know what a rubber bullet looks like, I suggest reading rubber bullets, and looking at the images there. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

All rubber balls fired by guns are rubber bullets, but not all rubber bullets are rubber balls. Perhaps a Venn diagram would help you?

"A rubber bullet is a bullet made of a metal ball coated with rubber. It is intended to injure people rather than kill them, and is used by police or soldiers to control crowds during a riot." Collins online dictionary

Regards Lin4671 (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's why I pointed out that they used rubber balls, not rubber bullets, and why Sky News (who were the original source for "rubber bullets") corrected their headline, the ball shown in the pictures is clearly not "steel coated with rubber" (if it was it would be a "rubber cannon ball...), but an ordinary rubber ball. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

The article Political prisoners in Spain has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

8. Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP, and so forth)

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. BallenaBlanca     (Talk) 01:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Political prisoners in Spain 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/Political prisoners in Spain until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Scolaire (talk) 09:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

There was a long-standing consensus that since Crimea is a part of Ukraine, the names, with some exceptions (for example, Gurzuf which was renamed after a RM, and this which have been renamed by the Ukrainian government after the annexation) are based on Ukrainian and not on Russian names. I would say it is probably ok to add Russian names to the infobox along with the Ukrainian ones (and in this case, one could argue that the Crimean Tatar Names should be added as well, since Crimean Tatar is also an official language), but it is definitely not ok to replace Ukrainian names with the Russian ones. We worked hard to stop edit-warring in 2014, and it would be unfortunately if similar edit-warring would resume now. Thank you.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ymblanter. While reading the Simferopol article I noticed that the infobox gave the 'native name' as the Ukrainian version of the name, despite the fact that Russian is by far the main language across the whole of Crimea. Assuming this was an error, I corrected it for all 14 Raions. If you are telling me that the consensus was reached that the native names of all these places should be deliberately given in the second language of each area rather than the native language, I am surprised that such a consensus was reached (though I don't disbelieve you.) I would not have agreed to such a consensus as, in my opinion, the native name should be the name as would be used by 'the natives', which would undoubtedly be in Russian. That said, I have no intention of becoming involved in edit warring. Lin4671 (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Most Eastern Ukrainian localities have only Ukrainian name in the infobox, check for example Kharkiv or Dnipro, even though they are 100% Russian-speaking. The consensus was Crimea was no different.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. My point would be that the native names of places in Eastern Ukraine where Russian is the predominant language should also be given in Russian. Cheers Lin4671 (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I understand your point, but it would concern thousands of articles (not only for Crimea, but also for the whole Eastern Ukraine, for Belarus, and for Northern Kazakhstan). You can open an RfC with notifications of corresponding Wikiprojects, but my estimate is that it has a low chance to succeed.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:31, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks but no intention of raising this issue. I'm sure there are many places in the world where the native language of an area is different from what has been stated in the wikipedia article. I will leave this issue for those who feel strongly about it! Cheers Lin4671 (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2017 (UTC)Reply