RikuOka0222

Welcome!

Hi RikuOka0222! I would like to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! — Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

August 2024

Hello, I'm Yuthoob. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Yuthoob (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Russians in Japan, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. You are not citing sources properly. Especially do not cite other Wikipedias as you did. Your edits have been reverted again.

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Russians in Japan, you may be blocked from editing. Yuthoob (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't know that we're not supposed to cite other Wikipedia pages, but you didn't have to delete the image i added. RikuOka0222 (talk) 15:57, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BriLila. I noticed that in this edit to Russians in Japan, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -BriLila (t • c) 04:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello again RikuOka0222, don't worry about this particular message. I understand from your message on the talk page that you mean you understand that we can take the section back out of Russians in Japan, which is what I had asked for. I'll take care of the copyright issue as well. If the topic turns out to be notable, it may be possible to make a separate page on Niigata Russian Village in the future (without using close paraphrasing). This might be easier to do if you are able to use Japanese-language sources. Dekimasuよ! 04:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

oh check the history and you'll understand why RikuOka0222 (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

No worries, plus sorry for my misunderstanding about the 50000 japanese citizens with russian ancestry. When you removed that information, I thought you were just removing other people's work they have done without even checking the cite properly, so you can just delete that. RikuOka0222 (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Oh don't worry I can read Japanese a bit cuz I'm half Japanese half Russian and plus I can't tell you my real age but I'm already over 14+, so yeah. RikuOka0222 (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Russians in Japan

Hi RikuOka22, I am going to contact you here for the time being, but please be aware that continuing to edit in the current fashion is likely to result in a community discussion about limitations on your editing privileges.

I recently attempted to clean up your additions to the Russians in Japan page by turning bulleted lists in the lede into prose per the manual of style, by removing personal opinions not backed up by cites, by removing numbers that failed verification according to the cites included, by fixing problems with writing tone and grammar, etc. I explained these changes in detail, and I even left in the change to the scope of the article that you initiated, but you have still reverted wholesale several times. Things cited above like WP:V and WP:OR are Wikipedia policies that cannot be ignored on individual articles. Another policy that you should review is WP:OWN. Editing the work of other editors is the core of what we do on Wikipedia.

You are also making incorrect claims that other editors added information to the article when it was you who have added the information (a 50,000-70,000 number related to Russian descendants with Japanese citizenship) to the article at least seven times. 1) You added it here on August 2, and it was reverted by Alexeyevitch as unsourced. 2) You readded it without a source on August 2 and it was removed as unsourced by Yuthoob. 3) You readded it with a link to the Chinese Wikipedia on August 3, and were told not to use other Wikipedias as a source in a reversion by Anachronist. 4) You readded the same source again on August 3, which was reverted again by Yuthoob. 5) Then you readded the number 50,000 with a citation to a paper on genetics on August 4, with an edit summary stating "Don't worry, now I know how to add citations properly." These all took place before I had ever read this article.

On August 15, I removed your fifth addition of a number here with the accurate edit summary "failed verification: source is about genetic markers and never mentions how many Japanese people have Russian ethnicity". Note that the source does not ever say how many Japanese people may have Russian roots, either by making a guess or by stating a research result of this kind. I do not know why you added this source at all. On my end, I was simply in the middle of several edits in which I cleaned up the article like this. These were edits in which I removed original research, including synthesis, retained many of the contributions you made, and worked to make the tone and format of the article more encyclopedic. However, 6) you reverted the changes, readding the number that failed verification, the bulleted list, the unsupported claim that Russian people make up the largest European minority in Japan due to proximity, and the scope change to the article. I explained again that the cited article does not say anything at all about 50,000 Japanese people with Russian ancestry while leaving in the scope change (which is an example of collegial editing) and you 7) readded the number in a total reversion with the edit summary "Again, please stop. You've also deleted much of other people's works and it's not easy putting those back together. I don't know about the 50000 Russian people thingy because I didn't it but please just leave it alone sir." Again, what I had actually done was standardize the contents of the article, including much of the new information that you had added.

In sum, you did add the number repeatedly without ever including a reliable source, and at least four different editors have removed it for that reason seven times. You are adding unsubstantiated claims to the article, stopping other editors from fixing its formatting, and exhibiting ownership behavior. I am involved in this discussion myself, but if I came across this behavior elsewhere, I would likely see your behavior as unacceptable edit warring. Dekimasuよ! 01:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

While we are having the conversation, you have changed "Russians in Japan make up the largest Russian population in East Asia in total, exceeding the Russian population of other neighbouring countries like China and South Korea" to "Russians in Japan make up the largest Russian population in East Asia in total, exceeding the Russian population of other neighbouring countries like China and South Korea. Additionally, Russians in Japan also make up the largest European minority in Japan since Russia and Japan are geographically so close to each other for centuries." In this example, the possible reason for Russian people to be in Japan is a statement of opinion, but that aside, the claim is incorrect. The cite on the 11,634 number in the article shows that there are 19,909 British citizens in Japan and 15,153 French citizens in Japan; these were the first two countries I checked. Depending upon the meaning of "European" you are employing here, there are also more Brazilians, Americans, Australians, and Canadians in Japan as well. In order for this sort of claim to be added to an article, you need to find a reliable source that has explicitly made such a statement, and it should be important to you whether the statement you are adding is true. Dekimasuよ! 02:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

This edit removing the "failed verification" template with the rationale that there is already a citation is not acceptable. In fact, Template:Failed verification was intended to be kind, because the rules of the template actually state that when a completely irrelevant source is added it should be removed entirely and replaced with "citation needed". I have already written to you that there is nothing in the cited source related to the number of Russian descendants in Japan, the number in Hokkaido, etc. Have you read the cited article? Since you have readded this several times I left it in and noted that a real citation was needed. This now marks an eighth time you have added or backed up a 50,000-70,000 number in the article with no applicable source. Note that your change was undone by an editor who has so far been uninvolved in this conversation. I would appreciate hearing from you about this; upon any further reversions I will need to take this to another venue to discuss limits on editing privileges. Best, Dekimasuよ! 11:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)