Turnless

POV pushing?

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)

The sources you provided are completely irrelevant. John Biersack and Shannon O’Lear have absolutely nothing to do with the conflict. If the opinion cam from someone relevant to the Ukrainian crisis then at least it would make some kind of sense to include it. The section edited is specifically about the Ukrainian crisis, so it has a lot do with Ukraine and Crimea. I already left a message on your talk page explaining this more thoroughly already, so you can respond there. --Turnless (talk) 00:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

What conflict are you talking about? They deal with Putin's strategic vision as they impact russian-us relations. Rjensen (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The idea of what Putin's strategic vision is, is only a matter of opinion. No one other than Putin can determine as a fact what that vision is. When you include the opinions of two scholars who have nothing to do with the conflict in Ukraine expressing their understanding of what "Putin's strategic vision" is, then that is POV pushing on your side. Scholars will obviously never entirely agree on any issue unanimously, so when you include two completely random scholars only then that is POV pushing. It would be different if the opinion came from someone relevant to what is going on in the conflict. I also wanna add that I am not in any way removing your edits because I don't like the sources. I personally entirely agree with what the scholars say. I share their opinion, but that doesn't make it okay to randomly include it on the article. --Turnless (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not on your own user page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, my reverts are not WP:IDONTLIKEIT as I already explained, they are based only on the fact that certain scholars don't get to determine what is "Putin's strategic vision". --Turnless (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome to believe tha to be the case... but the discussion is on the article's talk page where other editors can follow it. It's called 'transparency'. WP:CON is not achieved between two editors arguing on each other's pages. Please keep content discussions centralised on the relevant page. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent reverts

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)

Just as WP:Be bold also says, you shouldn't get upset if your bold edits get reverted. I honestly don't see much point in the changes you made to the map in the first place. Why change the borders to the way you did? You did add the Aores, but it would be much better if you had added Eastern Europe first. The map looks awkward otherwise with a large empty white space on the left. I would encourage your changes if you do correct the map by including the entire European continent rather then leaving a lot of it out. I still don't think you should change the template of the map though as it won't keep European maps consistent on Wikipedia and Commons and won't allow users to use it as a template. May I also ask what program you used to create that map? --Turnless (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference please for your updates to List of European cities by population within city limits

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)

I reverted your edits this morning, but please reinstate them if your find your reference. Batternut (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

All of the updates come from the statistics released by the official Russian demographics organisation Rosstat [1]. Could you insert this reference to the cities I updated as there seems to be some kind of problem with my computer that doesn't allow me to do so. Thanks. --Turnless (talk) 11:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The link you have given doesn't give the figures directly, and not being a Russian reader I don't immediately see how to get to the city populations. There are some English language pages on that site, but they don't like like they'll help. Could you provide some more clues! Batternut (talk) 11:18, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

A kind heads up, in content disputes, the article should be reverted to the most recent stable edition. So, until you two sort out the citation issue, the material shouldn't be included in the article. I won't revert, but, if Batternut reverts again, don't re-revert until the issue is sorted. Also, it would be preferable to use the article talk page so that other parties can involve themselves, but, there's no explicit ruling against discussion here. At least you notified in your edit summary that the discussion on your talk page. Sorry to come here under so bleak a circumstance, good luck resolving the issue. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The specific links are set in the map on the website that I provided. I could provide the sites of all the different regions independently but that would create many different sources of basically the same website rather than making it an umbrella source that covers all of the Russian cities on the page. --Turnless (talk) 11:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I am looking at the site, am having trouble opening the links on the map, I can half-translate the cyrillic in my head, 9. would be the Moscow region I presume, can't open it. Still working to see if I can find it in English. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

The way it works is that when you click on a region on the map, it gives you the name of the head figure, the web address and the email address of Rosstat in that specific region all under the search bar under the map. --Turnless (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I see, am working on it, thanks for the tip. I didn't notice that the bottom was changing. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Also no, 9 actually refers to the Moscow Oblast, not Moscow the city. Moscow is represented by the star in the centre of the region. I am not sure if the English version of the site has a similar map. --Turnless (talk) 11:39, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I figured, we had the same problem with Belgrade, Beograd Oblast rather than Beograd Naselje (Settlement). I am currently on the Moscow region website, in this sections "Статистическая отчетность в электронном виде" (I don't speak Russian, but, statistics and (otcenotstb v zljektronnom vide) I can't translate this, no idea if that's even exactly correct. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:44, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

In order to view the current population of the entire region and each of its settlements, you have to follow this order - after clicking on the website scroll to the middle of the page to where it says "Официальная статистика" (Official statistics) and click on "Население" (Population) then look at the section that says "Основные показатели" (Main factors) and click on the first link which says "ОЦЕНКА ЧИСЛЕННОСТИ НАСЕЛЕНИЯ МОСКОВСКОЙ ОБЛАСТИ НА 1 ЯНВАРЯ" which basically translates to the population of the region as of January 1, 2016. There you will find the archived reports, in order to find the information that you need you would click on the most recent one which is currently always January 1, 2016. Then there may be another link you have to click on which will open up either a PDF or a Microsoft Excel file with a thorough report of the population figures of all of the settlements in the region. I believe this process is the same, or at least relatively the same, with all of the other regions. Also note that not all regions have yet uploaded the statistic of the population figure on January 1 2016, but at this point in the year most regions should have done so by now. --Turnless (talk) 11:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I made it most of the way through your instructions, for Moscow, I don't think its been published yet. I'll take a look at the others (Saint Petersburg does have it). Will post a second note when I go through them all, thanks for the help, I should be able to find what it is that's needed. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I can confirm, Saint Petersburg has a population of 5,225,690 as of January 1, 2016. Relevant citation [2] Mr rnddude (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Moscow (the city) has not yet uploaded a thorough report, but you can see its population in the source already provided on the page which gives the figure of the population of the federal subjects as a whole as of January 1st, 2016. Since Moscow is its own federal subject, its population is provided there. --Turnless (talk) 12:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

What I found;

I have found Saint Petersburg 5,225,690 for 2016 [ [3]]

I have found Volgograd 1,017,451 for 2015 [4]

I have found Voronezh 1,032,382 for 2016 [5]

I have found Ufa 1,121,429 for 2016 [6]

I found Rostov na Don for 2015 1,117,341 but not the reported 2016 one [7]

I found Samara, 1,170,910 as currently reported, its in an excel file (31.03.2016), here as close as I can get you to it [8]

I have found Kazan 1,216,965 [9]

I have found Moscow, 12,330,126 as currently reported, its also in an excel file (06.04.2015), here is again as close as I can get you to it [10]

What I have not found;

I have no found a valid statistic for Perm

I also couldn't find the statistic for Nizhny Novgorod, although it hasn't been included anyway.

Here you go, Mr rnddude (talk) 13:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

I'll ping Batternut on the talk page of the article and give him all of this, sorry I couldn't find Nizhny Novgorod or Perm. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Nizhny Novgorod is not yet uploaded, which is why I did not update it. Rostov-on-Don for 2016 is here [11] at the bottom of the page. Perm is the fourth link here [12], also the only Excel link there. Volgograd 2016 is here [13], also at the bottom of the page. --Turnless (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Location maps

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)

They are not my maps, they are made by a user on Commons. He created a new series of maps with better standards. Overall they do have better visual qualities than the older ones. --Turnless (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Could you actually help me out with the Philippines map? There is a newer version of that map available as well but the older version was for some reason set in a square and now the cities would be moved over to incorrect places if you update with the new map. Is there any way to fix this? --Turnless (talk) 20:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Relief map of Georiga

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)

Response to my talk page: this is my map about Georgia and it is good by 100%, if someone want something else he/she can try to do. Previous relief map is with errors and has less relief quality. Also it is not necessary to put everywhere those disputed areas.--g. balaxaZe★ 20:28, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I already left a message on your talk page so please reply there. --Turnless (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I decided to write here at the same time so no tragedy if I responded here. You can't change original (uploaders') content of the maps, it is in Commons policy.--g. balaxaZe★ 20:32, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Please don't make this confusing, please reply to the comment I already left on your talk page. --Turnless (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Belarusian and Lithuanian Constitutions on the definition of marriage

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)

I already replied on your talk page. --Turnless (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

POV pushing

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)

I agree 100% but Wikipedia seeks neutrality and WP:NPOV which is why we refrain from POV pushing with such opinions. When editing try to keep your opinions to yourself and seek a neutral outcome to controversial issues. --Turnless (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Xx236, Why exactly did you decide to tell me that either way? In regards to which article is this directed to? --Turnless (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The Centre for Polish-Russian Dialogue and Understanding Xx236 (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

I changed occupied to annexed for NPOV reasons. --Turnless (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Tskhinvali Region

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 is such a small issue that I don't even understand why you are edit warring to install the name that you obviously prefer. The term "Tskhinvali Region" is almost exclusively used by Georgia in terms of reference to this region, almost every other time "South Ossetia" is used. South Ossetia is also the name of the article and is used everywhere in the article. Read WP:COMMONNAME to understand that the more common names are preferred. Based on your attitude towards this issue from the previous discussions we had, which you have by the way abandoned, it is very clear that this is an issue with your personal POV leading from your ethnic background. --Turnless (talk) 18:47, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not edit warring :) if I do the same is with you. Second that name Tskhinvali Region is used in most international organizations for instance UN, so you have lack of information about the topic you are arguing about.--g. balaxaZe★ 18:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The name is used as a reference to Georgia's name for the region, it is not the more common name and is not the name mostly used in the article so randomly installing it in the middle of the article is dubious. I would also like to ask you to stop the edit war on Javakheti and stop removing relevant information which was also cited by Yerevantsi as being very relevant to the article. --Turnless (talk) 18:59, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

In Javakheti now everything is good, it shows Armenian name what else do you want? Settling some areas doesn't mean to rewrite every encyclopedic or academic source and to make some language used name as official or common.--g. balaxaZe★ 19:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Showing just the Armenian name on an English Wikipedia is dubious without providing an English transliteration. The name in Armenian is common to the region as most of the population is Armenian. If you continue to revert, you will be reported. It's starting to seem like you are not here to make an encyclopedia with your involvement in such issue with partially recognized states and the removal of valid information on Georgia-related articles. --Turnless (talk) 19:25, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It will not become common name just because you want to see it like that. I was editing what was wrong, as a consensus we could put translation of the Armenian name but you preferred reverts. I asked you to reach consensus before report.--g. balaxaZe★ 20:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

It is not a common name just because I "want to see it like that". Yerevantsi provided sources which back the use of the name. You asked to reach a consensus after you continued to revert to your edits despite the fact that you were the one who removed the information already present in the article before. I warned you that if youcontinue to do so, you will be reported, which is what I have done. --Turnless (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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)