User talk:Alaexis/archive5

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.

—- Am I only one who thot this facility was a renaming of Chernobyl???
— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]) 2022 Nov. 1

Hello, Alaexis. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Alaexis. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Alaexis: User Tubslubeamorepersempre and Gridlust had added lot of information in the lead section of the articles West Bengal, Bengal and Bangladesh. I am not sure how far those information's are accurate/correct, although they have provided source, nevertheless I still think the lead hasn't been properly written as per Wikipedia standard. I am new to Wikipedia so, don't have the expertise of writing an important articles like these. Please help make necessary changes as per your knowledge and expertise. The lead of all three articles must be rewritten, its reading more like advertisement of the article. They have simply copy paste information's in the lead just check all three leads and you will get the information. Thank You--Aakanksha55 (talk) 06:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I know very little about Bengal in general and just got involved after spotting the GPD percentage claim that looked suspicious. If you think something is not right please write about it on the talk pages explaining what is wrong with the sources and adding other sources that prove it. Let me know once you've done it if you'd like me to provide feedback. Alaexis_¿question? 08:12, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Kindly remove "12% GDP claim from lead" of West Bengal and Bengal article as you did in Bangladesh. They have simply copy paste the articles. I will ping you in the India dash board talk page for detail discussion with admin intervention.Thanks--Aakanksha55 (talk) 08:20, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Okay, once I have time. You can do it yourself by the way and refer in the edit summary to the section of the Bangladesh talk page with the explanations. Alaexis_¿question? 08:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

I have done it, come to India dashboard talk page discussion.--Aakanksha55 (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2019

(UTC)

@Begoon: Check here.--Aakanksha55 (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Check what? This might justify one of the edits I reverted - if you'd discussed it in the right place - the article talk page, not here, or some project noticeboard, where readers will never find it, but not the others, where you made unsourced, undiscussed changes under deceptive edit summaries. That's a habit of yours. Because I'm feeling charitable, I'll reinstate your "12%" edit - but you'll need to get consensus in the proper way for the others, as you've already been advised both by me, and above by Alaexis. Okk? -- Begoon 08:01, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Its not a question of charitable or not its all about providing credible information with source to back that claim. All unsourced materials were provided in the third section of the lead. Now I have corrected those with relevant sources.--Aakanksha55 (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Then provide your "credible information with source to back that claim" in the right place in future rather than expecting people to go searching through user talk pages or project noticeboards, stop using deceptive edit summaries and describe your changes properly, and life will be easier for everyone, especially for you... Also, please indent your talk page comments properly, particularly when you are "borrowing" another user's page to hold discussions in entirely the wrong place. Apologies for the intrusion, Alaexis. Thank you. -- Begoon 09:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cabayi (talk) 15:23, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Thnx for the correction, much appreciated! Regarding Polish spelling yes but "Danielovich" it seems to be poor translation of Russian. Neverless, its no big deal - it can stay as it is. Again, thank You for taking time to improve! If I can help in any way in matter of medieval history regarding Poland or Russia, I would be glad to do so. best regards, Camdan (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Yes, seems that its the way that all spell names. I also see that in the Chronicle's. I would then be a bit carefull with using "-ovich" in Poland or Lithuania/ Belarus during 15th century since at that time, surnames where already created. For Russia, it would be later. Best regards and thnx again!Camdan (talk) 07:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

ALEX PLEASE RETURN ALL THE INFORMATION YOU TRASHED TO INGUSHETIA WEBPAGE OTHERWISE I WILL REPORT YOU.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Please see new note on your DYK nomination. Yoninah (talk) 17:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

On

built churches in one day to ward off epidemics? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/One-day votive churches. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, One-day votive churches), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page

.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

On 21 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Demographic history of Russia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that most Russian cities were destroyed as a result of the Mongol invasion? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Demographic history of Russia. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Demographic history of Russia), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Heniochi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abkhaz.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Alaexis, I am writing this message to remind you that our discussion on Navalny's article is pending[1] (and many other topics have been blocked for months). I take this opportunity to specify that in these discussions my tones are "unfriendly" but not because of you, on the contrary I appreciate your honesty and neutrality in this matter. As you may know, I'm only having problems with that user. See you soon.--Mhorg (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Mhorg I have to apologise as lately I haven't had much time to participate usefully in that discussion. I'll make sure I answer later today. Alaexis_¿question? 08:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

On 28 April 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vyatka Land, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the history of Vyatka Land was said to be more obscure than that of any other Russian region? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vyatka Land. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Vyatka Land), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, just wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Graham_Phillips_(journalist)_(2nd_nomination) and invite to take part in the discussion. Cloud200 (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Point of mentioning earlier debt write-offs was to counter earlier point by another user; to offer an alternative explanation. It makes no sense to say that financial considerations are of primary importance when you write off 9.6 billion dollars in debt. Esp. in a section entitled "Economic importance and history of arms sales;" this section is not just about the Syrian civil war.

Since you changed that, I don't really mind the change. Alternative explanations still present, but I did add an edit of your text for transition words, esp. since the sentences now contradicted each other. QoL changes! Knightoften (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Knightoften, thanks, that looks good! Alaexis_¿question? 08:15, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem! Knightoften (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 ( page-specific restrictions , when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions . If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Could you please explain this edit? [2] We had an

Grandmaster, the RfC did not achieve consensus so by definition I cannot be against. I see that now there are additional sources beyond Kommersant. Alaexis_¿question? 12:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

If you believe there are additional sources, you start a new RFC to change consensus. You do not engage in an edit war. For now, the result of RFC was, quote: "alleged by Armenia" should be maintained in the absence of a rough consensus to change it. Grandmaster 13:35, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I thought new sources appeared but now I see they are not new and they don't explicitly name Turkey as a belligerent. So I guess you are right, we need to wait until the conflict is analysed by scholars. Alaexis_¿question? 14:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Grandmaster 15:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

–dlthewave ☎ 12:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi - you recently contributed and voted in an RFC on the Julian Assange Talk page and showed some support for option F. Another editor has pointed to a difficulty with that wording which I have addressed with the following slightly altered version:

 “Assange received the emails when Rich was already dead, and conferred with Guccifer 2.0 (a persona thought to have been created by Russian hackers) in order to coordinate the release of the material."

I would be very grateful if you could let me/us know if the changed wording meets your approval so I can substitute it for the existing F option. Thanks Prunesqualor billets_doux 13:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Prunesqualer: Done. Alaexis_¿question? 13:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks Prunesqualor billets_doux 15:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello! I added in the category Moldova-Poland Relations to Tiraspol because, as the entry for Tyraspol in Polish Wikipedia states: "W Tyraspolu mieszka kilkaset osób narodowości polskiej. Tyraspol jest jednym z głównych skupisk Polaków w Mołdawii." To translate that into English: "Several hundred people of Polish nationality live in Tiraspol. Tiraspol is one of the main centers of Poles in Moldova." In my estimation, that fact makes it worthy of adding in the category of Moldova-Poland relations. As to why that is, my guess that it is because Tiraspol is the capital of Transnistria. --Orestek (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• I forgot to add in this link to a segment which aired on TVP in Poland about the Polish community in Tiraspol in 2019: https://rzeszow.tvp.pl/44814754/to-juz-15-lat-stowarzyszenie-polskiej-kultury-jasna-gora-w-tyraspolu --Orestek (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Orestek, in that case it would probably be better to add this fact to the article itself too. Also, next time please use edit summary, otherwise other editors have no way of knowing the reasons for change. Alaexis_¿question? 05:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

On 20 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Twin Pagodas (Suzhou), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Twin Pagodas of Suzhou (pictured) have been compared to ink brushes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Twin Pagodas (Suzhou). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Twin Pagodas (Suzhou)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I reverted your edit to RSN, since it blanked the entire page. It looks like you may have accidentally done that, since it looks like your request was in the edit summary field rather than on the page. If you were trying to start a discussion, you might want to have another go at that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, thank a lot! I tried to revert it myself but couldn't because of blacklisted links. Alaexis_¿question? 13:39, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

NATO has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Morgoonki (talk) 11:01, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Dear friend, We had long discussion about afghanistan ethno-lingustic map, the cia map is wrong, for example according to english wikipedia :th major ethnicity in balkh province is tajiks,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkh_Province While according to cia map uzbeks are!!! Wich is Completely inaccurate!! But according to my map is based on Al-Jazeera and according to my map the majority of balkh are tajiks. According to russian and persian wikipedia about balkh province i saw the major ethnicity is tajiks, cia map is old and is a governomental organization and i think Al-Jazeera is more reliable than an inteligence agency!! 5644Khorasani (talk) 07:40, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Let's keep the discussion in

one place, otherwise it's very confusing to other editors. Alaexis_¿question?

08:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry couldn't answer there, tajiks and hazaras are main ethnics in balkh there is small uzbek https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkh_Province&ved=2ahUKEwiP6MPRvrb3AhXgQvEDHdbEDBAQFnoECEkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2ECuExuez91NU96cbPa7KK Balkh os motly tajik and hazars(persian speakers) there is no hazara in balkh, according to wikipedia uzbeks are just 10%, you can see it in the wiki pedia page, uzbeks are just 10% 5644Khorasani (talk) 09:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this, but logically there is no smoking gun contradiction between the article and the map. All the ethnic groups are there and the map cannot show who is the majority in the province as it's not uniformly populated. Al-Jazeera is also not a perfect source. Maybe you can find a map published in scholarly sources? Or maybe someone has criticised this CIA map or their maps in general? All of that would help your case. Alaexis_¿question? 19:32, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

On 3 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Crisis of the late 16th century in Russia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that as a result of the crisis of the late 16th century in Russia, many service-class landowners were left with no peasants working their land? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Crisis of the late 16th century in Russia. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Crisis of the late 16th century in Russia), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 5,465 views (455.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of June 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Iskandar323 (talk

) 09:04, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

RFC attacks on Donetsk People's Republic

Hello, I am writing to you because you said you were interested in opening a RfC on the missile in Donetsk. Note that since we last spoke about this I created a section "Indiscriminate attacks">"Donetsk People's Republic" and a new subsection for the recent Maisky Market attack. You can see the final result here [3]. Unfortunately MVBW removed everything [4] and [5] so I think a RfC is necessary. As soon as I can, I would like to open a discussion at RS/N on whether Danisova can be considered as a

WP:RS with regard to sexual crimes committed in Ukraine during the invasion [6], and I'm wondering if the two discussions can be opened together or if there's any reason for prioritizing one over the other. Gitz (talk) (contribs

) 17:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I think it's two different topics. I would start with the attacks on Donetsk - I think it's pretty obvious why they need to be mentioned and therefore I hope there will be a consensus for it. By the way, I don't think any of these two potential RfCs belong to WP:RSN. The question is mostly about due weight and balance rather than reliability. Please let me know once you create it. Alaexis_¿question? 20:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree it's two different topics, and that the first one (missiles in DPR) doesn't belong to RSN; I think that the second one (Denisova) might belong to RSN, but maybe I'm wrong: I don't know. Anway, I could create an RFC on the DPR issue, but on Monday I'll be travelling and on Tuesday I'll be busy, so I'd be grateful if you could take care of this. If you can't, that's not a problem: I will do it myself in the next few days and before publishing it I'll ask for your advice on a draft. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:23, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Alaexis, here you'll find a draft of the RfC: [7]. Shall I publish it? Please feel free to modify it as you think best. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't had time to review it and I see that you've created it already. I've responded to it. Please note that you can also reply to your own RfC. Alaexis_¿question? 07:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've read somewhere that it is seen as improper to vote in an RfC one has opened. Plus I have the tendency to write horrible wall of texts, so perhaps it is better if I abstain from the discussion altogether. However, I'm strongly inclined to open another RfC on Denisova's allegations of child rape, which I think are not reliable enough and should be dropped straight away. But perhaps better than an RfC would be opening a discussion at RS/N, because one needs to provide some background information on this, and a short question in RfC-style would not be fit for purpose Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:02, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly acceptable and I've seen it a lot (see

WP:RFC says "If you have lots to say on the issue, give and sign a brief statement in the initial description and publish the page, then edit the page again and place additional comments below your first statement and timestamp." Just make it one short sentence with the main policy-based argument. Alaexis_¿question?

09:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

RfC Notice

RFC

War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gitz (talk) (contribs

) 11:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

hello - nice to meet you

Thanks for your work on the Patrick Lancaster page. 666hopedieslast (talk) 23:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

DS alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{

guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Adoring nanny (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk

) 00:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

December 2022

Please do not use misleading edit summaries when making changes to Wikipedia pages, as you did to Mariupol. This behavior is viewed as disruptive, and continuation may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 14:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

I've responded at the talk page of the article. Alaexis_¿question? 15:43, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Also leaving such templates on the talk pages of users who have been here a long time is not considered good practice I do not think. Mellk (talk) 16:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Apologies,I've struck the warning. The versions I checked didn't have the Russian name, but it seems I was mistaken. Jeppiz (talk) 16:41, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

That's OK, considering there have been some driveby editors trying to change the location of the city (and others) to Russia one might assume this was also recently added. Mellk (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

No problem! Alaexis_¿question? 18:49, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--176.219.153.254 (talk) 08:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)