JackofDiamonds1

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello JackofDiamonds1! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 2 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Maria Mironova - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics census

Hello there. Sorry to bother you, but you are (titularly at least) a member of WP:WikiProject Economics, as defined by this category. If you don't know me, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, but an unqualified economist. I enjoy writing about economics, but I'm not very good at it, which is why I would like to support in any way I can the strong body of economists here on Wikipedia. I'm only bothering you because you are probably one of them. Together, I'd like us to establish the future direction of WikiProject Economics, but first, we need to know who we've got to help.

Whatever your area of expertise or level of qualification, if you're interested in helping with the WikiProject (even if only as part of a larger commitment to this wonderful online encyclopedia of ours), would you mind adding your signature to this page? It only takes a second. Thank you.

Message delivered on behalf of User:Jarry1250 by LivingBot.

Firstly, thank you for signing the census, and an apology if you are one of those editors who dislike posts such as this one for messaging you again in this way. I've now got myself organised and you can opt-out of any future communication at WP:WikiProject Economics/Newsletter. Just remove your name and you won't be bothered again.

Secondly, and most importantly, I would like to invite your comments on the census talk page about the project as a whole. I've given my own personal opinion on a range of topics, but my babbling is essentially worthless without your thoughts - I can't believe for one moment that everyone agrees with me in the slightest! :)

All your comments are welcomed. Thanks, - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 17:53, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics Newsletter (Issue I)

Positively Economics The Economics WikiProject Newsletter Issue I (May 2010)
Use the show/hide button to display or hide this newsletter. From the (self-appointed) editor Hello to all the economists who signed up on the census (covered in more detail below) and whom I have boldly signed up for this, the first in hopefully a long line of WikiProject Economics newsletters. The aim is simple: to distribute the project's news and developments in order that every member gets the opportunity to contribute to their fullest. It mirrors the ideals of any WikiProject: to support and assist. In creating this, on a whim, I have picked a name and stolen the layout of the Military History WikiProject's newsletter. If you have any comments or suggestions, feel free to leave them on the main newsletter talk page. The non-talk version of that page is also the place to unsubscribe yourself from the newsletter, which, for the moment, I anticipate will be monthly. Enjoy! - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 11:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Articles of note New featured articles: Economy of the Han Dynasty New featured lists: None New featured topics: None New good articles: Price elasticity of demand Production-possibility frontier Monetary Policy Committee Confederate war finance Redlinks to be squashed Skysmith has posted an updated list of missing economics topics. Most will need redirecting or new articles written to blueify them, so, if you can lend a hand with the effort, please do. There are some from virtually all areas of economics and hence to suit all tastes. Project news Census completed A big thank you to everyone who signed the census, an attempt to renew the project's membership list. Jarry1250 explained its purpose: "once we know how many active participants we have... we can make sure no interested parties get left out of discussions; ...to get everyone included. Not just to make them feel involved, but also to actively try to make them more involved [in the supportive atmosphere of the WikiProject]". Around forty editors, with a good range of specialisms and interests, have currently signed to show their activity, and it is still open for more. Project-wide discussions commence: A series of discussions have been commenced on the census talkpage about what, if anything, should be done to strengthen the Project. All comments are welcomed on a range of topics: the economic style guide, weight guidelines, notability and the creation of this newsletter. Other discussions, on categorisation, tagging and compiling an accurate list of unreferenced BLPs, are currently active. Your comments are invited in the following other ongoing project discussions: The normative economics of central banking. What article might this fall under? Does one exist already? Does it need a separate article? Inflation. Thoughts invited on the inflation article and how best to word the lead. 2010 European sovereign debt crisis - comments requested.
To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by Jarry1250 at around 10:35, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics Newsletter (Issue II)

Positively Economics The Economics WikiProject Newsletter Issue II (June 2010)
Use the show/hide button to display or hide this newsletter. From the editor Sticking to my promise of sending these out monthly, it's time for the June edition of Positively Economics, covering the events of May, which has passed relatively quietly for the project. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is a wiki, and things can change quickly and often without much notice. All contributions can be, and often are, important, regardless of how trivial they may seem. I, for example, have been working on our new list of unsourced BLPs, having added a significant number of economists to the project earlier in the month. But more on that in the newsletter itself. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 14:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Articles of note Note: this week's "new" FAs, and so forth, are ones that previously weren't included in the project but now are. New featured articles: Akhtar Hameed Khan New featured lists: None New featured topics: None New good articles: Abram Lincoln Harris George Lee (journalist) Stephen Harper Yulia Tymoshenko Redlinks to be squashed Skysmith has posted an updated list of missing economics topics. Most will need redirecting or new articles written to blueify them, so, if you can lend a hand with the effort, please do. There are some from virtually all areas of economics and hence to suit all tastes. Project news Unassessed articles: A whole swath of articles have been added to the WikiProject recently, mainly on notable economists. They are yet to be assessed on their talk pages; this also provides a good opportunity to check and improve some of our least monitored articles. Unsourced BLPs: Before the articles about economists were added, the project had very few unsourced biographies of living people; now there are a little over a hundred. If we can clear them, however, then it is unlikely that there will be many more. Again, they represent some of our least cared-for articles, and often present good targets for cleaning up. Your comments are invited in the following other ongoing project discussions and requests for help: Too big to fail Slowflation Jobless recovery Small Business Lending Index
To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by User:Jarry1250 at around 14:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics Newsletter (Issue III)

Positively Economics The Economics WikiProject Newsletter Issue III (July 2010)
Use the show/hide button to display or hide this newsletter. From the editor Sticking to my promise of sending these out monthly, it's time for the July edition of Positively Economics, covering the events of June. It's been another constructive month for the project. Wikipedia remains, as ever, a very popular source of information about basic economic theory, as well as for biography and more specialised topics, and we shouldn't forget that contributions to these core articles remains our greatest strength. Onwards and upwards, as they say, for another month. - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 14:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC) Articles of note New featured articles: None New featured lists: None New featured topics: None New good articles: Brander–Spencer model Redlinks to be squashed Skysmith has posted an updated list of missing economics topics. Most will need redirecting or new articles written to blueify them, so, if you can lend a hand with the effort, please do. There are some from virtually all areas of economics and hence to suit all tastes. Project news Unassessed articles: A whole swath of articles have been added to the WikiProject recently, mainly on notable economists. They are yet to be assessed on their talk pages; this also provides a good opportunity to check and improve some of our least monitored articles. Unsourced BLPs: Before the articles about economists were added, the project had very few unsourced biographies of living people; now there are a little over a hundred. If we can clear them, however, then it is unlikely that there will be many more. Again, they represent some of our least cared-for articles, and often present good targets for cleaning up. Your comments are invited in the following other ongoing project discussions and requests for help: Featherbedding Herbert Hoover Intelligence-related citations
To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by User:Jarry1250 at around 19:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics Newsletter (Issue IV)

Positively Economics The Economics WikiProject Newsletter Issue IV (September 2010)
Use the show/hide button to display or hide this newsletter. From the editor After a brief intermission over the Northern hemisphere summer season and the Southern hemisphere's mid-winter, Positively Economics is back. In recent weeks it has been my privilege to work on countering systemic bias with a couple of articles on the economic history of Uganda. Projects like these help, little by little, to open up new areas on knowledge to Western audiences. Indeed, with English in the ascendancy when it comes to second languages, many other audiences too. Both of the new creations made the front page via the Did you know? section for newly-created or significantly expanded articles. I would encourage other editors, particularly those who like badges, to try to get more economics articles onto the front page through this and other sections. Those with a particularly competitive bent might also wish to consider signing up for the 2011 Wikicup (great for focussing the mind). - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 18:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Example chart New bot User:LivingBot has just been approved on Wikimedia Commons to compile and upload SVG graphs based on monthly time series of, for example, UK interest rates (illustrated). It will then revisit these on a monthly basis to update them with the latest information. If you would like to bot to create and update a graph for you, get in touch with its operator. Articles of note New featured articles: None New featured lists: None New featured topics: None New good articles: Jevons paradox Redlinks to be squashed Skysmith has posted an updated list of missing economics topics. Most will need redirecting or new articles written to blueify them, so, if you can lend a hand with the effort, please do. There are some from virtually all areas of economics and hence to suit all tastes. Project news Unassessed articles: A whole swath of articles have been added to the WikiProject recently, mainly on notable economists. They are yet to be assessed on their talk pages; this also provides a good opportunity to check and improve some of our least monitored articles. Unsourced BLPs: Before the articles about economists were added, the project had very few unsourced biographies of living people; now there are a little over a hundred. If we can clear them, however, then it is unlikely that there will be many more. Again, they represent some of our least cared-for articles, and often present good targets for cleaning up. Your comments are invited in the following other ongoing project discussions and requests for help: Vanderford-Riley well-being schedule New Economic Indicator for Infoboxes Beth Hayes
To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by User:Jarry1250 at around 19:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

London Wikimedia Fundraiser

Good evening! This is a friendly message from Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, inviting you to the London Wikimedia Fundraising party on 19th December 2010, in approximately one week. This party is being held at an artistic London venue with room for approximately 300 people, and is being funded by Ed Saperia, a non-Wikipedian who has a reputation for holding exclusive events all over London. This year, he wants to help Wikipedia, and is subsidising a charity event for us. We're keen to get as many Wikimedians coming as possible, and we already have approximately 200 guests, including members of the press, and some mystery guests! More details can be found at http://ten.wiki.x.io/wiki/London - expect an Eigenharp, a mulled wine hot tub, a free hog roast, a haybale amphitheatre and more. If you're interested in coming - and we'd love to have you - please go to the ten.wikipedia page and follow the link to the Facebook event. Signing up on Facebook will add you to the party guestlist. Entry fee is a heavily subsidised £5 and entry is restricted to over 18s. It promises to be a 10th birthday party to remember! If you have any questions, please email me at chasemewiki at gmail.com.

Hope we'll see you there, (and apologies for the talk page spam) - Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The Contribution Team cordially invites you to Imperial College London

All Hail The Muffin Nor does it taste nice... 19:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You are cordially invited to save the world

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Capitalism Byelf2007 (talk) 14 September 2011

Tatars

Тюрки-это языковая,а не генетическая общность. Есть к примеру понятия Европеоидов и Индоевропейцы-первая антропологическая, вторая-языковая. Ну а генетически вообще из другой области.--Гропспонт (talk) 16:35, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Mustafina

Hello,

as clearly explained, she is a Russian citizenship. Only citizenship should be mentioned in the lead. Tatarstan is not independent, too. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 19:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Your recent editing history at Aliya Mustafina shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 19:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Guerillero | My Talk 21:21, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JackofDiamonds1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The blocking message was added by a biased user with conflicting point of view - Mbinebri. He subsequently deleted the same message from his page (traceable in "view history"), in breach of Wikipedia policy. Aforementioned user has violated the editing rules.JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 21:29, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

To assert that someone violated the policies, one has to know them themselves. Anyway, we don't fulfill unblock requests discussing someone other than the blockee, and feeling that you're right does not exempt you from edit warring. Max Semenik (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

OK, I agree with the argument. Edit warring was indeed in place. However, I want a fair treatment with the other party, who avoided blocking by simply deleting the notice from his page. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Nope, GreatOrangePumpkin was blocked just like you. Max Semenik (talk) 23:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I was talking about User:Mbinebri who started the edit warring and violated the rule on 14-15 August. He has also deleted the blocking message from his talk page which is a second breach of Wikipedia guidelines. Regards. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 00:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Simply stop pushing your POV and instead follow the guidelines and policies. As was clearly stated, only citizenship should be included in the lead. Please accept this. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 11:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. When you recently edited The Bank of New York Mellon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page APAC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JackofDiamonds1. You have new messages at Guerillero's talk page.
Message added 03:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Guerillero | My Talk 03:22, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Loan-to-value ratio, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Commercial lender (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Dostoevsky

Hello,

the text is cited from the footnotes at the end of the paragraph. If you still believe otherwise, then I would recommend you search in the internet. On Google search and books you will discover plenty of references. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 21:39, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

You did not cite your claim; the Lavrin book state that he may have had. Regards.--Kürbis (✔) 21:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Fyodor Dostoyevsky. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

• Per ANI and WP:BOOMERANG, as both of you edit warred. Also, next time you bring somebody to ANI please remember to notify them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Pumpkin says you notified him, so scratching that bit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JackofDiamonds1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I object for the following reasons: 1) I only cut back 2 times so haven't broken the 3-edit rule; 2) My edit has not caused disruption to the article - I never deleted anything, only added the information about Dostoevsky's family; 3) I properly notified the other party. Regards, JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

• I'm sorry to see that you are blocked for edit warring. Many users find themselves confused as to why they were blocked in such a situation as they believed they were acting in the best interest of Wikipedia. What it is important for you to understand is that as far as the edit warring policy is concerned there is no right and wrong in an edit war. Anyone who edit wars is wrong and is blocked to prevent the disruption from continuing. There are very few exceptions, such as reverting blatant vandalism, which is not the case here. We don't allow edit warring because it never helps resolve an issue, and it always makes it worse.

 What to do instead:

• Mark disputed statements or, if needed, the entire page with appropriate tags
• Initiate discussion on the talk page (note that edit summaries are not a substitute for actual discussion)
• If that does not rectify the issue seek page protection and/or dispute resolution as needed.

• If you follow these simple steps instead of edit warring you will find it is actually relatively easy to avoid edit warring and getting blocked for it.

Please note as well that WP:3RR is not an entitletment, merely a bright-line application of the edit warring policy. You do not have to breach it to be blocked for edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{Unblock on hold | 1=blocking administrator | 2=The original administrator based the decision on the combination of "2 reverts" and "not notifying the other party". It turned out that he was mistaken and I actually did notify the other party. Therefore, only 2 reverts may not be enough for the blocking Regards,JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC) | 3=I will notify the blocking admin; perhaps a reduction in block length may be warranted. Please also see the last paragraph of the decline message above: 3RR is not an entitlement; you can still be edit warring with less than three reverts. Following WP:BRD is always a good idea. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2012 (UTC)}}

• I am amenable to reducing the length, on one condition: that you do not reinsert the content unilaterally and instead seek a discussion with the article's main contributors (on the talk page). Do you promise to do this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I am contesting the blocking in the first place: there were two legitimate edits, so what is the reason for blocking anyway? JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 23:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That was my addition to the article: "The Dostoevsky noble family is descended from the ancient Moscow Rtischev line, which became known as Dostoevsky after being granted the town of Dostoevo near Pinsk (now Belarus) in 1506." This statement is not contested by anyone and is a well-known fact. The other user deleted it for unspecified reason and I reverted it back, considering it as vandalism. So I don't see any reason for blocking in the first place. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 00:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• It takes two to tango. Amatulic gave some good advice: BRD. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, thanks for this piece. But what I am saying - there is no reason for blocking in this particular situation. Although I understand the need for better communication with other editors. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• It was still edit warring. I will trim the block to 48 hours, but if the two of you continue edit warring then the next one will be a lot longer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't edit warring from my side. Would you please look at the history of the article? I thought that the other user's actions are vandalism and reverted it only ONCE. That do not constitute any breach from my side whatsoever! I have also added the referenced information and was not engaged in edit warring (e.g. I didn't dispute with the other party and didn't add arguable information). I request the blocking to be annulled immediately, otherwise I will have to question your legitimacy as there is no case here. I was improving and enriching the article as that's what we do in Wikipedia. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• When you saw that it was causing an edit war, you could have begun posting on the talk page; issues of undue weight and the like are better discussed by interested editors rather than being forced — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
• violating 3RR, for the record, is automatically an edit war, but it's not the only way to edit war. I'd suggest that instead of saying 'I'm right and you're wrong, and if you don't realise that it makes you wronger', you take this opportunity to take a deep breath, read up on policies and guidelines, maybe work on a few new articles in userspace, and come back refreshed and recharged. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:35, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

One revert is not an edit war either. As I said, it was a prevention of vandalism. I did not breach any rules, please lift the blocking ASAP. I am also informing you that I will complain about your administration as I was unduly barred from editing for some time already. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• This was vandalism? Someone reverting uncited, undue, information is what you consider vandalism? My... This is exactly why the two of you should have gone straight to the article's talk page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

It was cited - the reference is given to the http://www.russiannobility.org/ and the information is available on the front page. I repeat, I reverted it 1 time and did not try to do add this again. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• The final sentence was not cited, and I don't know if russiannobility.org is a RS. Either way, it is not vandalism to have either added or removed it. If you are unblocked, do you agree to follow BRD to the letter? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, although I reserve the right to add the relevant, unarguable, properly referenced information without prior consultations. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• And if reverted? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:57, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

If reverted for a valid reason, I am not adding it again and move to the talk page instead. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 10:29, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, but please don't call something vandalism when it doesn't fall under the definition. The reduced block timed out, so you're free to edit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:36, 6 September 2012 (UTC)r

So I assume I can add referenced information now to the article about Dostoyevsky? JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

• Yeah, but hopefully neither of you will edit war. I'd suggest keeping the family history separate and discuss it on the talk page before adding it to the main article. If there is enough information on his family, something like Family of Fyodor Dostoyevsky may be in order. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

If you look closer to the issue, I think we have a clear example of Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Somebody needs to persuade the other guy not to feel possessive about the article and let others implement the changes. My other suggestion is to keep it the name as Dostoevsky as main version, I left a note about it on the talk page. JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

• As noted below, a main issue with the information is that its reference is not reliable. I doubt Pumpkin would have issues with solidly-referenced additions which do not give undue weight to a certain aspect of the topic. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Fyodor Dostoyevsky

Hi Jack, I reverted your addition of the Russian Nobility site because it doesn't stand up as a reliable source. Dostoyevsky is currently under GA nomination which requires robust cites such as biographies or journals. I hope that makes sense. Discussing changes on an article talk page is a good way of avoiding edit wars, by the way. Best wishes and happy editing. Span (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Seriously?

You really thought if you just waited awhile you could start adding Tatar to the lead in Aliya Mustafina again? You abandoned your own dispute resolution when it didn't go your way and you ignored my response on the talk page from awhile ago. No one agrees with you. Give it up, or else the article will probably just get locked again.  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 01:26, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tatars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turkic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Tatars

I wanted to let you know that I'm awaiting your response in the talk page of that article. --Mttll (talk) 08:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sources describe Tatars like this:

Definition of TATAR: 1. a member of any of a group of Turkic peoples found mainly in the Tatar Republic of Russia and parts of Siberia and central Asia 2. any of the Turkic languages spoken by the Tatar peoples (Merriam-Webster)

Definition of Tatar 1. a member of a Turkic people living in Tatarstan and various other parts of Russia and Ukraine. They are the descendants of the Tartars who ruled central Asia in the 14th century. 2. the Turkic language of the Tatars, with about 6 million speakers. (Oxford Dictionaries)

I suggest you stop your attempt at WP:OR against the uniform position of perfectly reliable sources on this matter. --Mttll (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I make extra effort to avoid anything that resembles an edit war nowadays, but if you think not responding will make me drop the subject and move on, you are very much mistaken. --Mttll (talk) 10:32, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

January 2013

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC) Stay on talkpage; heed the note. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 15:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please cool down a bit. Don't accuse other users of 'racism' just because you don't agree with their edits. Try to discuss calmly, using factual arguments instead of comments about others.Jeppiz (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Translation assistance request

Hi Jack. When you get a chance, could you please review the sources mentioned at the bottom of this talk page section and comment on two items. First of all, are these sources reliable? Second, do any of these sources make judgment claims that the subject of this article (Bill Browder) is being persecuted", instead of just being the subject of legal action? It would be best if you commented on the talk page directly. Thank you.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer  15:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Xenia Tchoumitcheva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Russian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of building societies in the United Kingdom

The article List of building societies in the United Kingdom has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Duplicates Building society#List of building societies, not fully maintained (it's two years behind in its assets figures).

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. Bazj (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Requesting Guidance

Hello. I'm new to the wiki community and would like to start working on editing the Property Insurance page with the help and collaboration of more experienced contributors from Project Finance Participants. There is also a recommendation the Chartis article be merged with AIG's page. I think the Property Insurance page could be strengthened with parts of AIG's page since it shows how current events and emerging trends effect it's regulation by the government. Hurricane Sandy and updated payouts of the WTC are not on the Property Insurance page either - which to me seem to be relevant. Do you think adding more information would be beneficial to the Property Insurance page? If so would you be interested in collaborating what facts should be included? Any response would be kindly appreciated. Thank you.Lgkkitkat (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Request for usurpation

Hello, JackofDiamonds1. A request has been made via Wikipedia:Changing username (or meta:SRUC) to usurp, or "take over", your username because another user would like to use it to edit. The changing username guideline allows a username that is not being actively used to be usurped if the user is given an opportunity to object and does not do so.

If you do not object to being renamed to a new username in order for another user to use the name you currently have, please log in and post a reply here saying so (you may also tell us what username you would like to be renamed to, or we will provide you with a generic one) or use Special:GlobalRenameRequest.

If you do nothing: the request may be filled shortly, and your account will be moved to a generic username. You may request that it be moved to a new username of your choice at any time.

If you object to being renamed: please log in and make an edit to this page clearly stating that you object to usurpation. Any objection on your part will prevent usurpation.

Please note that even if your current username is usurped, you can still edit and your data will not be lost; your preferences, watchlist, and other user settings will be transferred to a new username.

Thank you for your time. JackofDiamonds2 (talk) 01:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment

Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!