User talk:Jsqqq777

Your recent edits
Your edits to Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn are close to breaking WP:3RR and as such you might be blocked from editing if you continue to revert explained edits. Graham Colm Talk 23:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Warning
You have been editing as a single-purpose account revert-warring on Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and other articles, always pushing for the same contentious detail, the insertion of "USSR" next to "Russian". This kind of single-minded revert warring is disruptive to the project. You are hereby notified that under the terms of this decision of the Arbitration Committee, you may be placed under sanctions such as a topic ban or revert limitation if you continue to edit in a disruptive manner. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I would remind about the same issue: . That's not a minor edit either, and you should fill the edit summary. --Jisis (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Russian vs Soviet mathematician
The edits you are making to multiple mathematicians are very strange, in my opinion. It's like saying that David Hilbert was a German Emperial mathematician, then Weimar Republic mathematician, and died as a Third Reich mathematician. This is silly - he was a German mathematician, as stated on his WP page. In a similar way, Yury Yershov is a Russian mathematician, regardless of the surrounding regime, not "Soviet and Russian". I urge you to rethink your edits. Mhym (talk) 07:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Current Wikipedia does not contain categories “German Emperial mathematicians”, “Weimar Republic mathematicians”, or “Third Reich mathematicians”. Current Wikipedia does, however, contain a well-populated category “Soviet mathematicians”: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Soviet_mathematicians, so your analogy breaks here. Jsqqq777 (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That's because these cats would be too small. There are however Category:Films of the Third Reich as part of the Category:German films.  I don't see a problem with cats here.  Same goes with mathematicians.  For the people in Russia, Soviet period is a part of the Russian history. Adding both attributes (as in "Soviet and Russian mathematician") is redundant.  Also, on a matter of general WP policy - please read WP:OSE and try to avoid this kind of argument in the discussions. Mhym (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * By this logic, would you call Julius Ceasar an Italian political leader? Just based on the statement that [some] Italian people view Roman Empire as a period of their history? Jsqqq777 (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You are conflating a well established scientific notion of a nationality with other related notions such as ethnicity, citizenship, etc. E.g. Prokofiev and Stravinsky were born in the same country, but much of their lives lived in different countries.  Still, both are Russian musicians as culturally they are a product of the same nation.  Pavel I and Putin are part of the same nation, but lived and ruled in different countries, even if on the same territory.  Lenin and Stalin lived in the same nation, but had different ethnicity.  Still, the last four are all Russian political leaders, not Soviet or Imperial Russian or Post-Soviet Russian or whatever.  My main point: belonging to the same nation is the key.  When people refer to Italian military leaders, they do not mention Cesar since he never lived in an Italian nation. Mhym (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
Since you have continued making rapid mass edits all about the same contentious detail, when you were fully aware there is no consensus for these edits, I have blocked you for a short period (24hrs). I urge you to review your attitude towards collaborative editing when you return. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The block was meant as a warning that you need to change your behaviour. You didn't, instead you continued exactly the same revert wars right after coming back from the block, without ever responding here. You are therefore blocked again, this time for 48 hours. These block lengths will quickly escalate towards indefinite if you continue like this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

June, 2010
I note that your only activity on Wikipedia is to make mass edits either changing or adding USSR, Soviet, and/or Russian Empire to the the nationality or birth location specification of biographical subjects. You were warned not to do this, and blocked twice for doing it, in January of this year, and resumed again in May.

Could you please point me to any consensus or policy basis for these edits? If there is none, could you hold off until and unless some sort of consensus forms for doing so? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 04:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary&#32;for your edits. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Superp (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC).
 * You have made similar edits to nearly forty other articles, without responding to my query above. Please consider this a final notice: if you continue without a suitable demonstration of consensus I will bring the matter to administrators' attention.  This may result in your account being blocked again, and the reversion of all these edits.  If you do have a rationale why these edits are useful now would be the time to present it.  Thanks,  - Wikidemon (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The basis of these edits is factual: if a person X was born in country Y, then the corresponding Wikipedia bio article can mention that. Jsqqq777 (talk) 05:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia content is based on sources, not logical arguments.  Based on the discussion above on this page there seems to be considerable opposition, and no consensus to add USSR or Russian Empire to individuals' designations of nationality or origin.  Can you point to any conclusive Wikipedia discussion to the contrary?  You might want to start one.  - Wikidemon (talk) 16:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)eh sources
 * The opposition you mentioned had to do with about 3% of affected entries; in the remaining 97% of cases, the changes under consideration were not challenged at all. In the former 3% of cases, the specific individual (Wikipedia article-based) discussions on merits of the changes (which included bringing in the sources, such as American Heritage Dictionary) resolved the cases. I am not aware of any conclusive Wikipedia discussion on the subject. Jsqqq777 (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

'Minor' edits and edit summaries
I looked at your last 250 edits and they are all marked as "minor" and none of them have edit summaries. As far as I could see, none of these edits were in fact minor, in the sense defined by WP:MINOR. Systematic misuse of marking edits as minor is a form of disruptive editing, since marking an edit as minor indicates, in particular, that an edit is entirely non-contentious and non-controversial and does not need to be reviewed. Looking at your talk page and your block log, it is clear that your edits, most of which consist in adding 'USSR' to lede sentences of various biographies, are in fact contentious and controversial. Please do not mark such edits as minor and please use edit summaries for them. Personally, I am neutral on the USSR issue discussed above at your talk page, but I do feel that, before implementing such mass edits some sort of discussion is necessary, perhaps at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (biographies) or some other suitable forum. This is particularly necessary since in the past your edits have been disputed on this very point and, as I understand, you were blocked in relation to the same issue. Nsk92 (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Vladimir Drinfeld and others
Yore edits to Vladimir Drinfeld have led to a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics you may wish to respond.--Salix (talk): 01:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning
Please do not make reverts of other users' edits, especially not serial reverts across several articles, without at least providing a reason. The style of reverts you made here and on several other articles in quick sequence is perceived as hostile and may constitute "wikihounding". Hostile editing, especially if it is perceived as motivated by an ethnic/political agenda, could quickly get you blocked.

If you really must revert another contributor, the least you are expected to do is a polite explanation in the edit summary.

Standard warning: The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Requests for arbitration/Digwuren.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2014
Your recent editing history at Élie Metchnikoff shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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. —Josh3580talk/hist 18:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Fyodor Pirotsky shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   07:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)