User talk:Therexbanner/Archive 3

DEMOGRAPHICS OF RUSSIA
WHO ARE YOU? DESPITE RUSSIANS WRITE TRUE NUMBER ABOUT RUSSIAN POPULATION WHY YOU change numbers?


 * I have explained myself in the talk page for the Demographics of Russia article. Please do not change consensus numbers. 80.9% is the percentage of the people that replied.
 * 4% of the population could not reply due to simply not being present at the census taker's visit. If you can understand Russian I'm sure you've read about it. It has also been officially estimated that the proportion of ethnic groups in those 4% is the same as the rest, but this is not too relevant.
 * I have stated it and provided sources in the article. Please come up with a solid reason for using 78% vs. 81%, apart from your original research (taking 112 million and dividing it by 143 million, etc.)
 * Also, please see the Russian version of the article which is also sourced (80.6% in 2002 vs. 80.9% in 2010). It seems somewhat strange that a Turkish member from Adana is so concerned about how numbers are calculated only in Greek and Russian articles, but, it is your right as long as you use what is cited in the sources and nothing else.--Therexbanner (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * PS. The number for Tatars, Bashkirs, Ukrainians, Chechens, etc. is also based on the % that responded. For example, using original research which is not allowed by Wikipedia, Chechens would be at 0.9%, when this way they are 1%. Tatars would be 3.7% vs. the 3.9% now, etc. etc.

LOOK AT THAT; http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%AD%D1%82%D0%BD%D0%BE-%D1%8F%D0%B7%D1%8B%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9_%D1%81%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B2_%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D0%A0%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%81%D0%B8%D0%B8 again again again until you understand continue to look at

%4 not same as the rest, if their ethnicity is unknown it should written as unknown. numbers what you have entered, are admitted valid about all country, not about calculated peoples! your acception about calculation is seen in page of demography of bulgaria. for true understanding it must written with uncalculated numbers. itsnot adana and i concern about specially all Turkic Peoples and less important rest of the world, so all of the world. you must do more research on ip. i repeat, unknown is not known, it should remain unknown


 * That's not the relevant article. This one is : http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Население_России#.D0.9D.D0.B0.D1.86.D0.B8.D0.BE.D0.BD.D0.B0.D0.BB.D1.8C.D0.BD.D1.8B.D0.B9_.D1.81.D0.BE.D1.81.D1.82.D0.B0.D0.B2
 * Look at the ethnic group split section there. The 4% are unknown because they were unavailable, there are sources incl. official sources that confirm that the proportion is the same. I have included them when writing the article here in the English Wikipedia.
 * What you are doing (calculating percentages by yourself) is original research and is not acceptable on Wikipedia. Please read WP:OR. The stats data shows % of the census results and it is 80.9%. The 77% comes from calculating and assuming none of the 4% is Russian which is unacceptable, esp. given most of that 4% is from regions where Russians make up 95%+ of the pop. There is a section in the census for other ethnicities and they are less than 0.1% (incl. people declined to state the ethnicity.) The 4% is not "Other" like in the US census. They were simply not there, but they have an ethnicity and the estimate is that it is proportional to the overall findings.
 * In short, using Wikipedia rules and no OR, you get 80.6% for the previous population and 80.9% for the current one. That is sourced and objective, calculating and doing math to get 77% or whatever, is not acceptable in Wikipedia.--Therexbanner (talk) 23:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Recent changes
Hi, you did not clearly comment as to why you made your recent changes to List of countries by GDP (nominal). Do you mind visiting the articles discussion page regarding Q2 2011 IMF estimates?TalkWoe90i 21:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Slavs
I apologize. Upon close inspection of the removed material, you are correct. I apparently have trouble reading stuff then it is struck-through. I will strive to be more careful in the future. Jeancey (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize, everyone gets confused sometimes. It often gets confusing when dubious edits do not get reverted right away, and get lost within legitimate edits. --Therexbanner (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

April - National Contribution Month
Good day Therexbanner,

During the month of April, Wikimedia Canada is preparing the National Contribution Month, and we are looking for experienced contributors to organize a contribution day (or half-day) in their region.

Contribution days are activities where Wikipedia's contributors, students, or anybody interested in contributing to Wikipedia meets together to collectively improve a predetermined theme. This meetings generally take place in library where references are easy of access, but can be organized in any communal room. Beside improving articles, a goal of this participatory workshops is to initiate neophyte in the cooperative contribution of Wikipedia.

If you are interested in organizing or participating in a contribution day in your region, communicate witht he national team on the project's talk page. The exact agenda of each local event is left to the discretion of the organizer. Help is available for the organization from contributors who already organized these type of days, so don't be worried. If you have any questions or want more information, don't hesitate to contact us.

Amqui (talk) 02:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Using Brazil to save Russia
You can save Russia fo propaganda in Wikipedia,but in reality Russia and Brazil aren't comparable today and in a foresable future to the others.I know well Russia and all its statistics and even some secrets of state (that aren't so).Thinking badly it's a sin ,but many times it's very good to guess well.y In my opinion you're a guy of FSB that works at comp to defend russian image in english Wikipedia that is the most read in the world.You knew already statistics of GDPs and changed them.Remember the old greek story,a frog can't become an ox.I'm in bkontakte.I just laugh to follow the talking in the article "Potential powers"))))151.40.33.65 (talk) 22:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Northern Secondary School (Toronto), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page United Way (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) 09:11, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Russia article pop
Hi, I think there has been a misunderstanding! I reverted those by accident, there is currently a WP:ANI discussion about me and the misuse of a script that changes an article from American English to British English, two days ago I changed Russia into British English. Due to the conclusion of the ANI discussion I was told to revert every non-UK related article back to American English, and this included Russia. I think I deleted your population edits to Russia by accident! I'm sorry about that, but at least it's all sorted now! Regards ☠ Jag  uar  ☠ 15:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Russia
Updated life expectancy with latest data + source - the source doesn't say anything about men, what is your source?Xx236 (talk) 13:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You're right! It was a while since I changed it, but I think I did an avg. based on the numbers provided (ie. women's exp. and the total exp.), coming up with a number that would avg. out to 70.8 ((65.1+76.5)/2 = 70.8) Feel free to change the men's number to whatever was there before if you think that's a better way of doing it. Cheers, --Therexbanner (talk) 15:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)