User talk:TxBangert

Welcome!

Hello, TxBangert, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

QWERTY[edit]

Your edit to QWERTY#United Kingdom was certainly valid as far as it went but I'm afraid the end result is an only slightly less confusing mess. Could you have a look at it again please? Specifically,

the material about anglophone countries using the US keyboard should be under US keyboard (with maybe a one line redirect in the UK keyboard section.
the section talks about the AltGr key, but the US layout doesn't have an AltGr key. Does that sentence mark a return to discussing the UK layout again? or what?

I'm lost! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok ... will have a look.

I had a look and I agree that the sentence about Windows 8 support for 'AltGr' is a mess. I'm fairly sure its wrong, but I didn't delete it because I don't live in Australia or New Zealand and have no experience installing Windows there. Its definitely not true in Canada, which uses just the standard US keyboard layout (except Quebec).

Khodorkosky Feb 2022 edits[edit]

Hello, I'm RenatUK. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Mikhail Khodorkovsky seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Renat 14:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RenatUK. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view and is fact based rather than opinion based. I'm sorry you feel that my recent edit to Mikhail Khodorkovsky seemed to you less than neutral but I can assure you that it is now more neutral than it was before. If you think that I am mistaken, please let me know your feeling on my talk page, or the talk page of the Khodorkovsky talk page. Please do not undo my edits before you have discussed the issue with me. The fact is that Khodorkovsky is a convicted criminal, on multiple counts of fraud and tax evasion. If you have any citations that show that he has been 'rehabilitated' then by all means make that known to me, or change the article in that respect. To my knowledge there has never been any formal legal proceedings to set aside his convictions. He is therefore a 'convicted criminal' and the Wikipedia article needs to reflect that fact in the intro -- just like articles about other well known criminals and fraudsters do. It is not helpful for you to try to impose your own personal views that he is somehow a 'philanthropist' ... an innocent victim, a political prisoner or a dissident and so forth. Thank you. --TxB (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you deleted my comment on your own talk page -- after specifically asking me to discuss the issue. I will restored it once just to check if the intent was genuine or the intent was simply to vandalize. I'm happy to put the comment on my own talk page. I'm not happy though for you to remove my edits from the article on Khodorkovsky though, not without good reason. --TxB (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm RenatUK. I noticed that you recently removed content from Mikhail Khodorkovsky without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Renat 15:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Mikhail Khodorkovsky, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Renat 15:49, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Renat I would like for you to revert to my edit in the Khodorkovsky article. My guess is you want to say he is a 'philanthropist'. The problem is the citation is not valid. I'm happy to wait and see if you can find a genuine citation. The fact is that he is a convicted criminal, and not a genuine philanthropist. The introductory paragraph should reflect that. If you want to edit the paragraph to better reflect the facts, then by all means do so. There is a lot of discussion in the talk page that I would suggest you take guidance from. I'm simply trying to address some of the concerns made there, once of which is that this person is a convicted criminal rather than a 'philanthropist'. I am by no means an expert on the Russian legal system and business environment, so I'm happy to let the matter settle for a few days. But I will certainly remove things which are provably wrong or just spurious. --TxB (talk) 16:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Txbangert Why are you fragmenting the discussion? Why can not you discuss everything in one place, one section? "The problem is the citation is not valid." why do you think so? Currently there are Financial Times, Deutsche Welle and European Parliament sources. What is wrong with them? What sources do you want to see? And what kind of "discussion in the talk page" you are talking about? Renat 16:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Renat You asked me to discuss the matter on your talk page. I'm happy to discuss it here if thats what you want. "The problem is the citation is not valid." why do you think so? Why do I think the citation is not valid? It should be obvious! Its a press release! Probably written by Mr Khodokovsky himself! Or those who work for him. I see you put 2 additional references. The Financial Times, Deutsche Welle citations. What is wrong with them? These are interviews with the man himself. In all three cases the 'philanthropist' reference is a self-description. What sources do you want to see? I want to see a solid reference that everyone can agree on. You should be extra careful as this individual is a convicted criminal, who was in prison for 9 years on charges of fraud. The modus operandi of fraudsters is deception. I would be equally hesitant to allow a description of Donald Trump as a philanthropist. I'm happy to discuss the matter anywhere, but I'm not exactly an expert on how Wikipedia works. --TxB (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Txbangert no, I did not say to discuss this on my talk page. And I told you before that my talk page is not for this. And both the Financial Times and Deutsche Welle call him a philanthropist. It is not a self-description. https://www.ft.com/content/a9adb49e-3c39-11e3-b85f-00144feab7de - Financial Times says: "He [Khodorkovsky] was the first, too, to reinvent himself, like the US robber barons a century earlier, as a philanthropist, launching the non-profit Open Russia Foundation to run educational projects." That is not a self-description. https://www.dw.com/en/khodorkovsky-putin-lacks-legitimacy/a-18873038 Deutsche Welle says: "Mr. Khodorkovsky, you used to be a businessman, and now you're a philanthropist." This is also not a self-description. Renat 16:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Renat You said it right above on my talk page! You literally say 'leave a message on my talk page' and helpfully put a link to it. Just scroll up and read it for yourself! As for the references, the FT is a reliable source but you are giving an interview article whose purpose is to present the views of the person being interviewed. Khodorkovsky would make it a pre-condition of the interview that he is described as a 'philanthropist' rather than a convicted criminal. The journalist is not saying that the interviewee is a philanthropist, merely that he describes himself as a philanthropist. An interview is only a reliable source on something the person himself says; it does not establish objective facts about that person. If a self-written press release and personal interviews are the best you can find then I think your claim is inherently very weak. If you want to put 'self-described philanthropist' or Russian Oligarch who is now trying to 'pose as a philanthropist' that would be fine with the citations you currently have. On the other hand, there is solid incontrovertible evidence that he is a convicted criminal and a fraudster. I would be happy with the intro saying Russian fraudster who now poses as a philanthropist. However, I do not see any evidence of any actual philanthropical activity. Bill Gates would be an example of a genuine philanthropist. There are plenty of solid citations for that and even awards you could cite. Has Khodorkovsky received any awards for philanthropy? If yes, you could cite those and I would be happy with that. --TxB (talk) 20:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Renat I guess you have no actual intent to 'discuss' the issue. You are putting unsound references into the article and when I revert the text you complain about 'edit warring'. There was no 'war', I merely put the above comment on my own talk page. I won't waste someone's else's time reviewing such a minor matter, but I would urge you not to waste my time by insisting on putting in citations that are invalid. If you wish to support the 'philanthropist' claim please spend your time usefully by finding citations that everyone can agree are sound. If you are unable to do this then the 'philanthropist' claim will have to go. I would also urge you not to make use of the Wikipedia disciplinary processes inappropriately or abusively. I made it clear to you already that I'm happy to wait a day or two to discuss the issue. There is no 'war'. If you add an invalid reference though I intend to revert that change as soon as possible. Feel free of course to ask me if I consider a citation valid in advance. More generally, unless you have a persuasive argument to the contrary (which it seems you do not) I do intend to pursue bringing more balanced into to the article. It reflects badly on Wikipedia to have biased and misleading content. Putting this into a superhero context, it is equivalent to describing Lex Luthor as a 'philanthropist'. He may indeed be involved with some kind of philanthropic activity, but its unlikely to be legitimate as his main occupation is evil villain. In this case a convicted villain who served 9 years in a labour camp. That is not just my view, but the bulk of the comments on the talk page complain about exactly this kind of bias. I would urge you to read those comments.--TxB (talk) 23:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Quattron 4-color pixel structure.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:Quattron 4-color pixel structure.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Pbrks ^(t • c) 22:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

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 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024[edit]

Your edit to Bradley R. Smith has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. DanCherek (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, copyright concerns were not the only issue with your edit to that page. I urge you to think about the website that you are copying from, and reconsider your approach to editing this project. DanCherek (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:TxBangert and edits related to Holocaust denial. Thank you. DanCherek (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. See Wikipedia:Hate is disruptive and this ANI thread.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 00:03, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]