IndigoBeach (talk | contribs) (→Prizrak: new section) |
(→Azov) |
||
(5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 278: | Line 278: | ||
:Ok, thank you, I'm going to move that part away. [[User:Mhorg|Mhorg]] ([[User talk:Mhorg#top|talk]]) 17:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
:Ok, thank you, I'm going to move that part away. [[User:Mhorg|Mhorg]] ([[User talk:Mhorg#top|talk]]) 17:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
||
::That also really means the rest as well, you only need one or two lines to say what you support. Why you support it should be in the discussion section. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
::That also really means the rest as well, you only need one or two lines to say what you support. Why you support it should be in the discussion section. [[User:Slatersteven|Slatersteven]] ([[User talk:Slatersteven|talk]]) 17:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC) |
||
::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=1087578067&oldid=1087574773 This edit], really? I understand you are fighting tooth and nail to keep Azov labeled as neo-nazi, but you are overstepping your boundaries with these types of tactics. --[[User:TylerBurden|TylerBurden]] ([[User talk:TylerBurden|talk]]) 20:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{ping|TylerBurden}} I know that when a user is banned all things that have been said by them are crossed out, especially if in important discussions such as RFCs. Honestly, I don't know if it's a rule, other times it has happened like this. If it is not a rule, I apologize. I will ask for more precise information about it. [[User:Mhorg|Mhorg]] ([[User talk:Mhorg#top|talk]]) 21:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
::::That would be [[WP:SOCK]], these are free for all in terms of strikes and reverts. This individual was blocked after the fact, so no reason to attempt to censor their comments they made before the fact. [[User:TylerBurden|TylerBurden]] ([[User talk:TylerBurden|talk]]) 22:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{ping|TylerBurden}} Perfect, I didn't know. Thank you, you were right to warn me. Sorry again, see you soon. [[User:Mhorg|Mhorg]] ([[User talk:Mhorg#top|talk]]) 22:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC) |
|||
== May 2022 == |
== May 2022 == |
||
Line 292: | Line 296: | ||
Hi Mhorg, I made an edit earlier today to the Prizrak Brigade Infobox to remove Aleksey Markov because he died in 2020 (already included in the history section). I can see that you've reverted my edit along with other updates made by another editor.{{diff|Prizrak Brigade|1087615821|1087610461}} I wanted to check in with you to ask if there's any reason why his name shouldn't be removed from the Infobox. thank you! [[User:IndigoBeach|IndigoBeach]] ([[User talk:IndigoBeach|talk]]) 15:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC) |
Hi Mhorg, I made an edit earlier today to the Prizrak Brigade Infobox to remove Aleksey Markov because he died in 2020 (already included in the history section). I can see that you've reverted my edit along with other updates made by another editor.{{diff|Prizrak Brigade|1087615821|1087610461}} I wanted to check in with you to ask if there's any reason why his name shouldn't be removed from the Infobox. thank you! [[User:IndigoBeach|IndigoBeach]] ([[User talk:IndigoBeach|talk]]) 15:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC) |
||
:{{ping|IndigoBeach}} Sorry! It was my mistake. I just added again your contribute. [[User:Mhorg|Mhorg]] ([[User talk:Mhorg#top|talk]]) 21:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:09, 13 May 2022
June 2018
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Separatist forces of the war in Donbass, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
BLP 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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the 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. |
My very best wishes (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
File:Yuri Gagarin by Jorit.jpg
I replied to your comment at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Yuri Gagarin by Jorit.jpg. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 13:08, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Nationality in edit summary
Hello, I wanted to let you know that a user's nationality is not a valid reason for removal nor serves as proof that an editor is biased, and should not be used as such in the edit summary when reverting an edit. Instead, try to point out how and which policies or guidelines you think the specific edit is not following, such as WP:OR or WP:REMOVAL. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Oqwert (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @Oqwert:, when I spoke of "disruptive action" it was certainly not referring to the nationality of the user, but to the propensity of Ukrainian-speaking users to modify the English Wikipedia in a fraudulent way, as we experienced some time ago on Stepan Bandera's page. In fact, the user has made extensive changes, also removing sources, on pages related to Ukrainian nationalists.--Mhorg (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I am not saying that by "disruptive" you were referring to the user's nationality, but that bringing it out does not help at all and should be avoided, as it may be seen as hostile or unwelcoming to other users; focus on the content of the edit instead of attempting to categorize anyone based on what language they speak regardless of how you believe they can be generalized. If you suspect large scale, organized vandalism is taking place, use the article talk page to discuss the issue or report it to the administrators in severe/persistent cases. It is also good practice to warn users who make disruptive edits on their talk page if no previous warning has been issued since those edits were made in order to prevent further disruption. Oqwert (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the suggestions @Oqwert:, those comments could actually be misunderstood. Next time I will better specify the reasons for the reverts.--Mhorg (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
February 2021
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
I noticed your recent edit to Alexei Navalny does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
- User contributions
- Recent changes
- Watchlists
- Revision diffs
- IRC channels
- Related changes
- New pages list
- Article editing history
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks!--Renat (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Alexei Navalny, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you.--Renat (talk) 11:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you @RenatUK: for helping me to improve my Wikipedia skills :) I suppose you are talking about this:
The Guardian: A video that Navalny recorded for Narod several years ago called for arming the population to shoot Chechen bandits.
NYTimes Once starred in a video that compares dark-skinned Caucasus militants to cockroaches. While cockroaches can be killed with a slipper, he says that in the case of humans, “I recommend a pistol.”
I thought the references are obvious to the same video. If you confirm that this is the part, how could both information be kept? Should I write that NY is about video 1 and The Guardian is about another video? Thank you again.--Mhorg (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2021 (UTC)- I was talking about "Navalny was frequently described as a Russian "nationalist democrat"." That's not what the source says.--Renat (talk) 11:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
ANI notice
I have no time to go deeper into it, so I left a notice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Alexei Navalny, Mhorg, and LauraWilliamson looking for a user to make a fourth revert in hope someone will take a look.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
DS notice
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 discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the 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. |
My very best wishes (talk) 23:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
- You can follow an advice here i.e. start an WP:RFC. But I have no idea what your RFC question might be about. About the "rodents"? My very best wishes (talk) 04:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, this is the first time i see those RFC or Dispute resolution and I'm getting confused. Speaking of the RFC, we started with the Georgian question (the war, and the racial slurs), now you are questioning all the controversial events of the politician in question. Maybe we should make an RFC for each point. What do you think about it?--Mhorg (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I am not questioning anything. I am just saying that the page is very big, and we should focus on facts of his biography, rather than his opinions and views than need to be shortened. No RfC is needed. Let's just see what kind of consensus will emerge on the page given that several contributors are involved. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- @My very best wishes: You said that "The page is very big", so you simply carefully deleted only the controversial parts of Navalny's past [2] and leave everything that portrays the politician in question positively, who cares if dozens of RS have covered the subject. And why were the RS dealing with those topics? Who knows, maybe because they are of public interest? And we are not talking about particular issues, we are talking about controversial facts that for any other politician would have been promptly inserted on his article.--Mhorg (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- No, I only removed the most unimportant/insignificant content from section entitled "Political views". Those are views, not facts. I do agree that his most important views (something he is known for) should stay. He is mostly known for describing United Russia as a "party of crooks and thieves". So, that should stay. You are just picking up very old noise, which is hardly of any significance, especially now, when the page should reflect new important events, such as his poisoning, new arrest and protests. Those are facts and actual events. My very best wishes (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- @My very best wishes: You said that "The page is very big", so you simply carefully deleted only the controversial parts of Navalny's past [2] and leave everything that portrays the politician in question positively, who cares if dozens of RS have covered the subject. And why were the RS dealing with those topics? Who knows, maybe because they are of public interest? And we are not talking about particular issues, we are talking about controversial facts that for any other politician would have been promptly inserted on his article.--Mhorg (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- I am not questioning anything. I am just saying that the page is very big, and we should focus on facts of his biography, rather than his opinions and views than need to be shortened. No RfC is needed. Let's just see what kind of consensus will emerge on the page given that several contributors are involved. My very best wishes (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, this is the first time i see those RFC or Dispute resolution and I'm getting confused. Speaking of the RFC, we started with the Georgian question (the war, and the racial slurs), now you are questioning all the controversial events of the politician in question. Maybe we should make an RFC for each point. What do you think about it?--Mhorg (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
a new sock puppet of LauraWilliamson?
out of no were the user Beanom undoes your edits the same way has the other sock did? (Edit waring when other users disagree, undue content is still being debated on talk) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alexei_Navalny&diff=1006200363&oldid=1006193783 How would a new user know the terms (Edit waring and undue) they do not seem like a new user at all.2600:1702:1340:35F0:A56A:C10F:8B3:E929 (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Maybe tell the admin that blocked the other sock puppet or someone else that knows about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1340:35F0:A56A:C10F:8B3:E929 (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you anonymous dude, I think they already caught him\her. Consider getting an account to help maintain the encyclopedia, and also stay in touch.--Mhorg (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- [3] - what a video, but that one is better. My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't get the point.--Mhorg (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- [4] (at the bottom) - yes, of course they are videos officially released by these organizations. But they were released as a promotion of their cause. More important, what organizations? If they were officially classified as terrorist organizations, at least in some countries like Ukraine, I am sure that the mass-linking to promotional videos by extremist organizations was a bad idea. Do not you agree? My very best wishes (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand what you are implying, it will surely be something that has nothing to do with what reality is, as you have amply demonstrated in these days of exhausting discussions. What in Ukraine is called "terrorist" frankly interests me very little. Internationally (at least not by all Western states) they are not recognized as terrorist organizations, and commonly referred to as "pro-Russians" or "separatists". Those links are used on that article because they are very small organizations with poor sources. The Interunit for example was a unit inside Prizrak. The Bryanka was just a little group of artillery. Are you really accusing me of sponsoring terrorism on Wikipedia for that? Haven't you been insulting enough these days?--Mhorg (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- That's right. The nation of Ukraine does not set the tone as far as defining pro-Russian separatists as terrorist organizations. And while I note that the Trump administration did consider designating one of the more white supremacist-leaning Russian groups as a terrorist organization, this did not seem to have been attempted for the any pro-Russian separatist groups, nor the movement, overall: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/us/politics/terrorist-label-white-supremacy-Russian-Imperial-Movement.html El_C 17:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- These YouTube videos belong to VOXKOMM International (two first video coincide with subjects recently edited on WP by Mhorg). Regardless to their ideology and other considerations, such video are not RS about living people, including living people who allegedly appear on such video (I have no idea if these video are real or some kind of "fake"). Note that actions on such video might be a regarded as a criminal act. My very best wishes (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- They are sources used (in 2015) for small armed groups. That channel was the only Western one that dealt with the Prizrak. Then? Maybe they won't be RS, but what does everything else have to do with it? First you accuse me of sponsoring terrorism... now of sponsoring criminal acts. What will the next charge be? They are the belligerent parts of a war. You are only trying to divert attention from your malicious actions on Navalny's article, right?--Mhorg (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Well, actually I thought that anonymous YouTube user "VOXKOMM International" is you (or you are somehow related), so you were making multiple links to your own YouTube videos. This is because there is a significant content and timing overlap between postings the records on this YouTube account and your editing here (the rebels, Markiv and Navalny).My very best wishes (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Other allegations. I started editing Markiv's article on 22 July 2019 [5] the video of that channel (which I certainly know) is from 13 Nov 2020, but still all this has nothing to do with what you say. You are accusing me of sponsoring two links inserted in 2015 near two combat formations names (poor sourced) present in an article listing the separatist forces in Donbass, you accuse me of sponsoring terrorism and criminal acts. My edits are public, you can check as much as you want. Tell me where I behaved maliciously, tell me where I removed RS and completely distorted articles as you are doing now on Navalny's article. You can talk as much as you like about me, but it seems to me that the problem here is always yours.--Mhorg (talk) 14:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- Well, actually I thought that anonymous YouTube user "VOXKOMM International" is you (or you are somehow related), so you were making multiple links to your own YouTube videos. This is because there is a significant content and timing overlap between postings the records on this YouTube account and your editing here (the rebels, Markiv and Navalny).My very best wishes (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- They are sources used (in 2015) for small armed groups. That channel was the only Western one that dealt with the Prizrak. Then? Maybe they won't be RS, but what does everything else have to do with it? First you accuse me of sponsoring terrorism... now of sponsoring criminal acts. What will the next charge be? They are the belligerent parts of a war. You are only trying to divert attention from your malicious actions on Navalny's article, right?--Mhorg (talk) 07:31, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- These YouTube videos belong to VOXKOMM International (two first video coincide with subjects recently edited on WP by Mhorg). Regardless to their ideology and other considerations, such video are not RS about living people, including living people who allegedly appear on such video (I have no idea if these video are real or some kind of "fake"). Note that actions on such video might be a regarded as a criminal act. My very best wishes (talk) 22:18, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- That's right. The nation of Ukraine does not set the tone as far as defining pro-Russian separatists as terrorist organizations. And while I note that the Trump administration did consider designating one of the more white supremacist-leaning Russian groups as a terrorist organization, this did not seem to have been attempted for the any pro-Russian separatist groups, nor the movement, overall: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/06/us/politics/terrorist-label-white-supremacy-Russian-Imperial-Movement.html El_C 17:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I understand what you are implying, it will surely be something that has nothing to do with what reality is, as you have amply demonstrated in these days of exhausting discussions. What in Ukraine is called "terrorist" frankly interests me very little. Internationally (at least not by all Western states) they are not recognized as terrorist organizations, and commonly referred to as "pro-Russians" or "separatists". Those links are used on that article because they are very small organizations with poor sources. The Interunit for example was a unit inside Prizrak. The Bryanka was just a little group of artillery. Are you really accusing me of sponsoring terrorism on Wikipedia for that? Haven't you been insulting enough these days?--Mhorg (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- [4] (at the bottom) - yes, of course they are videos officially released by these organizations. But they were released as a promotion of their cause. More important, what organizations? If they were officially classified as terrorist organizations, at least in some countries like Ukraine, I am sure that the mass-linking to promotional videos by extremist organizations was a bad idea. Do not you agree? My very best wishes (talk) 15:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't get the point.--Mhorg (talk) 22:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- [3] - what a video, but that one is better. My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Report sockpuppetry at Sockpuppet investigations, in particular at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gordimalo. Or don't report it at SPI. Throwing around idle accusations of sockpuppetry is a form of Casting Aspersions and violates the principle of civility. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
- The original posting by the IP was about Beanom (talk · contribs). I see zero evidence that Beanom is anyone's sock. But filing an SPI request about them (with no evidence) would be a WP:POINT. I think this is a responsibility of the blocking admin to either submit an SPI request or unblock the user. My very best wishes (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Your comment
I saw your comment [6]. Please realize that WP is not a vacuum cleaner to collect whatever has been published in newspapers. This is especially the case for BLP pages. Please see the policy. It tells: "Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events.". It tells the following: (a) "summarize" - as opposed to indiscriminate citation, (b) "actions and achievements" rather than claims on blogs, and (c) "without giving undue weight to recent events." I think you are giving an undue weight not to recent events, but to comments (mostly on blogs) that had happen 12 years ago. It is also important that the info you are trying to include (about the "Narod" organization and his alleged nationalistic views) was already on the page. I did not remove it. I only removed the excessive and essentially duplicate content by you. I hope this explanation will help you to save some time. My very best wishes (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Hi My very best wishes, I did not want to go that far, but I did not find your behavior fair in the discussion, indeed, I noticed that you did everything to precisely eliminate all the controversial aspects of the politician in question. The fact that those events happened 10 years ago does not mean that they have no weight, everything has weight, especially if they are extremely controversial issues (and we are not talking about blog chatter, they are issues reported on many important RS).
As for the removal of NAROD, you have precisely eliminated everything related to it, as can be seen on the diff.[7] Now I will take some time to rest, because the many discussions we had, the grueling search for RS, exhausted me. In a few days I will return to the subject, I am extremely opposed to what you are trying to implement. I hope that in the future we can collaborate, in a better way. For now I don't see how that can happen.--Mhorg (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2021 (UTC)- The "Narod" was already mentioned in the end of section Yabloko where it belongs: "By then, he had founded a nationalist movement, "The People". ... He was consequently expelled from Yabloko "for causing political damage to the party; in particular, for nationalist activities". I did not remove it. It does deserve to be briefly mentioned. This is very poorly written though. My very best wishes (talk) 23:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Fine, I just restored your version. My very best wishes (talk) 23:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- User:My very best wishes this is not a game, and i don't even want to fight you, i have nothing against you personally. I only ask you not to act maliciously, trying to remove every negative aspect of Navalny's article, because we must report this political figure with neutrality.--Mhorg (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- Do you really believe that such your edit [8], witch such justification [9] is reporting a "political figure with neutrality"? My very best wishes (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
- User:My very best wishes this is not a game, and i don't even want to fight you, i have nothing against you personally. I only ask you not to act maliciously, trying to remove every negative aspect of Navalny's article, because we must report this political figure with neutrality.--Mhorg (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Notification
Hello, I want to let you know [10], you can file a request for me, too.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:10, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
- Nicoljaus why? I don't think you are so in badfaith, I think only that you are a Navalny supporter and of course you take the side. But I don't think, for now, you are playing dirty (maybe you could avoid the personal accusations against me,[11] that yes).--Mhorg (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Warning
Mhorg, whenever you accuse someone of WP:FOLLOWING, you must substantiate that with diff evidence, otherwise it counts as an WP:ASPERSION, which isn't allowed and may lead to sanctions. El_C 00:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry El C didn't know this rule. User User:Nicoljaus just starting deletion[12] of my very old edit of 25 May 2020. This is the same thing happened with User:My very best wishes, same deletion[13] in these days of harsh discussions. Again, MVBW removes[14] my old edit of 1 October 2020, and again he removes[15] my old edit of 9 October 2020. I guess they are checking all my old edits for malicious actions (they still have to bring me back one), but in the meantime, I guess they want to annoy me as well, otherwise these removals won't be explained after al this time.--Mhorg (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- This is a very heavy and unfair accusation, because in fact I tried to save this table, taken from a primary source, by bringing a secondary source that discusses its data and puts it in the right context: 10:08, 18 February 2021, 15:38, 18 February 202. And it's not my fault that IP-users came out of nowhere and didn't let me do it.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know what are you doing with all these anon users. I don't want to discuss other topics with you, what we are having on Navalny is enough for me, which is already draining my energy. I just got a notification where I saw that my old edit was accidentally and again removed by someone involved in our harsh discussions.--Mhorg (talk) 08:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- What "notification" are you talking about? I don't understand how you could get a notification if I just deleted a redundant section in the article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- I have an RSS Feed on the articles I edited.--Mhorg (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- What "notification" are you talking about? I don't understand how you could get a notification if I just deleted a redundant section in the article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know what are you doing with all these anon users. I don't want to discuss other topics with you, what we are having on Navalny is enough for me, which is already draining my energy. I just got a notification where I saw that my old edit was accidentally and again removed by someone involved in our harsh discussions.--Mhorg (talk) 08:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
- This is a very heavy and unfair accusation, because in fact I tried to save this table, taken from a primary source, by bringing a secondary source that discusses its data and puts it in the right context: 10:08, 18 February 2021, 15:38, 18 February 202. And it's not my fault that IP-users came out of nowhere and didn't let me do it.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Reply
- Re to [16]. Whatever you think, we only had a few civil discussions on several pages, we did not start any edit wars, and the content was actually improved. Also, let me assure that I had absolutely no intention to harass you. When I came to edit a page for whatever reason (such as an article appeared in a discussion or I just looked at something related in WP), I frequently do not even check who edited this page before. I simply look at the page to fix whatever I think needs to be fixed and explain in my edit summary. Like here, here, etc. I simply do not check who and when originally inserted such content because I do not care. Yes, now I can see that was you, long time ago. But that was probably someone else? More important, when you objected like here, or here, I did not revert your edits. And you call this harassment? My very best wishes (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
- Believe me, you are the first user, after the sockpuppet User:LauraWilliamson, with whom I am having serious problems in 6 years of activity on Wikipedia. I'm sorry but I don't believe your words, on the contrary, I find them manipulative and mystifying, as I have already had the opportunity to explain in the AE request. In that same request I tried to show how you are following me from article to article, confronting me, as per Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. I hope some admin can kindly check this and help me out (if I'm right).--Mhorg (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- You say that I want to remove all "controversial" content under pretense of undue weight. This is not the case. There are criteria what content is due on a page, and I explained them to you here. Now, speaking about guidelines and your edit on page Alexievich, you inserted new content, and it can be reverted per WP:BRD, so you need to have consensus to include it. Moreover, this is a BLP page, and WP:BLP say about it: "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- As about our little content disagreement about Navalny, it can be resolved easily. If you suggest any reasonable and neutrally worded text related to Georgia based on the scholarly source mentioned, I will agree immediately. But if you insist on specific wording that includes insects and rodents, well, then you need to submit an RfC and see if that will be supported by community. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- So, does it look like a good plan to resolve our single content disagreement on page Navalny? I believe we do not have any other disagreements on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- The fact that I have silently accepted Narod's total removal does not mean that I agree with what you have done. I was just focusing on the AE request. As for the Russo-Georgian war, I am waiting for your proposal on the matter for about 20 days, I made mine: it is precisely what Navalny wrote on his blog, without interpretations, without the possibility of misunderstanding.--Mhorg (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- I do not have any because I am fine with omitting it, just as I am fine with inclusion if properly worded. "it is precisely what Navalny wrote on his blog, without interpretations" - yes, I think that's exactly the problem here. You are just finding something "controversial" and sourced to dump it to BLP pages. Same with page about Aleksievich. We must include content that has been interpreted (i.e. placed to proper context) by secondary RS, preferably review articles and preferably scholarly ones or written by experts. For example, that would be good RS about such views by Navalny, and that would be a good RS about Aleksievich. If we do not have such good sources, then it may be debatable, but we do have them, specifically on the subjects under discussion. Now, if you want to know what Navalny really thinks about nationalism, here is (Russian source) he explains it in dialog with Adam Michnik. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- (You know Russian). So, according to this interview,
- Michnik ask: "А сейчас нет визового режима?"
- (You know Russian). So, according to this interview,
- I do not have any because I am fine with omitting it, just as I am fine with inclusion if properly worded. "it is precisely what Navalny wrote on his blog, without interpretations" - yes, I think that's exactly the problem here. You are just finding something "controversial" and sourced to dump it to BLP pages. Same with page about Aleksievich. We must include content that has been interpreted (i.e. placed to proper context) by secondary RS, preferably review articles and preferably scholarly ones or written by experts. For example, that would be good RS about such views by Navalny, and that would be a good RS about Aleksievich. If we do not have such good sources, then it may be debatable, but we do have them, specifically on the subjects under discussion. Now, if you want to know what Navalny really thinks about nationalism, here is (Russian source) he explains it in dialog with Adam Michnik. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- The fact that I have silently accepted Narod's total removal does not mean that I agree with what you have done. I was just focusing on the AE request. As for the Russo-Georgian war, I am waiting for your proposal on the matter for about 20 days, I made mine: it is precisely what Navalny wrote on his blog, without interpretations, without the possibility of misunderstanding.--Mhorg (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- Believe me, you are the first user, after the sockpuppet User:LauraWilliamson, with whom I am having serious problems in 6 years of activity on Wikipedia. I'm sorry but I don't believe your words, on the contrary, I find them manipulative and mystifying, as I have already had the opportunity to explain in the AE request. In that same request I tried to show how you are following me from article to article, confronting me, as per Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. I hope some admin can kindly check this and help me out (if I'm right).--Mhorg (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
- Navalny: Нет. И весь мой национализм в данном вопросе заключается в том, чтобы такой режим был, в том числе и для того, чтобы соблюдать права мигрантов. Потому что если мы таким образом фильтруем поток, то мигранты вынуждены получать разрешение на работу и оформлять медицинскую страховку. В случае необходимости они смогут рассчитывать на правовую и медицинскую помощь. А сейчас мы имеем совершенно дикую ситуацию. Допустим, нелегальному мигранту на стройке отрезало руку. И что ему делать? Умирать под забором? Лечить его никто не будет. Я считаю, что Россия должна ориентироваться на опыт цивилизованных стран, пользоваться такими инструментами, как визы и рабочие квоты. С этого нужно начинать. Если посмотреть шире, то моя концепция заключается в том, что нужно общаться с националистами и вести с ними разъяснительную работу.", etc.
- This is a very very much different position from sometehing you are trying to include. My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- As about "Narod", I did not remove it. N. did. My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- It is clear that you have no proposals, this is precisely why I opened the AE request. If you wanted to solve it, you would have made a proposal.
On the Georgian issue you are forgetting (Wikipedia:ICANTHEARYOU) that if we had used the available RS, we would have simply written that he supported the war (this is indeed controversial). While the version with the mix between the primary source and the RS specified a different thing, namely that according to him Russia was required to implement various measures to stop the war.
Speaking of nationalism, you bring me an interview from 2015, when all of his pro-nationalist and anti-immigration statements and videos are from around 2006 to 2013. As for me you can also insert this explanation, specifying the year, the important thing is that you do not remove what happened before, it's called "whitewashing".--Mhorg (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)- So, your suggested version is this, and this is your justification [17]? If so, then start an RfC. Then you will see if this is only me or other users will also object. My very best wishes (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- We're talking about the Russo-Georgian war, and you bring me the part about the NAROD videos. So we'll never understand each other, and maybe that's what you want.--Mhorg (talk) 07:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- But then what exactly "proposal on the matter for about 20 days" you made? Looking at the article talk page [18], I do not see any specific text you suggested. My very best wishes (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have repeatedly argued that Nicolajius' version (the first) was acceptable (Alaexis agreed too), i.e. where we had combined the primary source with the multiple RSs. My final proposal is dated 9 February 2021, 20 days ago.--Mhorg (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I am sorry, but you just gave me a diff to your minor edit on the page. What specific text did you suggest and where did you suggest it 20 days ago? My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- "To avoid misunderstandings and interpretations, we can simply report the measures proposed by Navalny on his own blog during the Russo-Georgian war. We cannot simply pretending that nothing happened. date:10:07, 9 February 2021.
For this reason I propose for now to restore the part about the Georgia, combining the primary source with the RS. date 21:30, 10 February 2021
Also Alaexis understood what part was proposed (the last part to restore [19]), because he answered: WP:NPOV: it's phrased in a neutral way, it's mentioned that he was against sending Russian troops to Georgia/South Ossetia and that later he apologised for the words he used. WP:UNDUE: this does not occupy too much or too prominent space in the Policies section, we should basically follow the RS when deciding the importance of this particular position. It was the part deleted by Nicolajius[20], but you continue to pretend you don't understand.--Mhorg (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)- OK. Based on the diffs provided, you did NOT propose to include any specific text to the page. At this note, I am leaving your talk page. Happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- (Wikipedia:ICANTHEARYOU) Go ahead and pretend you don't understand. I specified that the text I proposed was the one we had built together with Nicolajius and Alaexis and that Nicolajius then removed. I don't know how else to explain it to you. It is very simple and clear.--Mhorg (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- OK. Based on the diffs provided, you did NOT propose to include any specific text to the page. At this note, I am leaving your talk page. Happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- "To avoid misunderstandings and interpretations, we can simply report the measures proposed by Navalny on his own blog during the Russo-Georgian war. We cannot simply pretending that nothing happened. date:10:07, 9 February 2021.
- I am sorry, but you just gave me a diff to your minor edit on the page. What specific text did you suggest and where did you suggest it 20 days ago? My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- I have repeatedly argued that Nicolajius' version (the first) was acceptable (Alaexis agreed too), i.e. where we had combined the primary source with the multiple RSs. My final proposal is dated 9 February 2021, 20 days ago.--Mhorg (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- But then what exactly "proposal on the matter for about 20 days" you made? Looking at the article talk page [18], I do not see any specific text you suggested. My very best wishes (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- We're talking about the Russo-Georgian war, and you bring me the part about the NAROD videos. So we'll never understand each other, and maybe that's what you want.--Mhorg (talk) 07:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- So, your suggested version is this, and this is your justification [17]? If so, then start an RfC. Then you will see if this is only me or other users will also object. My very best wishes (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
- It is clear that you have no proposals, this is precisely why I opened the AE request. If you wanted to solve it, you would have made a proposal.
- As about "Narod", I did not remove it. N. did. My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Right Sector VS Hungarians
Hello! I've seen the Right Sector's talk page, that you reverted my edits. Listen, the Right Sector hates the russian peoples and the hungarian peoples. I have proof mate, so it's real, and not fake. Here is my proof! https://kuruc.info/r/7/221272/, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2020-006618_EN.html. That's the two proofs. If you speak Hungarian, or English, that you will see the Ukranian nationalists, that are hates the Hungarians and the Russians in Ukraine. It's real, not fake. Just belive me, and you can thank me later. Have nice day! --TomFZ67 (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- TomFZ67 I have no reason to doubt that a neo-fascist organization doesn't hate people from other nations. What I'm telling you is that you need sources that specify this hatred. The site you provided me does not seem reliable, at least from the images I see. The link of the European parliament does not talk about Right Sector instead. If there have been cases of violence against Hungarians, surely some reliable Hungarian newspapers will have reported it. Can you do a deeper research?--Mhorg (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- OK, I will take a look at this. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- My very best wishes Oh thanks mate! I only speak English and Hungarian languages. :Mhorg If you need anything, just conctact me, i perfectly speak English and Hungarian language. Have nice day! --TomFZ67 (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- "My very best wishes", I wasn't talking to you, but do as you think... now you also join other discussions on my talk page. Ok...--Mhorg (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- MVBW, did you mistake Mhorg's talk page for your own or something? Because your terse interjection above (however well-meaning) comes across as darn pretty weird, context and all. El_C 16:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well, user TomFZ67 commented simultaneously with me, I just saw their comment and decided to check what user TomFZ67 is talking all about (actually I meant to respond to TomFZ67). But whatever. As I said in my previous comment, I am leaving this talk page for good. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- MVBW, did you mistake Mhorg's talk page for your own or something? Because your terse interjection above (however well-meaning) comes across as darn pretty weird, context and all. El_C 16:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- OK, I will take a look at this. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- TomFZ67 I found a source that could be used.[21] I don't know if it's reliable, but being a pro-Ukrainian source there is no conflict of interest and there is no reason to doubt the information reported. If you want, you can restore the part.--Mhorg (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Myrotvorets
I've just noticed someone's attempt to white-wash the article, and I simply reverted it to its former state. If I removed some relevant sources you added, you are welcome to add them back. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
- Moscow Connection I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed. Since you're here, take a look at what this user is doing just about everywhere.[22][23] In this AE request I made a summary [24].--Mhorg (talk) 16:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
March 2021
Your edit to Institute of National Remembrance 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. — Diannaa (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Diannaa, I apologize for the inconvenience. Due to language problems, I tend to modify the contents that I find in the sources as little as possible. I'll pay more attention to it next time.--Mhorg (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
If you do quote the source without modification, the proper way to do so is between quotation marks with the citation following immediately or shortly after:
Percy had served at Gallipoli with the 15th (North Auckland) Regiment, and was discharged as "medically unfit" from the Army in 1916.[1]
In some cases you may also want to attribute the quote to a specific person:
According to Tom Stobart, Hillary was "a skeleton as tall as I was … a hatchet-thin face, and seemed tied together with steel."[2]
Both examples are taken from Edmund Hillary. You will notice that in both cases it's clear that the text between the parentheses is not our work, but copied - verbatim or trimmed - from the cited source.
Cheers! François Robere (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you François Robere for these suggestions.--Mhorg (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Gill, Michael (2019). Edmund Hillary - A Biography: The extraordinary life of the beekeeper who ... ISBN 9781911342977. Retrieved 22 September 2020.
- ^ Gill, Michael (2017). Edmund Hillary : a biography. Potton & Burton. pp. 188–189. ISBN 9780947503383.
Jan Żaryn at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
Hi, this is just an info that there has been a thread opened about Jan Żaryn at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you CommanderWaterford for this notification.--Mhorg (talk) 08:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
May 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Azov Battalion. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Horse Eye's Back:, ok, but I was just reverting the edit of an anonymous user, waiting to understand the diatribe in the discussions section. That definition had been there for months, I didn't enter it.--Mhorg (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
- The edits of anonymous users are no less legitimate than the edits of the most seasoned editor and in this case the anonymous IP would appear to have a historical consensus on their side. A new RfC on the issue should be forthcoming shortly, you most likely won’t have to wait long until we have that or something close back in the lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
You are under a "sockpuppet investigation"
Hey, you (and me, and three other people apparently) are under investigation for being a sockpuppet, an IP let me know, you were just edited in so I am letting you know as well Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MPSCL. CPCEnjoyer (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- @CPCEnjoyer: Thanks for letting me know. This thing is too funny. I am not an expert in these investigations, I trust in the admin in charge. And I hope this stuff turns against that user who does nothing but wage a political battle here on Wikipedia by any means possible.--Mhorg (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
ANI discussion
By obligation to notify users concerned in the ANI case, I hereby notify you that There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Re: BLPs and Wikipedia
Hey Mhorg,
Remember that with BLPs, the harsher the allegation, the stronger the evidence must be. It's true that Greniuch was a leader in some far-right neo-fascist organization, and that he was photographed giving a Nazi salute; but that does not necessarily imply that he either was in the past, or is now a neo-Nazi. WP:BLP means extra sensitivity to these sort of distinctions, even if in some cases common sense may tell you they're redundant. Try to rely not only on good sources (with scholarly, peer reviewed publications at the top), but on a lot of them. In this case you have a lot of sources to establish the first two claims (former far-right leader, etc.), but only one for the third (actual neo-Nazi), so you should be extra careful if you decide to make that claim.
There's another aspect of this that you should be aware of: in WP:BATTLEGROUND-prone topic areas, it is not unlikely that some editors will be keeping track of what you do. Anything that can be construed as a Policy violation, whether intentional or not, could be used against you at a later time - so take care not to provide anyone with too much material!
Cheers. François Robere (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @François Robere:, now I understand what that user meant. Maybe I take too many things for granted, I agree with you that I need to be more cautious. I'll first restore that Greniuch source, I will let the community decide whether such a character has legitimacy to be used as a source. Thank you for your patience and courtesy to explain these rules to me.--Mhorg (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Your help desk question
You did not get a response to this question and I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. Did you find an answer somewhere else?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
- @Vchimpanzee: thanks for your interest. Currently I have abandoned the question, not understanding if it is of interest to the community and if it is legitimate to discuss it and where discuss it.--Mhorg (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Il Canto degli Italiani
Hi, just to let you know that while your translation is word for word correct, the expression in English is we are ready to die. Many times translating word for word is not the best way. Regards Denisarona (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @Denisarona:, do you think the sentence I changed is not understandable in English? Because being Italian, for us it certainly has a comparable meaning, but specifying the word "death" has a "harder" meaning. I would prefer my version. What do you think about it?--Mhorg (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @Mhorg:, your translation is technically correct, but the we are ready to die translation is much more common. For this reason, I didn't revert your edit but, as a native English speaker, the alternative sounds better. Regards, Denisarona (talk) 09:14, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Azov Battalion
I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [[25]] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 00:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
MArch 22
You need to read [[wp::npa]] and wp:soap. Slatersteven (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
Azov
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 discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place{{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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. |
Elinruby (talk) 07:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BSMRD (talk) 17:31, 25 March 2022 (UTC)}}
You just deleted 7 reliable sources
Please explain how one may "breach" an RfC? - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Please look at the discussion page of that article. The lede of that article is bound by the 2021 RFC. Mhorg (talk) 09:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I have. Please explain how an article is "bound" by an RfC? A million wikipedians could agree that the earth is flat - RS tell otherwise. ты говоришь по-русски? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
YouTube is not a source
Just, FYI.
And, not that you'll take any note, but again, FYI, there can be no "consensus" when a plurality of active contributors on the Talk Page and in the ongoing RfC disagree with your POV.
EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- Regarding the discussion, there was a huge RFC in 2021 where that definition was established. There is currently only a discussion on the talk page to see if anything has changed since the old RFC. About Youtube, I know perfectly that is not a source, but those videos are useful in the discussion to demonstrate that the those sources show data that is unverifiable, therefore: unreliable. Mhorg (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
- And that RFC was wrong, as the sources I have provided show. Russia's invasion has brought a whole lot more attention to the Azov unit than it had in 2021. I'd advise you to read up on Wikipedia Policy, but I've done so repeatedly already, so I don't see the point. Don't say I didn't warn you though. - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
Azov
Yes it seems now that a certain user wants it to be active, so I have reset it and those WILL be the only options. Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
We do not need a list of sources in your choice, if you must list them do so in the discussion section, where they will not make it hard to see who voted for what. Slatersteven (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you, I'm going to move that part away. Mhorg (talk) 17:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- That also really means the rest as well, you only need one or two lines to say what you support. Why you support it should be in the discussion section. Slatersteven (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
- This edit, really? I understand you are fighting tooth and nail to keep Azov labeled as neo-nazi, but you are overstepping your boundaries with these types of tactics. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:08, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- @TylerBurden: I know that when a user is banned all things that have been said by them are crossed out, especially if in important discussions such as RFCs. Honestly, I don't know if it's a rule, other times it has happened like this. If it is not a rule, I apologize. I will ask for more precise information about it. Mhorg (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- That would be WP:SOCK, these are free for all in terms of strikes and reverts. This individual was blocked after the fact, so no reason to attempt to censor their comments they made before the fact. TylerBurden (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- @TylerBurden: Perfect, I didn't know. Thank you, you were right to warn me. Sorry again, see you soon. Mhorg (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- That would be WP:SOCK, these are free for all in terms of strikes and reverts. This individual was blocked after the fact, so no reason to attempt to censor their comments they made before the fact. TylerBurden (talk) 22:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- @TylerBurden: I know that when a user is banned all things that have been said by them are crossed out, especially if in important discussions such as RFCs. Honestly, I don't know if it's a rule, other times it has happened like this. If it is not a rule, I apologize. I will ask for more precise information about it. Mhorg (talk) 21:55, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
May 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Hero of Ukraine, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Renat 12:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hi @RenatUK:, I suppose you have seen that in the article there are sources that define that formation as "neo-fascist", so it is not my OR. I suppose we should instead discuss the more common definition given to Right Sector. Mhorg (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a reliable source. See WP:RSPWP. It does not matter what other Wikipedia articles say. More than that, the first sentence of the Right Sector article calls it "far-right", not "neo-fascist". The "neo-fascist" label has only one reliable source. It does not look like it is the most common description. You combined information from different sources to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the source. It is your original research. Renat 13:24, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Prizrak
Hi Mhorg, I made an edit earlier today to the Prizrak Brigade Infobox to remove Aleksey Markov because he died in 2020 (already included in the history section). I can see that you've reverted my edit along with other updates made by another editor.[26] I wanted to check in with you to ask if there's any reason why his name shouldn't be removed from the Infobox. thank you! IndigoBeach (talk) 15:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
- @IndigoBeach: Sorry! It was my mistake. I just added again your contribute. Mhorg (talk) 21:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)