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[1] of my very old edit of 25 May 2020. This is the same thing happened with User:My very best wishes, same deletion[2] in these days of harsh discussions. Again, MVBW removes[3] my old edit of 1 October 2020, and again he removes[4] 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 [5]. 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 [6]? 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 [7], 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 [8]), 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[9], 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 [7], 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 [6]? 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.[10] 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.[11][12] In this AE request I made a summary [13].--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)
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)
Azov Battalion
I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [[17]] 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)
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.[18] 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)
- That's great Mhorg, thanks! IndigoBeach (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
Please note I supported your revert of "heroic".
Dude, I backed you up on your revert. You caught a lot of flak for that. Then you jumped in on another thread and accused me of "politicizing" and so forth. No good deed goes unpunished, I suppose. There is a lot of very troubling stuff going on around the topic at hand, but I am in favor of precision. The mere insertion of the perjorative adjective at issue is a blunt object and a more nuanced statement is required. That's all this about, no one is "defending" a group with very mixed motives which they themselves, in the fog of war, barely understand. I don't regret defending your reversion, and you don't "owe" me anything for that, but I think you owe it to yourself to focus on the issues and not make accusatorty statements about other editor's motives. Let's move forward and strive for an accurate historical record, thanks for you interest. Wikidgood (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Wikidgood: Yes, I exaggerated, I probably should have written only WP:FORUM. For the rest, I appreciate your message, I hope we can collaborate on the project together. :) Mhorg (talk) 15:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
Alexei Navalny ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under 1RR. You have made two reverts within a 24-hour period:
If you have breached the restriction, and it seems so to me, you should self-revert.
PS In case you are wondering, I'm a bystander who doesn't have time or energy to dig deeply into this dispute. At least for now. Thanks, Politrukki (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Politrukki: Well, didn't know about it. Thank you for this message! Mhorg (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your self-revert. If a page is placed under editing restrictions (1RR etc.) using discretionary sanctions, the page should always have an edit notice that enumerates the restrictions (or the restriction is not valid). In this case there is a big yellow box. All page restrictions should be logged into arbitration enforcement log (though you have to click individual year links if you want to go more than five years back). Politrukki (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
SPI
You filed two SPI reports regarding single accounts. Your belief that a user had previous accounts does not justify such filings. I have deleted both.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you @Bbb23:, I thought even a single "suspicious" account was enough. Is there anything I can do then? Do I need to locate the "master" first? Or can I bring the question to ANI? Mhorg (talk) 12:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Please self-revert your recent edit to the Svoboda article
The leader of a band being a Neo-nazi does not make the band a "Neo-nazi" band. Nobody would assert, for instance, that Motorhead is a "Neo-nazi" band despite Lemmy Kilmister being a Nazi-phile. Please return the citation needed tag to the assertion that Komu Vnyz is a "Neo-nazi" band. The inline citation [19] DOES NOT state that the band is unequivocally "Neo-nazi" in fact the link contains nothing but the parties in question denying such charges. Otherwise I will be proceeding to dispute. Thank you. 206.45.2.52 (talk) 16:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)