User talk:Ostalgia

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Ostalgia! Thank you for your contributions. I am Ser Amantio di Nicolao and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:55, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ochakovo (May 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by HenryTemplo were:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ochakovo and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ochakovo, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

HenryTemplo (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ostalgia! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! HenryTemplo (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. Reasons for rejection are, and I quote, "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed." There's a grand total of zero references to Ochakovo-published materials, because no part of the article is dependent on material published by the company. The only part of the article that I reckon could be considered "praise" of the company is the mention that the company still holds a relevant position the Russian market in spite of having steadily lost market share. I do not see how saying a company has been steadily displaced can be considered an advertisement for the company (any company).

The second reason appears to be that (and I quote once again) "This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of organizations and companies)." How is the second-largest manufacturer of kvas (by market share) in Russia, as well as a major brewery, not a relevant company? There are literally articles about microbreweries in the far ends of the world with close to zero references and a major beverage manufacturer in a central country is deemed unsuitable?

Furthermore, the sources mentioned in the article are arguably the two largest financial media in Russia. I would argue this speaks both to the "notability" of the firm in question and to the fact that the article in itself is not an "advertisement", as you call it.

I would appreciate clarification, because the arguments cited in this rejection make less than zero sense to me. Ostalgia (talk) 18:17, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ioanno-Predtechensky Monastery has been accepted

Ioanno-Predtechensky Monastery, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Cerebellum (talk) 09:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creating multiple drafts on same subject

Hi Ostalgia, I see you created Draft:Ochakovo and Draft:Ochakovo (Russian beverage company). I suspect you did this because of the note about disambiguation. Actually there was no action you needed to take. If accepted, the reviewer will move it to the appropriate title. In order to maintain a complete history for attribution and other purposes there should be only one draft about a subject. I did add a note to Draft:Ochakovo (Russian beverage company) referring to the original draft to make things clear. Just be sure going forward you stick to one draft, which I am assuming will be Draft:Ochakovo (Russian beverage company).

No worries. There was no way for you know this and it appears you are the only major contributor to both so likely no need for a history merge or the like (creates a headache). S0091 (talk) 18:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, thanks for the heads up. Ostalgia (talk) 18:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ochakovo (Russian beverage company) has been accepted

Ochakovo (Russian beverage company), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Na-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

SlySabre (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenio Bulygin moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Eugenio Bulygin, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:41, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could've waited for a while as I literally stated I was going to be referencing everything today. Everything posted there is verifiable, you can do it yourself if you're so impatient. We're dealing with a top legal philosopher of the 20th century, not some obscure figure from the middle ages. I spent half of yesterday fixing an article that had remained unsourced and orphaned for literally over a decade and you can't even wait 24 hours even though it has been stated by the editor? Seriously, what is wrong with you people? Ostalgia (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rodion Malinovsky, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ukrainian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.

Oh golly! Ostalgia (talk) 18:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Eugenio Bulygin has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be truly wonderful to know what exactly you're referring to. Ostalgia (talk) 17:32, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing I should ping you Hey man im josh. Ostalgia (talk) 17:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pings definitely help, as I don't follow the individual pages of people I give warnings to. It was in reference to this dif. You were absolutely within your rights to move the page back to main space, but the insult was unnecessary and inappropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. I mentioned on an ANI post on the subject that it wasn't really the best reaction on my part. However, the fact that NPP seems to be dealing with the most recent posts and not working from the back of the queue, while I had spent several hours trying to rescue an orphan, unsourced article that even had an inaccurate title was... annoying, let's put it that way. Needless to say, it doesn't justify calling the other guy a nincompoop, but it would be great if they dealt with the backlog and gave users a couple hours, even a day, to deal with new articles that are evidently not spam, self promotion or abuse. Cheers, Hey man im josh. Ostalgia (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring block

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Canterbury Tail talk 16:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ostalgia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So an admin arrives to ANI a day after a discussion was started, doesn't read or at least doesn't provide any indication that he has read what's being discussed, does not express himself on the topic of the argument at all, which has been treated as a content dispute (something that was, at best, a completely secondary issue), and merely blocks both users for edit warring without seeing if there was something else going on (and without even returning to the status quo ante [edit] bellum, as would be logical in that case). In spite of what the block reason states, I literally did not introduce any changes, controversial or otherwise, to the consensus pages, with the exception of removing an old and obvious piece of vandalism. On top of this, the block comes only after talk page discussions have started, and presumably without even having read them. If this were indeed a content dispute, as it seems to have been treated, can any rational person seriously expect it to simply subside after a 24 hour block, especially when both people have been blocked after they started talking? If you assume the other user who was blocked to be acting in good faith (which I no longer do, I freely admit it), where is the sense in not even letting him reply? Furthermore, the broader issue that was brought up at ANI will probably just languish there and be archived with no decision being made. Can someone explain to me how this has improved the situation, or will improve it in the future? If someone seriously believes this is a logical, efficient and sensible to resolve problems then I truly don't know what to say and you might as well indef me. Ostalgia (talk) 17:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You seem to be trying to justify your edit warring, not tell us why it was wrong. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ostalgia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I think I'm entitled to assume you, as an administrator, already know why edit warring is wrong. It's frustrating, it's annoying, it serves no purpose, and I've personally had to deal with that even from users with tens of thousands of edits. I don't get a kick out of edit warring, gatekeeping, or stonewalling other good faith users. I mentioned at ANI that I didn't want to break 3RR and therefore wouldn't revert Principality of Halych, which I didn't, but the admin who blocked me and my "opponent", so to speak, accused me of doing so "10 minutes later, breaking 3RR", which is quite simply not true - I reverted another page, Latin exonyms, at the time he points out, but it was my third edit for the day (and it was to restore an entire section that was repeatedly blanked, which I believe constitutes vandalism under 3RR, and which I did explicitly say I was going to revert if he did again). I did not touch Halych in the 5 hours from my last edit to the block, and in fact I didn't touch exonyms between my third edit and the block. Ironically, what both of us did do was start discussing the topics on talk pages 3 hours before being blocked (I dumped over 3k bytes on Halych, with a bunch of references). Have I edit warred in the past? Yes, but only to restore consensus content that was being vandalised or removed for goals foreign to the encyclopedia (a week ago, for instance, on the article on Bulgakov, where two or three IPs were trying to replace content and, as I admitted on another ANI, I "went ham", i.e. overreacted, when trying to preserve the article). I have never added content against consensus, never restored reverted content unless I could justify it (or it was agreed on a talk page), and have never edit warred to preserve a contentious edit that another user has justified qualms about. I have tried to reach consensus (sucessfully or not) on many articles, and even sought to mediate in content disputes on topics I don't even edit, but find interesting. You can check my edits, the good and the bad, I have nothing to hide. I could alternatively write some fake contrition message here and ask you, or any other admin, to unblock me "pretty please" and then go about my business, as many do, but I don't really care about the block itself, as I very explicitly mentioned ("you might as well indef me"). What I do want is to solve the underlying issue brought up at ANI, because otherwise, if I'm correct and the user has an axe to grind, he will start RGW again as soon as 24 hours have passed, and if I'm wrong and the other user is indeed a good faith user, then the block has only made things worse, because it does not allow him to present his response on the talk pages that were started. Ostalgia (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One open unblock request at a time, please. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The history of the page is pretty clear that 10 minutes after you said you didn't want to break 3RR on the ANI, that you then made your 4th revert on the Latin exonyms page within 24 hours. It's quite clear cut.

15:18, 29 September 2022‎
05:15, 30 September 2022‎
07:56, 30 September 2022‎
08:14, 30 September 2022‎

Very clearly 4 reverts in 24 hours. Additionally you are very very aware that you were edit warring as per the discussion at ANI. There are very very few cases where this wouldn't be edit warring, in very clear cut cases of vandalism, which this wasn't it's a content dispute. We have a very clear definition of what is vandalism. You know what edit warring is, and yet you deliberately continued your edit warring on Latin exonyms. There is no such thing as being right in an edit war, and it takes two to edit war hence why both of you were blocked for clearly breaking 3RR being aware of what you were doing. Even if you hadn't broken 3RR (which you did) you'd likely still have been blocked for the edit warring, 3RR is not some clear cut line and both of you were being very obviously disruptive. And incidentally you did exceed 3RR on the Principality of Halych article by performing 5 reverts in a 24 hour period anyway. Canterbury Tail talk 20:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Ostalgia (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Allow me to begin by saying –once again– that the ANI was not about a content dispute, and it would be great if you at least acknowledged that, even if you decide not to do anything about it. I opened a topic on ANI because I found a systematic disruptive behaviour on the part of a user, one that goes well beyond any articles where we may clash (and that I spotted by chance, because our interests do not overlap in general). Neither you nor anyone else seems to have checked that, even though the person in question has two warnings and a DSA posted in 2 days because of his disruptive editting patterns. As for your accusation, I very clearly stated that I would refrain from reverting Halych because I didn't want to break 3RR on Halych, and I did not revert, and I equally clearly stated that I considered the blanking of the Russia subsection on Latin exonyms as mere vandalism and I would revert it as necessary, and did exactly that. If I broke 3RR it was an accident (for which I apologise) because I don't really look at the exact time when I edit stuff, and I merely knew I had performed two reverts today. Now you may think I am wrong, and I can accept being wrong, but what you're doing is implying that I lied and act in bad faith, which is false, and I will kindly ask you to retract that statement, because I did exactly as I said I would. Ostalgia (talk) 22:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The block is only for 24 hours and is almost over. You went over 3RR, and you do not appear to be contesting that. If it was a longer block, an early unblock would be possible if you agreed to stay away from the articles you were reverting, but for such a short block, my advice is to just wait until the block is over. PhilKnight (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Notice

As I can see from your talk page, a lot of your edits are ludicrous and non-sensical, and there is evidence of you engaging in edit warring, so I recommend you stay away from pages regarding Eastern Europe as you are not the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to that type of subject. For instance, on the KMBD page, you said that the sentence explaining how Koshkin's variant was inferior to Morozov's variant was "racist". Also, a lot of the sources you use for your edits come from the government of the Russian Federation, which is infamous for being deceptive and untrue. Only weak minded people believe what the Russian Federation says. You are not weak-minded, are you? WikipolicePolizei (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WikipolicePolizei: Ostalgia's edits have clearly been problematic in the past (note the edit warring block), but your edits have also been problematic in ignoring Wikipedia's neutrality policy. You clearly have issues with the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and you are free to hold whatever opinions you like about that issue, but you may not bring those opinions into your Wikipedia editing. Also, you must not engage in personal attacks on other editors. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I am new and I am still learning rules and policies such the neutrality policy. This won't happen again. WikipolicePolizei (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would find your comments offensive were they not laughable. Do me a favour and don't ever, not even by accident, hell, not even to reply to this message, come to my talk page again, or I will report you for breaking NPA and you will get blocked. I hope I made myself clear. Ostalgia (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a recommendation, don't talk like a teenager whose hormones are raging. It makes you look unprofessional and unlikeable. For instance, your message:

"Do me a favor and don't ever, not even by accident, hell, not even to reply to this message,"

is unnecessarily aggressive and rude. WikipolicePolizei (talk) 18:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bye Felicia. Ostalgia (talk) 07:06, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Ochakovo

Hello, Ostalgia. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ochakovo, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Ochakovo

Hello, Ostalgia. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Ochakovo".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring Notice

Please stop editing this page with unsourced information and proceeding to revert the original, accurate information. I notice you have a poor reputation for trying to force your beliefs on to this encyclopedia and that I am not the only one bothered by your reckless behavior. If you continue violating this law, you may be blocked. Thanks. 199.119.233.226 (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bye Felicia. Ostalgia (talk) 13:13, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious, do you know what account this person is associated with? It's not immediately obvious to me. --Yamla (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do, and I have already told him (in one of his numerous socks) to stop posting on my talk page. It's a very, very prolific sock with whom I and others have crossed paths several times. The SPI case is this one. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Yeah, I've crossed paths with them too. Thanks! --Yamla (talk) 15:02, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. Would you consider [semi] protecting a few of the pages he usually targets? It won't stop him, but it might slow him down... Ostalgia (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll certainly consider it. Give me a list and I'll take a look. --Yamla (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recently his most problematic edits were probably at Kulik (surname) (Grigory Kulik has already been protected), Cossack Hetmanate, Bohdan Khmelnytsky and Ivan Mazepa.

I could provide a longer list, but it would have to include a good dozen articles on Soviet World War II history, which may be an abuse of your patience. If you don't mind it, though, let me know and I'll send you that as well. Either way, thanks for your help. Ostalgia (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All four articles have protection now. Let's see if that's enough. There's a good chance it won't be, but fingers crossed. --Yamla (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Ostalgia (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May 2023

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ivan Mazepa. Continuing to edit war with a deceptive summary is just about the definition of disruptive editing. Drmies (talk) 17:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? I quite literally added the archive.org links to the dead links previously removed by My very best wishes, in response to his comment here stating that the links were dead. This is the second time in 5 minutes you're wrongfully accusing me of disruption. Ostalgia (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should have a look at what you actually did. Drmies (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have been editing the previous edit by MVBW, because I was looking up and adding the links, and you introduced edits in between me opening up the edit page and confirming the edits. Ostalgia (talk) 17:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive remarks about me

Just because I have SLB on my username, it doesn't mean I'm biased. You better retract what you wrote because it doesn't reflect 99% of the edits I've made to Wikipedia. I have fought POV and vandalism and stupidity on Wikipedia for a long time now, including at the Eusébio article. SLBedit (talk) 00:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You knowingly introduced a source that twists the words of an interviewee to accuse a rival of your club of being a racist institution. That is the very definition of biased editing, regardless of whether most of your edits are gnoming to fix goals and appearances or stuff like that. Ostalgia (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(mis)representation of sources

Hi @Ostalgia,

I just wanted to drop you a quick note explaining my description of S.'s edit at AE. (The admins there will reach their own conclusions, I am sure, without additional input from me.)

An analogy:

Kant scholar Allen W. Wood writes a book chapter defending Kant from Hegel's allegation that Kant's moral theory collapses due to its abstract universality. In that chapter, Wood includes the sentence "Hegel argues that Kant's moral philosophy is too abstract to accomplish its intended aim".

If I were to cite just that sentence with attribution to Wood, that would be a misrepresentation of the source because it would imply that Wood endorses the claim (with all the weight of his scholarly reputation). To be sure, it would not be a fabrication: the chapter contains the sentence, which furthermore happens to be true. But it would be extremely misleading without the additional context that Wood is arguing directly against Hegel's claim about Kant's moral philosophy. Hence, it would be a misrepresentation.

Anyhow, this is just so that you do not think anyone is sanctioned due to misrepresentations on my part.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick, thanks for your explanation. Just to be clear on this end as well, I did not intend to imply that there's foul play on your part (i.e. trying to get rid of an adversary by painting them in a bad light), and I do believe citing a review instead of the book is not ideal. To be sure, if we were preparing a text for publication, what you described would be the only acceptable practice. For Wikipedia standards, however, I do not think what Sennalen did was necessarily unacceptable. Of course, it may well be the case that she has done this repeatedly, or engaged in misrepresenting sources strictu sensu somewhere else, and this is just the straw that broke the camel's back. That I cannot know. I just don't think that this instance (particularly given that it's a review!) is such an egregious breach of editing practices as to warrant an indef. Of course, at the end of the day it's not for me to decide. Cheers! Ostalgia (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(I've only just now proceeded to check how AE ended up, and I believe we can safely switch my reply to the past tense!) Ostalgia (talk) 09:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hey there

Are we done with the thing where you want to see diffs or is that still on my list of things to get to?

Just checking as I will be at a stopping place with the sourcing in not too long. We can go there if you really want to, but seems like there must be a more productive use of wikitime out there.

I appreciate you seeing the point of this proposal either way though, seriously. I liked what you said about it. Elinruby (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple. I wanted an apology over your aspersions and your inquisitorial attitude, which were completely unprompted and unwarranted. Not only did I not get one, but I got arrogance and bizarre statements, even though I demonstrated you were in the wrong. This gave me enough information to know whether you were a person who could be worked with or not. At this point you are free to do whatever you want - dig for diffs, run an interaction report, or just go on with yout editing. Nothing will change either way. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 04:55, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice; well, I appreciate your kind words. I'll just note that I am caught up on the ANI thread now and I don't see any like you demonstrating I was in the wrong. I decline to comment on what I do see, but I promised to get back to you and I am doing that. I wjll ask again: what is the point of this request that I prove that you edited a given talk area? I might even apologize if I thought you were actually insulted somehow. At the risk of being arrogant, confused or malicious all over again -- I really must compile a list of the insults in that thread -- I just don't see the point, or I would ask you to source some of *that*, which is, btw, quite insulting. Again.

If you are actually asking for an apology for assuming it was possible to have a reasoned discussion with you, you can have it and welcome to it. I deeply regret thinking that you would be able to see that a solution could serve both sides of a question. But just to make sure I am not "confused" again, are you saying that you no longer care about this? If so, there are definitely more productive ways to spend my wikitime. I kept my promise to get back to you and got insulted some more. Oh well. I am done with this unless you have some thing more constructive to say. Elinruby (talk) 23:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to get off your high horse then maybe you would notice a) how your constant casting of aspersions, your (completely unwarranted) aggressive tone, and your arrogance are annoying and off-putting, and b) how literally every single claim you made about me is wrong. You do not read discussions, you just assume you know what is happening and act on that basis, and you do not take it back when your mistake is pointed out - on the contrary, you double down (as you are doing right now).

If you feel there are definitely more productive ways to spend [your] wikitime, then by all means go do something else - nobody is stopping you, and you definitely do not have to keep me informed about it, I could not possibly care any less. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 30, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nations

Hi, I checked your posting here. As our page Nation correctly says: "Some nations are constructed around ethnicity ... while others are bound by political constitutions". A nation does not necessarily has its own state, see Stateless nation. The nations, such as Russian nation, Ukrainian nation, Jewish nation, etc. did exist in 19th century. Paul Siebert was wrong about it. And it does not really matter if the Russian nation was replaced by "..." in the quote; the entire statement by Paul was wrong anyway. Now, would it be offensive to say, for example, that "Russian nation did not exist" in 19th century? Well, I do not care, but some other people could be offended. This is definitely not something I would say to Russian users during a heated discussion on the article talk page, and especially because this is not true. Hence, I understand why Mzajac felt offended. This is something subjective. If someone openly complains that he was offended [1], then he probably was. My very best wishes (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out. I get the impression that you are arguing something that is beside the point, but do let me know if I am missing something. As far as I know, an ArbCom report is not a place to solve content disputes, and this is not about content, it is about behaviour. You (we) can think that Paul Siebert was right or wrong, that is entirely irrelevant - his opinion was well within the spectre of reasonable opinion, and he can certainly argue his point with a plethora of sources to back it up. It is not something to report someone over, and you definitely should not manipulate a quote to try and portray a person as having discriminated against a nation when it was evident that he did not. No rules were breached, no intention of offending was present, and there were no intractable behavioural issues that needed immediate intervention. If Mzajac took offense at such a comment, that says a lot more about his ability to edit in areas that are close to his heart than it says about Paul Siebert, and even in that case he could/should have asked for clarification or approached him in his TP instead of twisting his words to try and get him sanctioned, which is a much graver problem. We are talking about a 20-year veteran editor who is an administrator to boot, not a new user that may not know how things work. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 08:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are saying that the ANI request had no merit. Yes, perhaps it had not, but there are lots of such requests on the ANI. Unless a "boomerang" was decided on the ANI, this is not a proof of a serious wrongdoing by anyone, unless he submits such multiple reports. Was this particular complaint at the ANI sufficiently justified? Well, it was supported by diffs and links. In my opinion, ANI is simply not a good place for filing any complaints, unless this is something plainly obvious, such as vandalism, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 12:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to a previous version of your comment and I appreciate the fact that you edited it because the comparison you were making was, in my opinion, off the mark and, ironically, potentially offensive to at least one of the editors being discussed.

Now, as for the current version of your comment, I do agree with you on ANI being unsuitable for many reports, but this does not excuse what happened. It's not only that taking the matter to ANI was not merited (regardless of the usefulness of such a report), but the fact that the "evidence" behind the report was tampered with, so to speak. In other words, the "diffs and links" that you claim support the case, do not, in fact, do that - only the altered quote actually does, and the original quote contradicts it. The fact that there was no boomerang does not mean that this behaviour is not problematic, and that it came from an administrator should be cause for concern, not for sweeping stuff under the rug. It is akin to a police officer trying to frame a suspect. That this issue also seemingly fits a pattern is also factored into my evaluation of that episode (as I mentioned at AR, I am not an uninvolved editor after all). Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone openly omitting a part of a quote and replacing it with "..." does not mean tampering the quote. The point by filer was about Putin using such "argument" to attack Ukraine, hence he left only the most relevant part of the comment. Saying that none of the nations existed does not change the claim that Ukrainian nation did not exist. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you are using ellipsis to misconstrue a quote that is arguing a general point against Primordialism in order to present it as discrimination against a particular nation, you are indeed tampering with the source. There really are no two ways about it. I struggle to see how this is not evident to you. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mzajac did not say anything about Primordialism. In addition, you say he threatened you and other users with sanctions. Well, if he would block you or anyone else who edits in this subject area, that indeed would be a reason for immediate desysop. But he did not, and he knew that he could not.My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand: of course Mzajac didn't say anything about Primordialism, because it was Siebert who was arguing against a primordialist view of the nation, and it was this argument that was misconstrued as an attack against a particular nationality.

As for the rest of your message, I am not entirely sure I get your point (also, for the record, I do not believe I mentioned other users than myself as being threatened with sanctions). Are you saying it is OK to make threats to sanction people for no good reason provided you don't go through with the threats? And the threatened party, who cannot possibly know if the other person will or will not make good on the threat, should just put up with that? I do not think that is a reasonable expectation of behaviour (for either party). Please do clarify if you meant something else. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would not perceive anything he said as a threat if it were his responses to me. His comment in your diff [2] seems to be a criticism of your edits and views (I have no idea if it was a fair criticism or not), but it is also about the related content, with references provided, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reference he provided is completely unrelated to anything I said during the entirety of our discussion, or to anything I have ever edited during the entirety of my time on Wikipedia. Its relation to his comment to the effect that "one is unlikely to get away with such public speech for much longer" is absolutely unclear as well. In fact, I have no idea of what he was trying to achieve by dropping that at all, and as any Wikipedia user that has spent any time checking references in articles knows, the act of providing a reference, in itself, means nothing if the reference does not support the text. As for the comment itself, I don't think there are many alternative interpretations to that statement that do not imply telling someone that they're going to get sanctioned sooner rather than later. Certainly nothing in his previous interactions with me led me to think otherwise.

I have to ask something myself at this point, though. I do not know where all these questions are coming from, but I think it is clear that you want to defend Mzajac, for reasons I am not privy to (and you are well within your rights to do so). However, our exchange will remain a mere conversation in someone's talk page and that's it, and this is what I struggle to understand - I am unsure of what you are trying to achieve here. Not that I object to clarifying my position, mind you - we can go through the entire message if you want, although I do not see you changing my interpretation of the facts, while you clearly seem inclined to assume that Mzajac's behaviour is justified, and I am unlikely to convince you of the contrary. But with this in mind, if you want to help him out, then why not bring up these matters to the appropriate venue? You could technically raise all your objections to my message (and to everyone else's, for that matter) there for the arbitrators to take into account. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I interacted with Mzajac only on a few occasions, usually disagreed with him, and have noting else to say. If you do not find my comments useful, that's fine. I am leaving and probably will not be active in the project during next days. My very best wishes (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not mind exchanging opinions, I just got the impression that you felt compelled to defend Mzajac's position, but could not understand why you chose to do so here. You are welcome to stop by to continue the conversation in the coming days if you want. Enjoy your break! Ostalgia (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Word count at Arbcase

Hello Ostalgia. The word count for evidence submissions is 500 (you can see this around the top of the evidence), and your submission is over 1000. Could you please edit it down? Thank you. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I knew I was probably going over but did not realise by just how much I had done so. I will try to trim it down tomorrow, it is getting late over here and I should probably try to be selective with the "chopping". Thanks for the heads-up and I apologise once more for the verbosity. Ostalgia (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am now at slightly over 650 words. I am aware that 650 is still more than 500, but would this be acceptable? Trimming further would likely require major surgery and whike I can do that, I am unlikely to be able to do it today. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That should be fine, yes. Thank you for cutting it down. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, my apologies once again for overextending myself. Ostalgia (talk) 20:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motion proposed to suspend the Mzajac case

Arbitrators have proposed a motion to suspend the Mzajac case for three months at the proposed decision page. During this period, Mzajac will be temporarily desysopped, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Mzajac/Proposed decision#Motion to suspend for further information. Comments are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:27, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I already responded here [3]. Examining and debating the sources is normal on article talk pages. Having claims in sources that are arguably false, highly biased or even disinformation is common, especially when it comes to history and politics. And once again, as a very general comment, if you really believe that something on article talk page was a BLP violation, you are welcome to fix it by redacting the text. End of story. Would you like me to hat or remove the entire conversation from talk? I can do that because the discussion was of no significance. I already fixed everything on main page that needed to be fixed. If you want to fix more, you are welcome. OK, I just hatted the discussion because of your concerns. My very best wishes (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I asked nothing of the sort. I would have been happy with striking the BLPVIO but, fundamentally, with you at the very least informing yourself on the subject of the article before calling someone a Stalin apologist and/or a liar. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 16:29, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never called him "a Stalin apologist and a liar", and I do not think he should be described as "a Stalin apologist and a liar" on any pages. I commented only about specific claims in a specific source. In general, I think he is a mainstream historian (as I said on article talk page), and he criticized revisionist historians. My very best wishes (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"obvious Stalin apology"; "why he is lying? (sic)". Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After your comments, I check his articles through "Web of Science" database. It appears he is well aware, in all details, which exactly former Soviet archives were opened (to some degree), which were not opened etc. Sure, because he is using them. But it makes even more puzzling his claim that "всегда существовало и продолжает существовать подозрение, что какие-то самые секретные ключевые документы остаются недоступными или уничтожены. Однако пока такие подозрения не имеют оснований." This is not a "suspicion", but a fact that many important documents are still inaccessible or were destroyed. And he wrote about this himself in his articles like "Archives of the Terror Developments in the Historiography of Stalin’s Purges". But whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I have told you (with the sources to back me up), he is considered by some of his peers to be the most knowledgeable individual when it comes to the archives of the Stalin era. I cannot make his point for him as I am not living inside his head, but most likely he was arguing that for most heinous crimes committed by Stalin and his cronies there still is a "paper trail" (one of his arguments is that Stalin, unlike someone like Hitler, was a consummate bureaucrat, so everything had to be on paper) and the files to prove these things are out there – the flip side of the coim being that if some of the worst crimes committed by or under Stalin can be proven because the evidence is there, some "lesser misdeeds" attributed to him without evidence were likely committed by someone else, because it would make little sense to hide those while leaving your fingerprints all over the "big" ones. I still recommend you read one of his major works on Stalin, if it's a topic that interests you. The Russian originals are very readable (even for a non-native like me), and so are the English translations, which should be available from your university library. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 05:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I appreciate you coming round to a more reasonable point of view, and I apologise if I came across as rude. I hope you'll understand how your argument was... puzzling, let's put it that way. Ostalgia (talk) 05:58, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I assume Khlevniuk was saying this to justify his another point: if something was not found in archives, then it did not happen (I exaggerate a little, but this is his point about Kirov). Which is also incorrect to say when there is a circumstantial evidence. Stalin did treat his top-level comrades differently. They were either convicted to death on show trials (that was needed to discredit them, well described in books by Abdurakhman Avtorkhanov), or killed by giving a spoken order through Yagoda. One can cite the book by Radzinsky about it, but there are several such "suspected", i.e. based on indirect evidence cases, e.g. Valerian Kuybyshev, Menzhinsky and Dzherzinsky - according to books that cover the history of Soviet assassinations. Now, speaking on the Stalin leaving the "paper trail" with regard to executions of his lower-level comrades, that was also debated in books. Of course such papers/orders were needed for his "repression machine" to properly function, but there are two additional explanations in the literature: (a) he enjoyed reading and signing these lists of executed just before the sleep (he also marked some people in the lists to spare their lives), and (b) he wanted other people from his "inner circle" to sign the list to make them complicit in the crime. Yes, he was also meticulous as the "secretary" of the party and had a database of people, along with his own extraordinary memory. My very best wishes (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't trust Radzinsky too much - he's a "popular historian", so to speak, and he likes to present his story artfully and with a bit of flavour (he has his Western equivalents, too). When it comes to Kirov I am very much on board with Khlevniuk's reasoning. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not trust anyone. This is all about facts, logic, general understanding of the subject and cross-verification using various sources. As about artful presentations, that's a talent, and it is important for everyone, from researchers to businessmen and of course writers. My very best wishes (talk) 15:54, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chukovsky

Sorry, I simply read the change backwards and I thought is was made by a zealous derussificator who change Kiev to Kyiv everywhere. I am reverting them at leas once a week. --Altenmann >talk 19:04, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, that would make sense. These days I don't have time to edit as much as I did a year or two ago, but I have had my fair share of forgettable experiences with that crowd. My condolences. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Artashes Shahinian, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caucasus Viceroyalty.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir the Great

Hello, I've seen you have reverted my edit. I changed from Vladimir to Volodymyr because it was used in the context of naming of Ukrainian city Volodymyr, so this is not a mistake. Regarding Ruthenian, I don't get what you exactly mean by "loosely". Ruthenian is a well established synonym for Rus', and Russian is definitely wrong in this context. Shahray (talk) 16:08, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding prince of Novgorod, it's just a Vice Roy position, so it might make sense to move Grand Prince of Kiev as first in article, as in this position he also did the most for the country. Shahray (talk) 16:17, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reaching out. It is already mention at the very beginning that "Volodymyr" is the alternative transliteration (derived from Ukrainian) of his name. I do not think this would be lost on a reader who comes across the fact that the city of Volodymyr is named after him. Regarding your loose use of Ruthenian, to the best of my knowledge the majority of the byliny as we know them were collected from territories in the North of European Russia, even though the subject of their material is from the times of Kievan Rus'. I am agnostic as to whether it is correct to label them Russian in this context (it would depend on what the author is referring to, really), but I do believe that labelling them Ruthenian is a bridge too far, especially when there is an evident political motivation behind it (which is clear from the fact that you altered the alphabetical order B -> R -> U to put Ukrainian first, which is a violation of NPOV at worst and of RGW at best). As for the title of Prince of Novgorod, inasmuch as it was Vladimir's "starting point", so to speak, it is far from irrelevant, and this is without going into any discussions on the role of Novgorod in the early history of Rus'. I believe you have been warned already about PoV-pushing and edit-warring. A now former administrator was recently (well, a few months ago) topic banned for similar behaviour, so don't take this warning or criticism personal, it happens at every level, and as a new user we will try to be patient. However, you would do well to try and discuss changes and familiarise yourself with some policies before jumping to make these sorts of edits that can be controversial. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 17:01, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We still refer to him as Volodymyr in the Ukrainian context (e. g. Volodymyr the Great on hryvnia bill).

This article does not actually refer to bylinas, but to "folk ballads and legends". Byliny mainly originated as Kievan genre, but were destroyed by turkic invasions, in Ukraine they evolved mainly into other different genres as well as the stories from them. So Ruthenian would definitely be a better term there, at least in my opinion. I added Ukrainian as descendent of Ruthenian, might also add Belarusian. Calling all this stories Russian might as well be seen as POV pushing.

Can you remember what exactly relevant he did when he was in the position of Novgorod prince? Of course he would first start as prince of Novgorod, because he was a son of Grand prince.

You can recognise yourself with WP:BRD. Bold editing is always useful if it's well-meant. Shahray (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to be as clear as possible.

The article is title Vladimir the Great and uses Vladimir throughout. Using Volodymyr just for the sake of using Volodymyr, when it is clarified in the first sentence, is not an improvement. I do not know how the hryvnia article is written, but that falls squarely in the category of unrelated stuff, and probably goes by the Ukrainian transliteration of the actual bill as is.

Moving on to the rest of your message, you did not "add Ukrainian as a descendent of Ruthenian", as it was already there. You merely changed the order to put Ukrainian first, even though the order was alphabetical. This is not bold editing, this is merely PoV pushing, which can also be seen in other changes to the article, such as the replacement of the Russian krasno solnyshko, the long time version, for its Ukrainian equivalent for no other reason than your own personal preference. Again, this is not bold editing, this is PoV pushing. BRD doesn't apply.

I will also clarify again that if the author of that paragraph was speaking about Russian folk tales and legends (byliny or otherwise) having Vladimir as a protagonist or important character, then they are not wrong - he was present in many Russian folk tales and legends well into a period in which it is right and proper to speak of Russia. If by Russia, however, he meant Rus', then sure, he is likely wrong, but I don't know which is the case, and I am agnostic as to whether we should keep Russian or find another ethnonym. One way or the other, given that many of these stories, if not the vast majority, were [re]discovered in the Northern confines of European Russia, I would find the use of "Ruthenian" to describe them as inaccurate. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This person wasn't specifically named "Vladimir", it's just russian spelling, and in any Ukrainian context we are using Volodymyr, like for example in the section of his legacy "Volodymyr the Great on hryvnia bill".

Regarding the "politically motivated", while I appreciate the your concerns, I initially changed the order because this segment talks specifically about symbols, and Volodymyr's trident symbol is quite literally Coat of Arms of modern day Ukraine, so this sentence might just need to be be expanded with additional reference.

If we are to mention russian stories, it is important to note that they are an interpretation of original Ruthenian bylynas, because no russians existed in that time to write about Vladimir. Shahray (talk) 10:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahray, again, I am trying to be patient here. Vladimir is not the Russian name, it is a transliteration from Russian and the current "common name" for English wiki purposes. That takes precedence, especially in the article about the very individual we're talking about.

Secondly, your appeal to the Ukrainian coat of arms as justification for a clear PoV edit furthers, rather than allays, my concerns about PoV pushing.

As for your final paragraph, indeed, no Russian as such existed to write about Vladimir or anybody else, or to write those stories at all - they were, after all, preserved in the Russian oral tradition, from which they were [re]discovered much later. Again, the validity of the use of the term Russian there depends on the intention of whoever introduced that passage (or the source for that passage), and I'll repeat that I am agnostic about whether to keep it or find an alternative. One way or the other, it makes more sense, I believe, than Ruthenian ever would. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, whenever there's Ukrainian context, in the article it's using "Volodymyr", like I showed with the example of hryvnia bill, this shouldn't be even in question for you.

Second, it's not "justification", it is obvious that in Ukraine Vladimir is a symbol on the highest official level, which isn't something Belarus or Russia have done, so like I said this segment should just be expanded with additional references, not exactly about changing alphabetical order, there's no "POV-pushing".

Ruthenian is the same as Rus', and all those stories are initially Rus'/Ruthenian, how does "russian" makes more sense here "one way or the other"? Shahray (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First, no, the article is using "Volodymyr" in the captions of images, either as a direct transliteration for Ukrainian or even as a transcription of text displayed in the image itself. We could do away with that discrepancy altogether even, but it's hardly necessary, I believe.

Secondly, you may not understand the meaning of the word "justify". I'll try to rephrase: you are still trying to provide a rationale to explain a clear PoV edit. This is not the only article where you have modified the order in a enumeration to suit your preferences for no good reason – in fact, you have done so while this conversation was ongoing (and this is the only reason I have not reverted just yet). If you keep doing this, you will find yourself reported sooner rather than later.

Finally, no, Ruthenian is not "the same as Rus'". No scholar of Rus' would simply substitute one for the other as if they were equivalent, and it very much does not serve as a synonym for Rus' in this context, not by a stretch. For the nth time, Russian could make more sense inasmuch as the stories were recovered from tales that were popular among the populatiom of Northern European Rusia centuries after the fall of Rus'. If the author's intention was to refer to that, then using the term Russian makes sense, even if the subject matter of the tales precedes Russia. Yet again, I am agnostic as to its use, and I cannot know the author's intention, but it could make sense, and it definitely makes more sense than Ruthenian.

I do not believe I can be any clearer and at this point we're going around in circles, even with regards to things that have been argued hundreds of times and, in all honesty, arguing them again every time a new editor makes an account and starts PoV pushing is just a time sink. I believe I have tried to be as polite and welcoming as possible, but you seem hellbent in trying to provide a justification for edits that are not only bad but in breach of policy, so at least from my side this conversation has outlived its purpose and I will no longer be replying to it. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding first, very well, might make sense.

About second, no, you're just ignoring my explanation and continue to accuse in POV pushing, you're just nitpicking.

Third, then your knowledge clearly lacks about this topic, Ruthenia is just an exonym for Rus', two are one and the same. It can be as well be just Rus' instead ruthenian, if the second somehow makes you unsatisfied. But the fact you are trying to present "russian" as better term for Rus' is just suspicious. It is important to note that there was no "Russia" at that time, and we should be very careful with such statements.

As I already said, in the article it talks not about bylinas specifically, but the tales about him in general, which were equally kept in Ukraine and Belarus.

It's not very polite to just nitpick someone and ignore explanation, and doesn't help to lead the conversation further.

If you won't reply, it means you're not willing to cooperate, in that case I will restore the changes and discuss them with another editor. No pushing. Shahray (talk) 07:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you keep PoV-pushing, then you will be reverted and, if you continue edit warring, eventually reported. Cheers. Ostalgia (talk) 08:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see this as an answer "no" to cooperation. You haven't yet proofed that I was POV pushing, only the change in alphabetical order which I already explained. I wasn't starting "edit-warring" in the first place to "continue" it. Shahray (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]