User talk:Mzajac/2023

Kadiivka

Hi Michael, happy new year. I was wondering if English-language sources might have already started adopting Stakhanov's official name. The last RM was in 2018 (almost 2019), but the new invasion has increased the use of Ukrainian transliteration as well as instances of reliable sources discussing Ukrainian places. I would not be surprised if Kadiivka currently is more used than Stakhanov, it certainly is being used a lot now. It might be worth taking a look to. Super Ψ Dro 13:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus it’s a bit tricky to gauge, because Stakhanov is also a historical name and appears in unrelated contexts. I tried to narrow it a bit by adding Ukraine to the search, but that still finds results about the historical person, although they can mention the city too.

Google News results, limited to 1 year, manually counting results. (results over 100 are not shown in GN.)

• Ukraine "Kadiivka" when:1y -Wikipedia 100+
• Ukraine "Kadiyivka" when:1y -Wikipedia 20
• Ukraine "Stakhanov" when:1y -Wikipedia 73

Limited to the last week, results are 4, 0, 0.

Google Books, 2020 to present:

• Ukraine "Kadiivka" -Wikipedia 2
• Ukraine "Kadiyivka" -Wikipedia 1
• Ukraine "Stakhanov" -Wikipedia 15, 4 or 5 of which appear to name the city

Google Scholar, 2020 to present:

• Ukraine "Kadiivka" -Wikipedia 12
• Ukraine "Kadiyivka" -Wikipedia 2
• Ukraine "Stakhanov" -Wikipedia 227 (of the first 10, 4 or 5 appear to mention the city)

Feel free to propose the move and copy-paste my results above. I think it’s worthwhile, since the news is clearly using the current name, and the Scholar results may need a bit more investigation.  —Michael Z. 21:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It is clear to me that today English-language news use Kadiivka more widely. I have started the RM. Super Ψ Dro 01:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Kostomarov

Hi Michael Z. Would you consider withdrawing the new RfC and just starting a regular talk page discussion? It's possible that focused attention on the issue might lead to local consensus, and at worst it might help to iron out some concrete proposal language. If not, could you tweak your opening statement to be more neutral by removing the bit about "primary notability"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, the question was discussed extensively to an impasse, leading to a 3rd opinion which was disregarded by the other party, and then an RFC where this part of the issue was not addressed.

Primary notability is material. Mykola Kostomarov was one of the “three figures who were to become the leading symbols of the Ukrainian national revival” (with Taras Shevchenko and Panteleimon Kulish), the “the founder of modern Ukrainian historiography,” and “one of the great founding fathers of Ukrainian history and literature.” His notability should precede a sundry list of his works in the lead.

The other involved editor, @Ушкуйник, constantly Russifies Ukrainian historical subjects by erasing their Ukrainian identity (e.g. [1][2][3][4]). This two-month dispute resolution effort is the only way I’ve been able incorporate due weight of material from reliable sources into this one article (without indulging in edit wars).  —Michael Z. 05:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow, now that I’ve written that down, it’s quite discouraging.  —Michael Z. 05:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear it MZ. I'm familiar with some of that background from my pre-closure review, but not all. I think you have a solid base of sourcing (though the first source is more relevant than the latter two), which I'd recommend citing in your !vote. I really do feel like

Should the lead describe Kostomarov as "a symbol of the Ukrainian national revival" in the first paragraph, before listing off his professional accomplishments?

would be a stronger, more neutral opening statement. I won't press any further, and I wish you all the best either way. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.  —Michael Z. 06:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

References

My thoughts on POV pushing Ukraine editors

A content dispute is not going to produce a block at ANI, but perhaps WP:AE for persistent disruptive and tendentious editing will result in a warning. Given enough warnings and an intractable dispute you could then obtain a block. However, for now, we can simply inform this user that there is no consensus for this fringe POV pushing because Ukraine is not run by neo-Nazis and hopefully they will hear and understand the message rather than persisting with this claim. Andre🚐 19:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan, quite right. Although if this stuff keeps coming to ANI there will be awareness. But it’s a pain to do.

I have found that unchallenged unacceptable statements can multiply, and so I have resolved to keep drawing attention and pointing out what they represent when they are committed. (Whereas politely pointing it out on user talk is ignored or yields take a hike.)  —Michael Z. 21:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Super Dromaeosaurus, Mzajac and Jeppiz. Thank you. —Cinderella157 (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

"knowingly repeating disinformation"

See this. I’m serious, please act. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh and this - openly defend lies. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

In light of the recent (Jan. 31/23) AE report filed against you, I’m asking you once again to:

Provide a diff where I'm knowingly repeating disinformation and defend lies.

or

strike this and this comment.

Thank you. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@User:GizzyCatBella, are you offering to retract the complaint against me if I strike them immediately? —Michael Z. 17:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ll comment at AE accordingly - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ve struck my angry comment, and I apologize for it.[5] The personal nature and tone were inappropriate and hurtful. I should not have responded that way to your comment.

I’ll respond to your request for diffs shortly.  —Michael Z. 18:47, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Michael, you accused me of:

• knowingly repeating disinformation
• openly defending lies

I asked you (repeatedly) to back up your serious accusations with diffs or strike it. You repeatedly refused or ignored my requests. Being an administrator, you should be a model of the proper conduct. I'm not seeing it. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Here’s the gist of my beef with the comments you made. This is not comprehensive and I’d rather not start a project tracking down all the comments everyone made in several different talk pages, some of which I think were removed.

My understanding is that Joaziela made statements that Ukraine is Nazi (false), that Ukraine was committing genocide in Ukraine over seven years (false), and that not including this in Wikipedia is “historical negationism,” i.e., genocide denial (false). These statements share several distinct themes straight from the Russian state’s justification of mass atrocities and its genocide incitement, as outlined in a report by 35 legal and genocide experts.

In my opinion this kind of speech is unacceptable hate speech that can justify or encourage violence, and should not be tolerated in discussions.

You first discouraged it as giving undue weight to a POV, but then seemed to take up the themes of Ukrainians as Nazis and genocidaires by supporting the false assertion that Bandera committed genocide, in a discussion about Ukraine’s commander-in-chief trolling Russia by posting a selfie with a portrait of Bandera. In my opinion this relied on falsehood and reinforced the unacceptable hate speech above. In my opinion it contained a mix of reality and falsehood and so resembles so much of the anti-Ukrainian propaganda that’s seen online and occasionally in Wikipedia discussions. It falsely associated the Ukrainian military with genocide. In my opinion it was a completely inappropriate direction to take the conversation that was trying to deal with harmful speech.

Perhaps I could have worded it better but I haven’t seen anything in reviewing that thread nor heard anything from you that indicates I was wrong in my assessment, or that you acknowledge or are even aware of the harmfulness of this kind of speech and your statements that appear to show tolerance or sympathy for it. So I’m not striking my other statement.

If I’m wrong in any way I welcome your corrections.  —Michael Z. 19:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The thread in question is at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive345#User:Joaziela.  —Michael Z. 19:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Got it.👍 Michael, but I never said that Ukraine is Nazi etc., etc. but let’s leave it behind us. I think you should focus on commenting at AE now. - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella, you opinionated that objectively false parts of the “Ukraine is Nazi etc” argument have merit worth considering. “Got it” seems to acknowledge that you did so, and that you see nothing wrong with that. Do I have it right?  —Michael Z. 19:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine is Nazi have no merit - I never said that Ukraine is Nazi and I never defended that statement. By got it - I confirmed receiving your explanation. Leave it Michael, please don’t taunt the subject. GizzyCatBella🍁 19:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I was not taunting you. You pursued me at length to account for my words because acknowledgement of receipt wouldn’t have been enough, would it? I think I have done so, and apologized for what was out of order. It’s only fair for you to respond, at least accept or reject what I took the trouble to objectively outline.

And it’s not unfair for me to ask you to account for what you actually wrote that hurt feelings and prompted my remarks in the first place. “I never said that Ukraine is Nazi” is deflection, because I didn’t accuse you of that.

Well, perhaps we have come to a partial understanding. If you choose to leave it there, so be it.  —Michael Z. 20:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Request help with module editing

Hello @Mzajac:, I have little technical knowledge, so I request your help in editing some modules in Mon Wiktionary. What I need is the desire to change from English number to Mon number, but the reason is that I can translate (syllable words) into Mon, but I don't understand how to translate the remaining English numbers (For example, the desire to use the Mon translation of (Spanish 3-syllable words) as (ဝေါဟာသပုင်ဝဏ္ဏ ၃ မ-ဂမၠိုင်), for an example of a practical problem, see the (aquestos)), you are the author of the original module and your help is essential in this matter, thanks.--^{«Intobesa (talk)»} 18:46, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Casualties at War in Donbas (2014–2022)

Hi Michael, I'm wondering whether the best way to end the deadlock at Talk:War_in_Donbas_(2014–2022)#DPR_and_LPR_casualties is going to WP:RS/N or starting an RfC. You will have noticed that the "ombudsman" website used as a reference is pro-aggression propaganda of the most disgusting kind. Any ideas ? Rsk6400 (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

RS/N sounds like a very good idea. DLNR government agencies can’t possibly be considered any more reliable than Russian government agencies that are listed at WP:RSP, like TASS, RIA, Sputnik, or RT.

Thanks, @Rsk6400. I am running out of time and energy for discussions like that one. —Michael Z. 21:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, and also for your work. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#"Ombudsman"_of_the_"Donetsk_People's_Republic". For me personally, it is a question of the credibility of WP, and to some degree also of solidarity with the Ukrainian kids who are now studying at my school in Germany, each day hoping that they can go home tomorrow. Rsk6400 (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Change of topic

Lots of links that are now wrong. Srnec (talk) 23:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

@Srnec, sorry about that and thanks for reverting. 153 of them. Do you think it should stay the way it is now, or shall I update those links to point to a redirect like Offensive guard (gridiron football) (cf. Guard (gridiron football))?  —Michael Z. 00:02, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I think offensive guard is fine as is with hatnotes at each article, per WP:DIFFCAPS. I can't image many of those links are correctly capitalized, so probably just need a change of case. Srnec (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I will scan over them and correct any that I spot.  —Michael Z. 00:19, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Done. —Michael Z. 01:03, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

In re your comments regarding the recent arbitration

I appreciate your valuable insights,

The kind of interpersonal conflict you mentioned is the primary reason why I stopped editing Wikipedia. Personally, I find it unpleasant to get involved in the infighting that frequently takes place here.

My main concern is that the people referenced in the research paper should refrain from editing articles covering a wide range of topics. Their involvement in these topics can create the impression that Wikipedia is biased, which could have a detrimental effect on its reputation.

Despite this, some individuals seem to feel entitled to do as they please, without taking into account the outside perception or the potential conflict of interest.

I was wondering if there is a way for an administrator to impose a topic ban until this issue is resolved. This could help address the problem and ensure that Wikipedia remains a reliable source of information. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

You mean a topic ban now, before the case has been accepted? I’m sorry I can’t intervene myself because 1) I don’t have experience in this level of administration and banning, and 2) I may have conflicts of interest with one or more of the named editors.

I doubt the idea would fly anyway, because the allegations come from off-wiki, only some named editors have allegations against them, and all should be treated as innocent until proven guilty, so an arbitrary blanket topic-banning seems unfair to me.

If there is specific unacceptable behaviour being committed now or recently by specific individuals, then I’d recommend the standard mechanisms for WP:dispute resolution, WP:incivility, or whichever. Good luck.  —Michael Z. 01:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

in my estimation the main rationalization is that "the allegations come from off-wiki" <- that speaks to failure "internally" in that the platform cannot manage itself; that is why outside perception of wrongdoing needs to be the standard - because that perception is formed outside the platform; folks recusing themselves should be the ask. Flibbertigibbets (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

discussion about Labelling of the conflict at Talk:War in Donbas (2014–2022)

Per this post: ... you seem to be eager to simply remove the fact that this legal proceedings has been in progress for so many years. It is inappropriate to make value judgments about other editors in a TP discussion. I suggest you strike. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157, I intended it to be an observation and not a value judgement, but I can see it can easily be interpreted that way and will strike. —Michael Z. 00:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Michael, I am in part responding to your recent posts starting with this. You start by stating this:

Quoting you from the 1st post above: At section 184, it is yet to determine the existence (or not) of international and/or non-international armed conflict. No, it doesn’t say “yet to determine.” This paragraph is only describing the prosecutor’s activities and their purpose.

What I actually said was:

At section 184, it is yet to determine the existence (or not) of international and/or non-international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine.

Please note that I have used the Template:Talk quote inline to render in green that which was specifically quoted from section 184 of the report. When I have stated, "it is yet to determine", preceeding what actually appears in the report, I am summarising. I am not quoting from the report. More fully, the report states:

The Office has continued to conduct a thorough factual and legal analysis of information received in relation to the conflict in order to establish whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that the alleged crimes fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court. As described above, analysis of the situation in Ukraine in this phase has required extensive research focussed both on the examination and evaluation of information relevant for determining the existence (or not) of international and/or non-international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine and on analysing the more specific alleged acts that may constitute crimes under article 5 of the Statute.

Reading the section in full, TOP is still examining and evaluating information relevant for determining the existence (or not) of international and/or non-international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine. Consequently, it has not yet reached a conclusion (a determination) on the question. Yes, This paragraph is only describing the prosecutor’s activities and their purpose. Their activities and purpose are to establish whether there is a reasonable basis to believe that the alleged crimes fall within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Court. Consequently, they are [focussing on] the examination and evaluation of information relevant for determining the existence (or not) of international and/or non-international armed conflict in eastern Ukraine.

I see that you have used Template:tq and thereby presume that you are familiar with its use and how it renders. You would state: No, it doesn’t say “yet to determine.” To assert that I have represented that the report explicitly sated at section 184, it is yet to determine the existence (or not) of international and/or non-international armed conflict is a misrepresentation - a straw man argument and fallacious. Misrepresentations (WP:STRAWMAN) are also considered uncivil. Apart from the matter of civility, it is virtually impossible to have a reasoned discourse with another when their assertions are fallacious and particularly when straw man in nature. It is also incredibly frustrating. I note that I have had more than one occasion to raise similar concerns with you. If this was an inadvertent error, you might consider redacting. Can I suggest a self-revert since we are the only participants and start with a clean slate? I can also offer some other observations. Please see synonyms for seems. These are all very equivocal. They are not an assertion of fact, even in the most circumspect of language. Seems speaks to available evidence insufficient for a firm opinion and presenting a case to the court - a long way from being a "fact", legal or otherwise. The points you list would be "important" if they were at least a "firm opinion" that could be reported as such. To your comments about the Dutch court's ruling: if that sentence cannot stand alone on the basis of the sources cited, then there is SYNTH. I also observe that you have included that Russia withdrew from the ICC but this is not sourced. With your consent, I will try to tweak what is written in the interest of building consensus. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @User:Cinderella157. I was quoting you. I understood you perfectly.

The prosecutor’s report doesn’t say “yet to be determined.” It also doesn’t use any other phrasing meaning that it is yet to be determined. —Michael Z. 23:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Your quote does not capture the original rendering (ie, that which I was specifically quoting and that which I was not). To that extent, it is not an accurate quote. As such, it can be seen as a misrepresentation - intentional or not. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

If the OP is saying it is focusing its investigations to determine X [a very close paraphrase], it is clearly telling us that X has not yet been determined. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157, I disagree.  —Michael Z. 00:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

What then, is that paragraph reasonably telling us in respect to the status of making a determination on it being an international conflict? Cinderella157 (talk) 00:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Why are you forking the discussion here? Isn’t this for the talk page?  —Michael Z. 02:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I raised concerns about your representations on the TP here because this is the appropriate place to do so. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Well that’s fair and thank you.

But now this discussion seems to be getting back to the content, about the meaning and significance of Paragraph 184 under the heading “OTP Activities.” I think that’s more appropriate in the subject’s talk page, unless I’m missing something.  —Michael Z. 22:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

With this edit you have made a direct assertion of disruptive conduct: Stop being disruptive ... I would strongly suggest you redact this comment. Even if you intend to act upon it, the article TP is not the place to make allegations. Furthermore, WP:ONUS is quite clear on where the onus rests and what should be done when an edit is disputed. It appears to me your assertions are misdirected. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No, @Cinderella157. You are not WP:HEARing me. Every sentence in your last post there relies on unreasonable conclusions and leaps. I don’t know if you’re stubborn or inflexible or what.

And even if you were right, that is no reason to remove the sentence from the article.

I’ll offer a compromise: I will ask for a third opinion on whether to include it, if you leave it in until that’s resolved. I will even remove my last post as you request. Okay?  —Michael Z. 04:04, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I might say much the same; however, I have refrained from making personal characterisations and allegations of disruptive conduct. WP:ONUS is the reason for removing the sentence unless it is recast to refer to the 2019 report rather than the 2017 report. Cinderella157 (talk) 08:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Cinderella157, yes, you already said so. Then I proposed a compromise. Now you agree or disagree to it.  —Michael Z. 16:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I have engaged in the DR process by an initial discussion, by having provided an alternative and by seeking to discuss the matter further. I would see your recent post as largely non-responsive given my afore and a withdrawal from discussion, which is intrinsically part of WP:DR. At this time, there is no consensus for either the problematic sentence you added as part of your original edit nor for my alternative. The onus is to establish a consensus for any challenged edit. I view of your recent edit withdrawing from further discussion as a withdrawal from DR and further attempts to establish a consensus around the problematic sentence. The onus has not been met to retain this sentence. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:14, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Except that @Andrevan does not agree with you either. You are the sole dissenter, our positions are not close, and we have reached an impasse. My declining to spend my time going around in circles is WP:NOTSILENCE. There are more options for DR outlined at WP:CONSENSUS.  —Michael Z. 15:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Pejorative comments per this edit: but you are too stubborn to accept that, are inherently uncivil and do not contribute to building consensus. As already stated (per WP:TALKDONTREVERT): The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. There is no consensus at present for either of our edits. You further alledge: You are edit warring now by removing text. A talk page is not the place to make such allegations. I suggest you strike such comments and if you believe there is indeed substance to your allegation, action it in the correct place. That part of your edit (linked herein) which refers to the 2016 report addresses only one small part of what was said and would then assert that the 2019 report is somehow cited for "[my] sake". It appears to me that such a response can be characterised as a strawman and more specifically, as the selection form. Apart from being fallacious, WP:STRAWMAN are against civility policy. I have had cause to refer to the nature of your discourse as falling to strawman on more than one occasion. Stawman arguments are inherently not productive and do not contribute to building consensus. The greater issue is whether the first part of the attributed paraphrase belongs at all. Saying (to effect) that it is important does not establish why it is important and I have asked for clarification but it has not been provided. DR only works if both parties strive to achieve a mutual understanding. Strawmen are in my view a form of obfuscation. Cinderella157 (talk) 05:01, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I have indulged you by engaging in an incredible amount of conversation. You continuously generate still more by bombarding me with citations of every guideline that you can think of to disparage my responses. Enough. I’m done indulging you. If nothing I say can’t be but responded to with complaints, then I just won’t say anything further. I have much better things to do.

We are at an impasse. Use the DR mechanisms at your avail. Start an RFC or whatever you want.  —Michael Z. 05:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Just to inform you that Cinderella157 also started a fork-discussion on my talk page. Also there, they suggested that I strike something. I can only admire your patience. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:States and territories established in 1253

A tag has been placed on Category:States and territories established in 1253 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Well wishing

Hello. Happy 2.24 Love, William 198.163.159.103 (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Russia disputed

Hey, sorry about that confusion, What I meant to say is that 'disputed' is used to refer to the disputed area of Russia and Ukraine, not claimed.

have a nice day🙂 Gerçois (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened

Hello Mzajac,

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/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

'Why Ukrainian territory is marked as disputed one?' topic under 'Russia'

I would like to thank u for helping me understand more about Russia's article of the map of the colours of light green and its darker counterpart and also the whole history of Russo-Ukrainian War (2022),Russo-Georgian War and finally the Kuril Islands dispute. 756gamernowatroblox (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

BRD: flags of non-sovereign states

Hi! I've reverted one of your recent edits to Russo-Ukrainian War. For the rationale, please see my BRD on the talk page.

And no, I did not mean to send a thanks for that particular edit. I was just trying to find the revert button on mobile.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh he is one of the editors? Well, I am quite embarrassed since I kept asking him to look for a editor to edit a page! 756gamernowatroblox (talk) 09:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Partition of Ukraine

Hello Mzajac. I'm messaging you again as I'd like your opinion on a matter, you being one of the major Wikipedia editors on Ukraine topics. I'm cleaning up my computer from some Wikipedia draft articles in Word I never published and I found one I wrote about a hypothetical partition of Ukraine back in 2020. You can see its text here [6]. As you can see it's quite a lot of text. I wouldn't want to just get rid of it, but after three years I am no longer really sure whether this is a topic that merits an article in Wikipedia. Most of that text is just Vladimir Zhirinovsky's delusions. What do you think? Maybe there is a more appropriate target for this information? Super Ψ Dro 18:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, this is a theme in Russian disinformation in the Russian invasion of Ukraine: the delegitimization of Ukraine, the overt threats to destroy the state and nation (related to allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine), the deprecation of international laws and conventions and insistence that other states are just as criminal and imperialistic as the Kremlin régime, etc. As you’ve alluded, it was not just Zhirinovsky but is other personalities, publications, and online propaganda that spread versions on this theme too.

I would say this “plan” is not an encyclopedic subject on its own, because it both overlaps with and contradicts with dozens of other “plans” and statements in the propaganda firehose. I suspect such a thing may never merit such detailed examination because it probably does not comprise any real plan consistent with any possible reality or itself. A test would be whether any reliable source has attempted to do so.

The collected sources may be useful in other articles. Sorry, I can’t offer much else.  —Michael Z. 19:13, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I will probably just integrate the information into other articles then. Super Ψ Dro 20:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Katyusha rocket launcher

Katyusha rocket launcher has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Category:Governorates of Ukraine has been nominated for renaming to Category:Governorates of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic

Category:Governorates of Ukraine has been nominated for renaming to Category:Governorates of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Wars involving Soviet Ukraine (1917–1922)

Hi Michael, I was wondering if you could give me some advice on a potentially controversial category I'm considering to create. Awkwardly, the description of Category:Wars involving the Soviet Union originally said it was also intended for wars involving the RSFSR before 30 December 1922, but this led to several misunderstandings and reversions by other users when I tried to use it as such. They rightly pointed out (as you have done elsewhere) that the Soviet Union didn't exist until 30 December 1922. This morning I therefore created Category:Wars involving Soviet Russia (1917–1922) (and subcategory Category:Invasions by Soviet Russia (1917–1922)) by splitting them off from Category:Wars involving the Soviet Union (and Category:Wars involving Russia and Category:Wars involving the Russian Empire). But that leaves a bit of a hole for some other "Soviet republics" that were established and engaged in wars before 30 December 1922. In particular, it doesn't cover Ukraine. But as you rightly pointed out in the Governorates CfR, the Ukrainian SSR was not proclaimed until 10 March 1919. The various other short-lived states calling themselves simultaneously "Soviet" and "Ukrainian" (or something similar) included:

• Ukrainian People's Republic of Soviets (25 December 1917 – March 1918)
• Odesa Soviet Republic (January–March 1918)
• Donetsk–Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic (12 February 1918 – 20 March 1918)
  • All three merged into Ukrainian Soviet Republic (19 March 1918 – 18 April 1918)
• Taurida Soviet Socialist Republic (19 March 1918 – 30 April 1918)
• Crimean Socialist Soviet Republic (Mar–June 1919)

That leaves several options:

1. Would it be okay to lump these all together as Category:Wars involving Soviet Ukraine (1917–1922)?
2. If not, how about Category:Wars involving Soviet states in Ukraine (1917–1922)?
3. Or should we limit ourselves to just the Ukrainian SSR from 10 March 1919 to 30 December 1922? If yes, is Category:Wars involving Soviet Ukraine (1919–1922) a good name?
4. Or should we go for the abbreviation Category:Wars involving the Ukrainian SSR (1919–1922)?
5. Or should we go for the full (long, but clear and correct) name Category:Wars involving the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic (1919–1922)?

To give you an idea, this latter category would include at least the following wars:

• Ukrainian War of Independence
• Ukrainian–Soviet War
• Russian Civil War
• Southern Front of the Russian Civil War
• Polish–Soviet War
• 1919 Soviet invasion of Ukraine

But not:

• World War I (ended 11 November 1918) – if we included the other short-lived Soviet states in Ukraine above, it would.

I hope this is a clear (and not overwhelming) question, but I find your perspective on this issue important. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Off the cuff: Ukrainian People’s Republic of Soviets and the Ukrainian Soviet Republic were puppets controlled by the Russian Bolsheviks, and don’t need their own categories in my opinion. Another option would be to lump them in with the Ukrainian SSR, which started out as a third puppet in Ukraine, but I would object because, of course, it became a sovereign and independent state.

I wouldn’t refer to these collectively as “Soviet Ukraine,” which is the name of a specific state, and on its own the name probably would not be interpreted as including anything else.

Some of these proposals definitely would be subcategories of Category:Wars involving Ukraine, others definitely would not.

I’ll come back to this when I have a chance to consult some sources.  —Michael Z. 21:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks in advance, this already helps! Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the 7 wars I mentioned could also be categorised as Category:Wars involving the Ukrainian People's Republic, of course. But I don't expect that to be controversial. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 22:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi Michael, are these three articles all about the same subject?

• Kievan Rus' ornament
• ru:Древнерусский орнамент
• uk:Прикраси руських племен

The enwiki and ruwiki articles are linked to each other, and the enwiki page was translated from the ruwiki original. However, I'm not sure that the ukwiki article covers the same subject or differs from it substantially. From some machine translations I can only make some educated guesses. The ukwiki mentions a lot of the same objects such as "bracelets" and "rings", but the article uses very different sources; apart from a passing mention of Rybakov 1982, who on ruwiki is only cited as Rybakov 1948 and 1951, they do not base themselves on the same literature. Should I link these articles through Wikidata, or not? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, definitely link them. The subject is the same, early East Slavic decorative arts, and all will benefit from the material that doesn’t overlap.  —Michael Z. 15:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done Wikidata item. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Lots of Ukrainian villages with clunky lead sentences -- wanna help?

Hi Michael!

I know you're a prominent member of The Ukraine Cabal™ WikiProject Ukraine, and are interested in maintenance.

Have you noticed that most small villages (at least in southern and eastern Ukraine) have awful lead sentences like "is a village in the __ Oblast (province) of Ukraine"? It's really annoying, and I imagine many of these little places are getting increased traffic currently.

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I am going through these anyway and removing "the" in these situations is part of my workflow. Ymblanter (talk) 20:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Great, thanks @Ymblanter! I’ve been doing it on a drive-by basis, so I’ve only fixed around 75-100 which is a drop in the damned ocean. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:NOR

Dear Michael, I am formally notifying you that NOR does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. Regards, Paul Siebert (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I am informally replying that counterfactual, illogical, POV OR that contradicts actual reliable sources is worse than worthless. Your right to waste everybody’s time and push your POV has limits, because NOTCHAT and NPOV apply to all aspects of this encyclopedia.  —Michael Z. 14:27, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ukrainian alphabet

Template:Ukrainian alphabet has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Which governments tell the truth?

Seeing that your list of RU govt false statement examples is missing COVID-19, you might be interested in the essay Wikipedia:Reliability of open government data, in case you hadn't seen it before (if you go through the references, you'll see that Russia did not "win" the competition for the least reliable: Algeria won in my analysis and Belarus in Dmitry's, using the same purely statistical method, but different specifics).

I think that this is actually a serious long-term issue for Wikipedia, and while the COVID-19 pandemic is now "only" endemic, chances are that another open-government-data-dominated world crisis may occur, and we'll go back to promoting open-govt-data in infoboxes and graphs despite a lot of it being, if we put it bluntly, nonsense. And with a lack of sufficient Wikipedian policies+editor enthusiasm+tech support, chances are we again won't handle it properly. Maybe Wikidata people+methods could help - see the essay and its talk page. Feel free to edit there directly if you have any good ideas or can improve the essay. Boud (talk) 20:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Your revert

Hi why did you make this revert? Dnieper isn't a Russian name, so that claim should be at least struck through. The whole renaming discussion can be undermined because of that. Please self-revert. Marcelus (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

@Marcelus, see WP:TPO.  —Michael Z. 00:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

you may monitor me

Hello Michael. I will be editing sporadically, mostly uncontrovercial topics such as radio plays, cartoons, ETC. I know I was once banned from Wikipedia under my old username Comet Egypt, and every time I try to start over new and try to learn how to contribute as an hones tWikipedian, I get blocked by a block happy Australian user whom I won't name, as I don't want his block happy trigger finger acting on me again. I am unable to log back into the old account Comet Egypt or the account for AdenSingh45 as those e-mails that were connected to the accounts no longe rexist. However, if you do not feel that I should do a clean start at all then you may give me the boot. If not, then I'd like to be able to make sporadic edits under your watch, if you are willing. If I step out of line, then promptly knock me into the ether. From here on out I will do my level best to try to source edits within the best of my ability within the limitations of what my screen-reader will allow. Unfortunately the one user whom people used to refer me to is the same block happy Australian user, whom had he not been so block happy, I'd have been more than willing to work with him, but he has decided that I am not redeemable, and he always blocks me for eons and deletes everything I am involved with, including discussions where other people were at. He even blocked a hotel IP address in Thompson where I was staying all because I fixed wording on an article I used to edit under. I have no interest in creating an account, nor do I have any interest in creating any fake identities, nor disclosing my real identity other than what my IP will provide. So if you feel that there is no way for me to return then you may do with me exactly as you wish, but I'd like it to be you to decide, not the Serbian or Australian users whom I won't name, as they are way too block happy. Also note I'm not attacking the users for being Serbian or Australian, just trying to acknowledge them without pinging them because I know they are far too block happy and nave no interest in even helping me get back to editing honestly. Right now I have interesting in adding and editing info on audio dramas, such as adding the Victory of Joan of Arc (2023) to the Augustine Institute page under their list of audio dramas, as that has been released and has been covered in reliable sources. I am also digging through the internet for some sources on older cartoons and audio plays.

To rap up the long and likely poorly spelled message, what should I do going forward? I don't want to be just blocked by the Australian or Serbian users again, due to them not believing that I can become a good contributor. I also have no access to the old accounts nor do I have interest in making an account in future. Again, I am Comet Egypt AKA Alien Arceus AKA Eric Ramus AKA AdenSingh45, this is me. I have done wrong trolling Wikipedia in the past, and I own up to it. I'm sure with your guidance, I can become much better and accept whatever you decide. If you either block this IP or tell me no, then I will accept it, as I trust yuo will be fair, and not simply knock me into the ether like that Australian user always does. Thank you, from Comet Egypt. 205.200.241.104 (talk) 12:34, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Content Dispute

Hello! I saw our conversation was becoming unproductive so I went ahead and contacted mediation for help :) In the meantime I'll just reply to anything in the talk page to clarify I'm waiting for mediation. Hopefully we find a good way to resolve our respective concerns! AevumNova (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Content removal at Antireligion

Hello Mzajac, would you be so kind to have a look at Antireligion. A newly registered user (Brain in Spain (talk · contribs) (blocked right now) insists in removing content from that article. The section being removed refers to reported Soviet Union crimes. The user who removes the sourced content also added a comment at Talk:Douglas Tottle. Additionally, the anonymous users that edited at Dougles Tottle and Antireligion articles both resolves to Queensland, Australia (211.30.145.127 (talk · contribs), 211.30.185.112 (talk · contribs), 49.182.173.50 (talk · contribs) and 147.10.101.168 (talk · contribs)). All of this sounds like a coordinated action. Am I wrong? DoebLoggs (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @DoebLoggs. That particular article looks stable for now. If disruptive editing resumes, consider posting an WP:RFP. If you are certain that there are multiple coordinated accounts, maybe look at WP:SOCK for possible remedies.

I’ll keep my eyes open. Thanks.  —Michael Z. 15:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

"Ukraine on Fire"

Don't know if you have time for some advice on Ukraine on Fire. The film supports the fringe theory that the Revolution of Dignity was a coup. The film seems to be notable enough to merit its own article, but I didn't find a really good source refuting its claims with reference to the film. So, I suggested to remove the synopsis part of the article (based on WP:FIND), but I don't seem to get consensus on the talk page. I'd appreciate any ideas. Maybe take it to the fringe theories noticeboard? Thanks, Rsk6400 (talk) 06:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, @Rsk6400. The synopsis doesn’t look terribly presented, but its language could be improved, and I think some points from the Kremlin narrative need to be directly addressed to clearly identify WP:FRINGE POV and by introducing facts to balance it for WP:DUEWEIGHT. I don’t know about policies on synopses, but maybe someone at WP:WikiProject Film can be helpful? Maybe there are other articles about propaganda films that can serve as a model on how to present this one: The Birth of a Nation or films of Leni Riefenstahl spring to mind.

IMO the lead is lacking in that it identifies the filmmaker’s goals but doesn’t characterize them as POV propaganda. The Oliver Stone article does a more thorough job with this in the last paragraph of the lead, even though Stone is only partly notable for his conspiracy theorism and POV, while for this subject that is much more central. —Michael Z. 15:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for joining there. I was starting to feel a bit lonely in that discussion. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Before going on a two week's holiday, I'd like to comment on the accusation that you "share the same POV as [I]" made on that talk page. I perceive your "POV" as being "WP should not be used for disinformation", so I'm a bit proud of that accusation. My personal conviction is that disinformation kills. Rsk6400 (talk) 13:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I suspect we also share “POV” about fairly interpreting Wikipedia guidelines, reflecting the consensus in reliable sources, and making use of them with a neutral POV and with due weight. Enjoy your break.  —Michael Z. 14:04, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bober (drone), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Main Directorate of Intelligence.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:14, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Little Russia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Little Russia Governorate.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Federal subjects of Russia

Thanks for this revert, you quite right. I misread the map having reverted the map showing the territory as uncontested. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:54, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the Russian invasion of Ukraine/Archive 1#Requested move 4 August 2023

FYI: you're skirting close to violating the editing contentious topics rules in the above-linked RfC. While it's clear that you have strong feelings about the topic area, per the talk page guidelines please step back and let others make comments without being bludgeoned. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks.  —Michael Z. 19:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:STABLE

Hi!

Please read Wikipedia:Stable version#Inappropriate usage. While the whole thing is an explanatory essay, challenging its validity would require admitting that the whole concept is not a policy or guideline (unlike BLP).

Thanks, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but sorry: but in relation to what?  —Michael Z. 00:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It was primarily in relation to invocations of the concept that you made earlier this month at Talk:Igor Girkin and one or more revert summaries to the article. I happened to come across another unrelated mention of WP:STABLE, read the essay, and afterward thought it might be worth dropping a line here also.

But also, the more informed one is, the more informed they are :)

Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but also be mindful that WP:BRD discussion occurs while an article remains at its pre-bold version:

If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. Instead, take it to the talk page (see below). If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD.

 —Michael Z. 18:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Dovbush (disambiguation)

Your opinion: [7] - Altenmann >talk 17:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2014 Crimean parliamentary election

Hi

enough is enough. There are lots violations in talk page. What is the solution? Panam2014 (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Reverting against 4 editors to return a source is pretty edit-warry

Hi Mzajac. I just want to repeat that you were the one that added the Serby source to the lead [8], and you reverted to restore it four times, against four different editors [9] [10] [11] [12]. You against 4 editors isn't a good look to have. Please let's try to work together to make Wikipedia a positive space.Stix1776 (talk) 09:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Are you speaking for the three others? There are just we two in the current discussion. If you mean to imply that this indicates a consensus, then please show that you have surveyed all edits, not just three that coincide with your opinion, and that you have gone through all relevant discussions.

Why are you consistently misspelling Roman Serbyn’s name? I thought it was a typo, but now I wonder if you are doing this intentionally. Is there a point?  —Michael Z. 16:28, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Don't forget to assume good faith. I'll be more careful in the future, but misspelling an author's name whom I'm not knowledgeable about seems perfectly understandable. Stix1776 (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Russian Empire categories

Your point that blanket calling anyone from the Russian Empire "Russian", is why I have been creating lots of specific categories grouping together people from the Russian Empire by occupation and other things. Calling members of other ethnic groups in the Russian Empire "Russian" is inaccurate. I have also resisted attempts to place these categories under Russian categories, but there is much work to do on this. I am starting to think that having any Category called Russian is just too ambiguous and confusing, and that we should create a system where we make it clear what we call Russian lawyers is a category limited to people who were lawyers in the Russian state that has existed since 1991. People may not be ready to go that far, but we can certainly do a better job in not mass labeling subjects of the Russian Empire as "Russian" who never used that name for themselves.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Agreed with all of the above.

We still have a potential issue with assuming things about categories. Yes, we can disambiguate X from the Russian Empire and X from the Russian Federation, when that is appropriate. Emigration from a state or country can be defining for a single instance of migration. (And I’d argue in the case of an empire, migration from a country in it is more specific and maybe more appropriate).

But for categorizing people as such, sources may treat them differently. I recently discovered the documentation in an excellent source on artists, the Getty Research Union List of Artist Names, which has a nationality field in its database, with plenty of detailed advice on what to enter.[13] For starters, nationality here means “a reference to the nationality, culture, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual identity, or sexual orientation or preference of the person or corporate body,” and is often not simple.  —Michael Z. 03:25, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

https://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D1%82%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%81%D1%8C%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%B9_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D1%83%D0%B3

Hello! Could you create an article about Starostyn district of Ukraine? It is a de facto administrative unit of the countries of the fourth level. You previously added an article about the povit of Ukraine, so I thought I might find it interesting. Cringe2034 (talk) 22:52, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Bortkieiwcz

Hi, I noticed you brought up Bortkieiwcz description in August. That conversation has restarted with some pretty strong new sources. You might want to check it out Chasetry78 (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

(Specifically here: Dispute resolution for Sergei Bortkiewicz.) CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Invitation to Cornell study on Wikipedia discussions

Hello Mzajac,

I’m reaching out as part of a Cornell University academic study investigating the potential for user-facing tools to help improve discussion quality within Wikipedia discussion spaces (such as talk pages, noticeboards, etc.). We chose to reach out to you because you have been highly active on various discussion pages.

The study centers around a prototype tool, ConvoWizard, which is designed to warn Wikipedia editors when a discussion they are replying to is getting tense and at risk of derailing into personal attacks or incivility. More information about ConvoWizard and the study can be found at our research project page on meta-wiki.

If this sounds like it might be interesting to you, you can use this link to sign up and install ConvoWizard. Of course, if you are not interested, feel free to ignore this message.

If you have any questions or thoughts about the study, our team is happy to discuss! You may direct such comments to me or to my collaborator, Cristian_at_CornellNLP.

Thank you for your consideration.

--- Jonathan at CornellNLP (talk) 18:01, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

RFC about decommunized, occupied settlements in Ukraine

The Khrustalnyi RM has gone through, and as we discussed there, we could now start an RFC at UAPLACE to move over all the other minor decommunized settlements. Problem is, I don't really know how to propose an RFC like this, especially at this scale. I don't want to mess up the formatting and just clog the bureaucracy with a malformed proposal. Any suggestions? HappyWith (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

RFCs can be fraught. I’m sometimes surprised at what a poor reception an obviously good proposal gets (and occasionally surprised when a potentially controversial one is broadly accepted).

Another option is to just do a multiple-article move request (like this). This is best if all of the cases are simple and similar to be dealt with as a group (because sometimes a discussion can get hung up on a single exceptional example). But I’ve generally had good results. It’s not too difficult and I’d be glad to initiate the proposal.

Do you have a list of the candidates to look over? If it is large maybe it can be divided into a few categories to be done in batches, perhaps from more obvious ones that can serve as a precedent for the potentially controversial?  —Michael Z. 20:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Would this be the full list?: List of Ukrainian toponyms that were changed as part of decommunization in 2016.  —Michael Z. 20:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

If that's not all of them, I have to assume it's the vast majority. I think a series of multimoves are the way to go, with the discussion on the talk page of WP:UAPLACE. I think we should do only the Donetsk and Luhansk Oblast settlements at first, because I suspect Crimean settlements and raions will be more controversial. HappyWith (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I have seen some editors argue that Crimean settlements should be treated differently, but I have seen no convincing argument for this, given that their status is the same as some settlements in other parts of Ukraine: occupied and illegally claimed as “annexed.” Not sure that passively and preemptively giving in to these demands is the best way to apply the guidelines fairly to this entire group of articles.  —Michael Z. 22:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see the list says that the law specific to places in Crimea (ПВРУ 1352-VIII)[14] has not entered force yet, but looking at the source it looks like it was amended by several other laws. Can you determine whether it is now in force or not?  —Michael Z. 22:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I'll take a look at that later, when I can more thoroughly look at sources. In the meantime, I actually noticed that almost none of these Crimean settlements even have wiki articles, and of the ones that do, many of them have already been moved to their decommunized names. HappyWith (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

And some of them have been renamed to historical pre-communist names.  —Michael Z. 23:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I translated the legal documents, and apparently as recently as last month, the law has been changed from previously specifying that it would come into effect upon recapture of Crimea to instead say the name changes are in effect immediately:

2. In paragraph 2 of the Resolution of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine "On Renaming Individual Settlements and Districts of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol" (Vidomosti Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, 2016, No. 23, Article 478) the words "will be temporarily enforced from the moment of return of the occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol under the general jurisdiction of Ukraine" shall be replaced by the words "entered into force from the date of entry into force of the Law of Ukraine "On Amendments to Certain Legislative Acts of Ukraine Regarding the Resolution of Certain Issues of the Administrative and Territorial System of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea".

So, I think the name changes are in effect in Ukrainian law now. I'm not 100% sure, as I don't speak Ukrainian and Google Translate may be producing a misleading translation, but I'm pretty sure. HappyWith (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

That was my impression too, but I wasn’t confidant that I’d totally untangled all the spaghetti of amendments and interdependent laws. I’ll try to find English or Ukrainian-language news about this to confirm.  —Michael Z. 23:29, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Any progress? Either way, I'll see if I can start compiling a list of articles that should be included in the multimove. HappyWith (talk) 18:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

I've started an RM for the settlements I think will be least controversial at Talk:Kirovske,_Donetsk_Oblast#Requested_move_25_October_2023. A full list of settlements and entities I found are at.my sandbox. HappyWith (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I’ve been busy IRL. Thanks for making the RM.  —Michael Z. 20:50, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

WP:MOS

I need your help by fixing WP:MOS issues on Alexander Pushkin and Pale of Settlement, by following this one: MOS:OVERLINK and WP:RUSTRESS. 43.247.36.6 (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I’ve removed the stress marks in the second article (not sure about the diacritic in the Hebrew transliteration).

Which sections specifically are overlooked?  —Michael Z. 00:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for removing stress marks in Russian words, also remove this flag from infobox per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. 43.247.36.6 (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Mzajac, this is a banned editor. Please do not proxy edit on their behalf.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Scope of the Russian category

I really think we should limit our Russian categories to people who are nationals of modern Russia. While there are also ethnic Russians, I do not think that a category should try to merge multiple things together. For this reason I do not think that the Russian Empire categories should be treated as subcategories of the Russian category. Recently people have decided to fight back against this. They have reverted statements that link articles on people who were nationals of the Russian Empire to Russia. They have attacked me for categorizing Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov as a composer from the Russian Empire, even though he was born in, lived in, and died in the Russian Empire. Another editor seems to suggest that we should not place in Russian Empire categories anyone who was alive when it ended in 1917. I think the following. Do you feel these are reasonable views. 1. The Russian Empire was a distinct nation. It had distinct nationals. We should categorize them as such. 2. We mainly categorize people by the nation thry lived in. 3. The Russian Empire was a country that was destroyed. Later the Soviet Union filled a similar space. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia has filled a smaller space. 4. The Russian Empire lasted less than 200 years, we should not subdivide its residents into categories by century, since we cannot get 3 by century categories. 4. The Russian categories should be limited to nationals of the current country of Russia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Jānis Ilsters

Jānis Ilsters was a resident of the Russian Empire all his life. The whole purpose of the People from the Russian Empire categories was to create a scheme where we could combine articles by the fact that the subjects were nationals of the Russian Empire. It was to avoid endless debates about a person's nationality. Yet my adding Ilsters to a category related to the Russian Empire has been reverted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like you’re dealing with specific disputes that I’m not quite aware of.

I do agree that Russian-empire persons should not be lumped together with Russian-Federation persons as if these were one state. And I agree that there may be a lack of clear consensus on these questions that should be resolved in a coordinated fashion. I do see a general agreement with splitting the many “Russian and Soviet” categories which are likewise poor categorization for several reasons.

A key part of the solution is to categorize by country, and not only by state. Recalling that the Russian empire was definitely not a “nation,” as you termed it above, nor a nation-state, but a multinational empire. The broader concept of nation and nationality is not the legal one of which state someone is a citizen or subject of. In the empire, imperial identity was promoted and national identity suppressed (including Russian nationality to a degree, and certainly Belarusian and Ukrainian which were not allowed to exist as distinct from Russian). But the colonial era is over, and we do not categorize people as imperial persons, or at least we are still in the process of decolonization and trying not to (as the recognition of imperial Russia and the USSR as colonial has come late, for specific reasons in Western historiography).[15]

This is a trend I see in sources, often by clearly identifying their subjects’ place of birth, cultural heritage, place of activity, self-identification, and other details as are significant to their own identity. For example, look at Britannica’s bio of Gogol.[16] If you pay attention, you may notice it is largely about his close relationship with Russian literature, but nowhere does it refer to him as Russian (adj) or a Russian (n), because he was not Russian, but a member of the petty Ukrainian gentry from Ukraine.  —Michael Z. 15:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Notability of Ge with dot below

Hi Michael. Ge with dot below came across my radar while doing NPP. I see that you've nominated similar articles for deletion and wanted to apprise you of this article if you believe it's not notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. It is dubious that that is a separate letter belonging to an alphabet, but more likely just the use of a dot under a regular Cyrillic letter. But I don’t know Arabic, and I don’t know about Cyrillization of Arabic, so have no way of evaluating it as a valid subject.  —Michael Z. 04:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Michael. I'll bring it to the WikiProject Writing systems talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Spam article recreation

I looks like the spam articles from a former group AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A with acute (Cyrillic) you were the nom for are being recreated. Hope you are well, greetings from Los Angeles. I don't have experience with the topic, so I will leave it to you/others.  // Timothy :: talk  09:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Ugh. I have posted a request for advice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Deleted article recreated.  —Michael Z. 14:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Crash48 opened an arbitration case without informing you

Hi Michael, @Crash48 opened a case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ukrainian_language in which they accuse both you and me of POV-pushing, but it seems that they didn't inform you. I feel that the case will probably come to nothing because it doesn't meet the requirements, but since I have absolutely no experience with arbitration, I thought I should inform you. I'm not sure whether I should reply there or make better use of my time. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. I just saw this and I see the request has been declined already. Will read it over so I’m aware of what’s up.  —Michael Z. 16:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, I see there’s one decline vote, so far. The statements seem to have a fair view of the situation, and I will follow. Please inform me if any further action regarding this arises at ANI or elsewhere. Thanks for the head-up.  —Michael Z. 16:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

FYI: They started Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ukrainian_language. I'll inform you as soon as anything happens there. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

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) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Lists of Indigenous peoples

A tag has been placed on Category:Lists of Indigenous peoples indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

New development: "Ukrainian language"

Hi Michael, Crash48 took the issue to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rsk6400. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The Luhansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic ceased to exist, and need to be written in the past tense.

Hello.

The Luhansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic ceased to exist, when Russia annexed them in 2022. The introduction of both articles need to be written in the past tense, not only because their establishment, existence and absorption were de facto, but also because they ceased to exist from a Russian perspective, after Russia first officially recognized them in 2022 and then officially annexed them as regions of Russia later that year. As you stated, Russia dropped all pretense of their "independence", when it annexed them. Maybe new articles about the de facto "Russian" regions of Luhansk and Donetsk should be created, to reflect the current situation of these two regions, just like there is an article about the de facto Republic of Crimea of Russia, as opposed to the de jure Autonomous Republic of Crimea of Ukraine.

Multituberculata (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

@Multituberculata: from a Russian perspective, these republics continue to exist as Republics of Russia. There are quite a few of those, none of them independent. Crash48 (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that is my point. They were Russian-controlled and remain so, under the same names. Independence was a pretense that has been given up. Changing them to the past tense would be misleading as it would imply some supposedly independence-seeking Ukrainian statelets existed that never did.

These and related articles should be revised, with an emphasis on replacing contemporary news reporting with more recent expert and academic history sources. All the BS about “Russian-supported separatists” and journalistic both-sidesing can be replaced with what reliable sources in retrospect tell us they were: Russian-controlled illegal militias, aided by some local collaborators, violently occupying Ukrainian lands and people most of whom never wanted to join Russia.  —Michael Z. 00:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Ukrainian counteroffensive

It failed by western media [17] . So why are you removing my edit? What are you trying to do? Kanikosen (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

And he did send them into this, [18] with minimal air support, so mind explaining why did you removed my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanikosen (talk • contribs) 16:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Your edits violated the general sanction at WP:GS/RUSUKR. Please read and understand it.  —Michael Z. 16:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Did they? So can you point what part, part where you try to defend Ukranian failed offensive, part where you claim that Missile Carrier being moved 15 minutes away (ignoring Russia have subs that can fire from anywhere in Black sea?) . So please, point me part of WP:GS/RUSUKR saying I can't write that? Kanikosen (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. So, go on. Kanikosen (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)