User talk:Cononsense

test

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Ukrainization into Ukrainians in Kuban. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the info! Cononsense (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for helping to make the Azov page better. It seems a lot more balanced and less sensationalist now. Fourdots2 (talk) 22:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the compliment! I like your contributions on that page too.

My favorite characterisation of the group (which I just found, so let me share with you) is this:

Discourse on Azov tends to be black-and-white — it’s either nothing to be concerned about and uninfluential, or it’s literally the NSDAP redux — but there’s all sorts of shades of grey in there that get painted over. And studying it helps us, I’d argue, understand other far-right movements around the world. - Michael Colborne

Which sums up my interest perfectly well. Cononsense (talk) 22:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Totally. I don't necessarily think they are good guys but I didn't want the first thing people read in Wikipedia about it to reflect Putin's view of it all lol. Fourdots2 (talk) 23:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I don't know if you've seen this? I don't think it's worth including in the article unless it appears somewhere other than Twitter though Haha https://mobile.twitter.com/NikaMelkozerova/status/1525880732287127552 Fourdots2 (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, that's not fun. AZOV are protecting Ukraine from russian aggression, how can you call them neo-nazi? Shame on you. AZOV are patriots and they did nothing to be blamed neo-nazi. Please remove it from the article. YourProductOwner (talk) 10:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I agree with you but we're the ones trying to get it removed! Fourdots2 (talk) 13:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree, and that of Ukrainian anti racist campaigners etc. Some of this is probably due to the language issue and the current situation Fourdots2 (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to thank you also for your efforts at Azov Battalion, which you seem to have improved considerably since I was last there. I noticed this when I looked at the page in the context of Mhorg’s Arbitration Enforcement case; I may comment on that. But I also wanted to applaud your efforts there; you certainly made more headway than I did towards improving the article. I agree with the sentiment above: possibly the Azov Regiment members are not all the nicest people I have ever met, and some of them may indeed have politics with which I vehemently disagree, but they deserve a more accurate picture than the one that Putin has been painting. I agree also that language issues have been part of the problem. As an aside, I looked at your user page, and I am also interested in machine translation and at some point would like to discuss it with you or perhaps ask questions. Elinruby (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elinruby: thanks! Meant to reply earlier, but got busy irl. Yeah, the Azov article was a pov mess. The 2021 rfc didn't help either. I sources that were mentioned seemed to be cherry picked, and didn't rely on authoritative experts to interpret and properly contextualize information into the broader picture. Didn't help that media were often very messy with contentious words and sometimes used outdated information. I think in general, that's all improved tho. Nice job on the Russian information war against Ukraine article btw, I ended up referencing it quite a bit, I may make some updates there soon. Do you use any of built in translation tools in wikipedia? Cononsense (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

in *Wikipedia*? Not much. On the English-language Wikipedia, translators are required to use quill pens. There was a huge kerfluffle about that a while ago. I can point you to some archived discussions from the time if you are interested. The TL;DR was that the CTX tool is better at some language pairs than others, and early versions of it produced some truly awful results. And yet it is imho too easy to say that it would be easier to dynamite such articles and start over; I have rehabilitated some very interesting articles that would not have been within my ability to produce. Or that of many people in my opinion. I did like CTX before it was disabled; the workspace was well-organized, and it was very good for really precise words that were in my recognition vocabulary but that I would otherwise have had to look up. “Caravel” came up for example, in a series of articles I did with it about an Ottoman invasion of southern France, but in the same articles it wanted to translate “galley” as “kitchen”, which was, in this context, very wrong; the article meant the type of ship. And forget words like “à”, which could in context mean “to”, “at”, or “belonging to”, off the top of my head. And this was for French, a related language which it processed pretty well. Chinese or Arabic to English, for example, didn’t always work out even as well as that. I proposed a skills test for access to the tool, but that went nowhere. I do think it requires someone with enough knowledge to spot a machine translation fail, but that it could save that person quite a lot of time. More on this later if you like. Elinruby (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS - if you mean for the information war article, that was languishing on a list of translated articles needing help. I do not speak Ukrainian however, and wasn’t able to find a Ukrainian translator who was available, so I have had to rely on Google Translate and some experience with silly machine translation fails. That is why I so carefully documented certain incertitudes. It was initially written by an angry Euromaidan activist, I believe, which was where the talk page post came from about its previous use of the word “terrorist”. I think I have toned that down quite a bit though, and thanks for the references; it needed quite a bit of work. I have been meaning to get back to it. Elinruby (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

incidentally, I was wondering if you found as I did that despite some apparent tone problems, the events in the timeline were all verifiable and could be referenced? Given the article length I was thinking of spinning the information there into Russo-Ukrainian war or one of the stand-alone timelines on related topics. The Gerasimov stuff was my own discovery from a discussion with Mathglot, with whom I had previously collaborated and who turned out to be independently working on articles about the Russian military doctrine. The media section needs a lot of work and incorporates a lot of possibly outdated material from articles like Mass media in Ukraine, yet I think the ownership by oligarchs is a critical point. One of them, for example, is one of two men reputed to have beennPutin’s choice to replace Zelenskyy had the coup against him succeeded. And several of the others are Russian and perhaps have ties to Putin.

I hope you don’t mind this brain dump; it’s intended to encourage you to work on the article some more, since you appear to be interested and I am currently very preoccupied off-wiki and probably will be for another couple of weeks. Also, if you can think of a way to get the translation reviewed, that would be ideal. I am fairly certain that someone Ukrainian did a machine translation (although I haven’t verified this in the history, but there were a lot of tells in the article when I came to it). I have edited it into more idiomatic English, very carefully because I am aware of the perils of doing so, but I cannot rule out subtle errors or mistaken assumptions on my part, and I believe the article to be important. Thank you for the brainpower you have already applied to the article and any that you may apply in future. Elinruby (talk) 15:16, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcoming other users

Hi Cononsense. I noticed you are welcoming a lot of other users which is a nice gesture. Do you do that randomly, or you have follow particular criteria? – NJD-DE (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi, tbh, I was trying to learn how to use Twinkle and Wikipedia:Ultraviolet since they are new to me

In general, based on the user's contributions, I tried to use the "right" Twinkle template, especially if the contributor's interests lie in a relevant Wikipedia Projects. Cononsense (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are two cool tools indeed. Ok, I was just asking because I saw you welcoming some users where it wasn't necessary/not appropriate. E.g. when a user has already received a welcome message by someone else (or you) there's usually no need for another one. Users who haven't made any constructive edits or have been blocked already do not need to be welcomed either. Thanks for keeping this in mind next time & happy editing. – NJD-DE (talk) 18:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thanks! appreciate the advice. Cononsense (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Cononsense! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! – NJD-DE (talk) 19:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Your edit to Azov Battalion has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

Your edit to War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: thanks for catching and paraphrasing, it gave me an useful example of how much content is possible to use. cheers! Cononsense (talk) 21:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really removed/reworded everything but the quotation! So the actual amount of copying I allow is pretty much zero! Paraphrasing this particular bit of content was not too difficult. Please let me know if you'd like links to some tips and exercises you can try. Cheers, — Diannaa (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Diannaa: please send me tips/exercises. i'm still a bit confused at what qualifies among things that are not copyrightable, such as facts are, from reading WP:C-P so I would like to educate myself. thanks! I also realize it's better to summarize than list a lot of facts, as well. Cononsense (talk) 21:13, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Content has to be written in your own words and not include any wording from the source material. One thing I find that works for me is to read over the source material and then pretend I am verbally describing the topic to a friend in my own words. Stuff should also be presented in a different order where possible. Summarize rather than paraphrase. This will typically result in your version being much shorter than the source document. There's some reading material on this topic at Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing and/or have a look at the material at Paraphrase: Write It in Your Own Words. Check out the links in the menu on the left for some exercises to try. Or study this module aimed at WikiEd students. — Diannaa (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, there's no point changing the order of the material purely to try to avoid copyright violation: if the original order makes the most sense, then keep that. If changing the order makes more sense, then do that. In practice, summarising will rarely preserve the exact order of the source material, especially since the contexts will differ. It's very rare for source material to be written in the most compact, summary form that makes sense in the context of another article, and cannot be improved and summarised to be better (clearer, with less euphemisms and jargon and newsy style - "Moscow said, London responded" is typical for newsy style that doesn't make sense in an encyclopedia). Boud (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Notice

War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has an RFC

War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:00, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Your edit to Early Slavs has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This is your third warning. — Diannaa (talk) 20:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stepan Rudnytsky moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Stepan Rudnytsky, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more 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. Reading Beans (talk) 17:25, 10 August 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) 01:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Stepan Rudnytsky

Hello, Cononsense. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Stepan Rudnytsky, 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) 04:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Stepan Rudnytsky

Hello, Cononsense. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Stepan Rudnytsky".

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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 13 February 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) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]