User talk:Dmytro91

August 2022

Hello, I'm Discospinster. I noticed that you recently removed content from Maxim Berezovsky without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ... discospinster _talk 00:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Why are you reverting my edits? Grove Music Online is not a good resource for you? Dmytro91 (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Maxim Berezovsky, you may be blocked from editing. ... discospinster _talk 00:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I did give you explanation. Why are you reverting my edits? Grove Music Online is not a good resource for you? Dmytro91 (talk) 00:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Removal of content

Do not remove other cited information from the articles. There are plenty of sources that refer to him as Russian and you may not remove them just because you disagree. ... discospinster _talk 00:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree, I provide the most reliable resource of classical music in the world. Not some made up webpages. Dmytro91 (talk) 00:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

How are the other sources made-up webpages? They are encyclopedias and dictionaries of music, just like Grove. ... discospinster _talk 00:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

why then you delete Grove citation? Dmytro91 (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Why are you deleting the others? ... discospinster _talk 00:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

oh, so you just offended that I deleted less reliable resources that's why you delete Grove? Not really scholarly approach, don't you think? Dmytro91 (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, how do you figure that sources such as the Columbia Encyclopedia and the Great Russian Encyclopedia are less reliable? ... discospinster _talk 01:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you see any citation in Columbia Encyclopedia for Berezonsky's acticle?

Do you see that Grove Music Online has 15 citations?

What do you think is more reliable? Dmytro91 (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

About Great Prussian Encyclopedia... well, where to start?

Released under the auspices of the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) after President Vladimir Putin signed a presidential decree №1156 in 2002 with the support of Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation.

Ok first, this encyclopedia is supported by Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation. The same Ministry that published support of Ukrainian invasion in 2014. I think that taking into account just that fact, and current events (war in Ukraine) Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation is not the best thing to rely on. Considering that Great Russian Encyclopedia was finished in 2017 (3 years into the war from 2014) they might have some bias and should not be reliable as mains source of information for this particular case. https://culture.gov.ru/press/news/deyateli-kultury-rossii-v-podderzhku-pozitsii-prezidenta-po-ukraine-i-krymu20171009103201/

Second, supported by Putin. I don't think any explanation needed. In case you need any, then here Putin said "Ukraine is not even a state..." and declared that Ukraine and Russian "are one people." https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/2020/07/01/there-is-no-ukraine-fact-checking-the-kremlins-version-of-ukrainian-history/ Do you think he is good reason to trust Russian Dictionary?

That's why resources outside Russian and outside Ukraine are the most reliable. In the leu of current events that started back in 2014, every side might have bias.

Does that sounds reasonable to you? Dmytro91 (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know if the account whose edit (on Berezovsky) I reverted is yours or not, but I see you were making other edits there and I figure this applies as well. Cited there was single article, written by a Ukrainian, on a massive article repository (Oxford Music Online, a dictionary and article repository at the same time), to justify your edit. To be fair to you, there are other articles there referring to him as Ukrainian (I'm not sure if any of them was written by a non-Ukrainian, though). However, you'll also find on that same repository articles written by Western scholars (not Russian scholars, just clarifying because I can already imagine your objections) referring to Berezovsky as Russian. On a personal (and professional) capacity I consider it in general improper to retroactively endow a person with a nationality that quite simply did not exist at the time and to which they showed no adherence (if they did, then this changes things, of course), but fundamentally I believe Wikipedia policy is to not run with someone's nationality at the beginning of an article unless it's absolutely necessary and relevant to the person's notability (for instance, in the case of an independence fighter). This is further complicated by the fact that, as I just mentioned, he is also referred to as a Russian composer, which is correct given that he was a [loyal] subject of the Russian Empire throughout his life. With this in mind, I believe not bringing up the issue of his nationality (whichever you may consider it to be) in the opening paragraph at all is by far the better option to just avoid unnecessary controversy. You'll be happy to know that even though you may dislike Wikipedia policies, we're not paid by Putin (or anyone else, for that matter!) Ostalgia (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Stop your disruptive editing

Just because you don't like Russia, it is not a reason to remove every Russian-related bit of information from Ukraine-related articles. Whether you like it or not, the two countries have a history together so sometimes Russia will be mentioned. If you continue to remove reliably-sourced content due to nationalism, you will be blocked from editing. ... discospinster _talk 00:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Are you threatening me? Seem like you are really Russian. There is not reason to mention Russian name of a Ukrainian city. Period. If you like to claim things that do not belong where they belong then you are in the wrong place my dear. Dmytro91 (talk) 01:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You are not referring to any kind of policy or consensus for removing these names. Your argument for removal is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Usually when you have been reverted by multiple editors over something that has been in the article for a long time (or the whole time), it is best to stop. Mellk (talk) 01:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

You don't see how your point is the same. You keep Russian version because Wikipedia:ILIKEIT. If something has been here for a long time doesn't mean it is right. This even can't be reason to keep something. This is weak point. I say, Hlukhiv is Ukrainian, that's why it should have only Ukrainian version. Your point is "I like it to have Russian too". That's all. But the truth will find a way, don't worry. You can keep it for now. Dmytro91 (talk) 01:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I did not revert anything here so I did not "keep" anything. Russian-language names for Ukrainian city articles have been discussed many times before. As there is still current consensus to keep that name for Hlukhiv it seems, it is best to start a talk page discussion. Maybe there will be other editors who agree and give policy-based reasons, that way there can be a new consensus that is reached. Otherwise edit-warring will not give any results except possibly a block. Mellk (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

And I am not sure what "truth" has to do with city names. Mellk (talk) 01:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hlukhiv for different periods of the history was under Mongols for two centuries, Grand Duchy of Lithuania for two centuries, Grand Duchy of Moscow, then Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, for a century, and Cossack Hetmanate. Why to chose to write only Russian version out of all these?

I just want to hear reasonable explanation why that must be mentioned, and why you think it should be mentioned? Dmytro91 (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Also, according to census 81.5% Hlukhiv's are Ukrainians. But, in some reasons, Russian version still should be there? Is that correct? Dmytro91 (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

It is kept as an alternative name. See WP:NCGN for more information. Mellk (talk) 02:31, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Following the guidance it should not say "or" Glukhov, but be written in this manner:

"Hlukhiv (Ukrainian: Глу́хів, pronounced [ˈɦɫu.x⁽ʲ⁾iu̯]; Russian: Глухов, romanized: Glukhov)".

Here you have official name with Russian version as well. Dmytro91 (talk) 05:34, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

As there is some usage of "Glukhov" in older but also recent sources in English, probably it would be considered an alternative name and therefore this name would be in bold. See the alternative names section for information. I do not have a strong opinion on this anyway. Mellk (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

In general, your designations of Ukrainian are probably better inline with modern scholarship for Bortniansky and Berezovsky, but the line is very thin, and for Wikipedia's sake of neutrality designating both composers as both nationalities is a more sensible practice. Please note that this edit does not make sense; the Ukrainian name is already in note one of the article, so you are now adding it twice—I would strongly suggest you self-revert. The reason all of these transliterations and IPA information was put in a note is because they originally flooded the first sentence with too much information. Aza24 (talk) 07:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Please review WP:3RR because continuing to revert like this, where you have even stopped giving edit summaries (presumably a case of "I am right you are wrong") will most certainly lead to a block. Not to mention the articles are subject to discretionary sanctions, which I will leave a notice. Mellk (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  You don't accept any citation of major music institutions. What the point? You don't agree with Grove Music Online, nor with JSTOR, not with Ukrainian Music Encyclopedia, nor with other resources. You seem you agree with only these that you like, and it is not my problem. Dmytro91 (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  I am referring to your edits to Simferopol. Mellk (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

• Also, is this your account User:VitangHere? Mellk (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  well, what is not clear there. Every city on Wiki has the same sample, name, transliteration and country. You seem not agree. What is the question here? Dmytro91 (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Crimea falls under list of territorial disputes, so we cannot pretend that this does not exist. Mellk (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Constant editing and edit warring

Dearest Dmytro91, for the past few days you've been constantly editing a set of articles about composers and musicians, and a number of places associated with them. These edits have often been contrary to established Wikipedia policy, based on sources you don't seem to understand (if based on any sources at all), conducted aggressively and arrogantly, and fundamentally, disrespecting other editors by accusing them of a) being ignorant, b) being Russian, and/or c) being paid by Russia. Please allow me to clarify a few points to you, which I would like you to address before you carry on your editing spree (and force me to react in kind). Warning: it's a long post.

1) Use of sources: First of all, you claim the Grove Music Dictionary as the ultimate, absolute authority on everything and anything, and Oxford Music Online as its prophet. Articles on the Grove, as well as articles you'll find on Oxford Music Online (often one and the same!), are of course of high quality, but are also written by different authors, with different perspectives. The entries on Berezovsky and Bortniansky to which I assume you're referring (you're pasting a doi) were written by Ukrainian-American Marika Kuzma in 2001 and refer to them as Ukrainian. You'll also find there, however, a 2013 article written by American David Drillock which refers to both Berezovsky and Bortniansky as Russian composers. Two articles from the same "source" giving theoretically contradictory (in practice, not so much) information. We can simply avoid wading into this potential controversy while keeping Wikipedia useful by not stressing either composer's nationality unnecessarily, particularly when it's dealt with in a more nuanced fashion further on. It is Wikipedia policy not to stress someone's nationality in the opening unless it's absolutely crucial. Another point is your claim of JStor as a source. JStor is an online repository of academic journals and books, not a source of anything. Claiming JStor as a source is akin to walking into the Library of Congress, grabbing a book, and editing an article with info from that book while claiming "the Library of Congress states that...". Finally, it would be nice if you could at least provide more than a mere doi when citing an article, because not everyone has access to it through that sort of link. Try to provide name of the article and author, too, if possible. I can't really criticise you too much for this since I'm quite lazy and usually finish an article, or my edits on an article, in haphazard fashion and only try to correct or at least polish the references much later. 2) "The West": You attack other editors by claiming they're not doing things "the Western way", saying "we in the West do things/do not do things like this", "we in the West don't tolerate Russian propaganda" (and by Russian propaganda you mean a dissenting opinion), etc. I don't know when you joined "the West", who admitted you into "the West", or who anointed you gatekeeper of "the West". Frankly, I do not care, either, and would very much prefer not even having to write this at all, but your incessant repeating of this formula like it were some sort of incantation forces my hand. Some of us, dare I say most of us, editing this Wikipedia were born, raised and educated in "the West". We have led entirely "Western" lives, have "Western" passports, and work or worked for "Western" institutions. More than a few of us have also conducted research in "the West", and published in "Western" journals. A few of us have done so in more than one "Western" language! What we do not do, or at the very least try not to do, is tell random strangers that "we in the West" do this or that. You see, "the West" has often been guilty of what you seem to accuse Russia of: military interventions, colonialism, imperialism, arrogance, murder, plunder, etc. You name it, we've done it! But in order to remedy those past evils, and to try and prevent them from happening again, "the West" has attempted, with varying degrees of success, to embrace the values of tolerance, pluralism, respect, etc. You have shown very little of those in your exchanges with fellow Wikipedians.

As for specific articles, allow me to point out my main objections: 1) Regarding Simferopol: you're consistently adding something that is quite literally already there because you would like it to be present twice - where it is now and in the sentence immediately preceding it as well. This is redundant and silly, and serves no purpose. 2) Regarding Hlukhiv: Normally this isn't a hill I would die on, but you've crossed all the lines of civility with your edit warring and went out of your way to edit stuff because you seem to have an axe to grind. Glukhov is maintained as an alternative spelling because it's been used in English-language academic literature as well as in other Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, Wikipedia practice for similar situations also supports maintaining the older official name in bold (see Kiev for Kyiv and Kharkov for Kharkiv). Perhaps in a decade or two it won't be necessary, but right now it is helpful, and as I stated, the presence of an alternative spelling in English does not impinge on Ukraine's sovereignty in any way, just like Rijeka having Fiume as an alternative name doesn't take the city away from Croatia, or mentioning Königsberg in the opening line of the article about Kaliningrad doesn't affect Russia's ownership of the city (you see? the Russians are also getting some!). 3) Regarding Bortniansky: On top of what I mentioned regarding sources, his name in Ukrainian, in both the Cyrillic and Latin scripts, as well as his name in Russian cyrillic and alternative transliterations of his name to English are already available as a footnote next to his name, and are readily visibly by simply hovering the cursor over "n1". The fact that you persistently attempt to edit this in despite being told about it is completely puzzling. 4) Regarding Berezovsky: Re-read what I mentioned about use of sources, and Wikipedia policy regarding nationality, please.

A final comment: I believe I'm entitled to assume you're Ukrainian. If you scroll through my contributions you'll find that I've also added/restored Ukrainian nationality and Ukrainian-language names to a number of historical and cultural figures of Ukrainian nationality or ancestry, or relevant to Ukraine's (and other countries') history. Outside of Wikipedia, my heart bleeds for your country and I'm deeply saddened by this senseless war, but the fact that your country is being destroyed does not give you the right to edit whatever you want to suit your agenda, and it definitely doesn't mean you can go around throwing heinous accusations at people who are by and large following Wikipedia policy, and whose positions might have some merit as well. Ostalgia (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Once again I'm here to point out that the use of Glukhov instead of Hlukhiv in historical articles is appropriate, as at the time the figures in question were born the city was part of the Russian Empire, where the official language was Russian (and usage of Ukrainian was heavily restricted). In said polity the locality was known as Глухов, which in direct transliteration (and in historical literature) is rendered as Glukhov. This does not change the present-day name of the city, but is the historically accurate way to go about our business. Kant wasn't born in Kaliningrad, emperor Theodosius wasn't born in Istanbul, and Juri/Yuri Lotman was born in Petrograd (not St. Petersburg or Leningrad!). One thing should not affect the other.

I have long exceeded the three reverts rule, so I'll wait until tomorrow to revert the edits if you will not self-revert. Ostalgia (talk) 18:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Mellk (talk) 17:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

September 2021

I see that you have now decided to start mindless edit-warring at Kazimir Malevich. Given that you have been warned sufficiently enough and that none of your last Wikipedia edits are good (all of them are POV), and, in particular, that you have been warned about the discretionary sanctions, blocks or topic bans would come next. Ymblanter (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Dmytro91 and POV edits, please respond there. Ymblanter (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

It appears to me that you just don't like my edits. Because what is the reason to delete citation to words of artist himself? You seem to follow "I Like it" mindset.

His heritage is being rediscovered, you like it or now, that must be included in the article with reputable citations that are provided. Dmytro91 (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I do not like your edits because they contradict the Wikipedia policies. Please reply at ANI if your wish, otherwise the issue would be discussed without you. Ymblanter (talk) 13:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

So you don't like my edit providing citation to his statement that he was identified himself as Ukrainian? Hm, interesting. When I do edits, I always write what I did and why. While your argument seems to be "I just don't like it". We both know what that means. Dmytro91 (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

No, the whole available literature with the exception of Ukrainian propaganda defines him as a key figure of the Russian avantguarde. You removed this, meaning you are not here to built an encyclopedia. It has nothing to do with what I like or not. It just that you do not care about our policies and substitute academic sources with your personal opinions. This is not really acceptable. Ymblanter (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

So, in his letters where he call himself Ukrainian you label as "Ukrainian propaganda"? Wow, that is impressive. Keep it up! You doing a great job! What can be more beautiful example of Russian appropriation that this. Dmytro91 (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, not convincing. WP:NPA is clearly you need to read.If you are not blocked by that time, WP:RS would be the next one. Ymblanter (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

His letter stating "I am Ukrainian" is not convincing for you? Dmytro91 (talk) 14:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I am not going to continue this discussion at this page. This is not an appropriate venue. Please go to ANI and explain your behavior, not just today, but in the last two months. Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Explain, why you deleting citations to artists words about his nationality? Dmytro91 (talk) 14:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your "If you are not blocked by that time" sounded personal and threatening to me. Is that what you implied? Dmytro91 (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Could you please explain why provided recourses you called "Ukrainian propaganda"? Explain how you made that conclusion that it is propaganda, any proves besides your personal opinion would be great to see. Dmytro91 (talk) 15:11, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

There are Ukrainian sources that call him a Ukrainian artist, that is fine, but aside from those, he is called a Russian (avant-garde) artist. His nationality was indeed Russian, which is why he is referred to as such, there was no Ukrainian citizenship at the time that he had. See MOS:ETHNICITY on this and some people may believe it is some kind of injustice for him to be referred to as Russian in any context, but WP:RGW. His identity is covered anyway, no one is removing information about this. Maybe it might be an improvement to add "Ukrainian-born" in the first sentence if sources stress this, but this really needs to be discussed instead rather than edit warring. You were already warned multiple times about edit warring, so unfortunately it has led to a block. Mellk (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Book: Kazimir Malevich "Letters and Documents", Compiled and edited by Irina A. Vakar and Tatiana N. Mikhienko, Vol 1, page 26 states about his meeting with Lev Kvachevsky: "...Aw we ate, we talked about other things, we reminisced about Ukraine. He and I were Ukrainians."

As of Mykola Lysenko, Boris Lyatoshynsky and other Ukrainian artist who didn't have Ukrainian citizenship at that time, but are worldwide know as Ukrainians, same here, he obviously identified himself as Ukrainian, therefore should be mentioned as Ukrainian. Russian citizenship doesn't make him only Russian, as American citizenship doesn't make artists Americas. Dmytro91 (talk) 20:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I was warned on providing accurate resource?

User: Ymblanter called my citation of authors own words "He and I were Ukrainian" as "Ukrainian propaganda". Could you or user Ymblanter explain in what way authors words are considered as propaganda? Dmytro91 (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a primary source. Yes there are articles of people from the Russian Empire/Austria-Hungary/Poland etc where the first sentence says Ukrainian, but again per MOS:ETHNICITY, this is because it is relevant to their notability and they are widely described as such, rather than Russian/Polish etc. This is not the case with Malevich. Like I said, if sources stress him as "Ukrainian-born" then maybe it can be added to the first sentence but this needs to be looked into and discussed first. Mellk (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Also it is a case of WP:POV. Why should most other sources that call him "Russian avant-garde artist" be disregarded? Mellk (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Maybe because he said himself that he is Ukrainian? Or we need to listen to other people what they thought of him, and ignore artists identification itself?

I just don't get it why everyone here oppose primary source? Primary source is the most reliable because it avoids interpretations of other unrelated people. If he said himself "I am Ukrainian" how this is not reliable information? Also, he didn't say "I was born in Ukraine", he said "I am Ukrainian". Dmytro91 (talk) 00:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Here is what I would suggest: you were blocked for edit warring, it is best to accept that it was not a good call to edit war and that in future you will refrain from this kind of behavior, even if you believe your edits are for the better. This is fundamental. Then, try to find reliable sources, such as biographies of Malevich, try to collect these sources and make a case in the talk page for a change in wording (e.g. "Ukrainian-born" if sources, especially English-language ones, frequently say this or stress Ukrainianness) and discuss from there. Also rather than constantly reverting, try to discuss in the article talk page and ask for policy-based reasons if you are not sure. Mellk (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I will look at the policies closer a bit later. Thank you for your suggestions. Dmytro91 (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

If I may intercede - I have editwarred with @Dmytro91 in the past and I too have found him hard to deal with. At the same time, I have also on at least one occasion managed to reach some sort of consensus with him, so he's not an irrational individual. It's clear that the current situation affects him, and he probably perceives himself as fighting for his country online and sees those who don't share his views as partisans of "the enemy", however, if my exchange with him is anything to go by, I believe his intransigence and radicalism is due to ignorance of Wikipedia policy more than anything else. This doesn't excuse his behaviour, mind you, but maybe it explains it, and I am willing to cut him a bit of slack for it - I've had far less productive interactions with (and received more attacks from) people that have no skin in the game than with this user. Perhaps he can become a productive member of the community if he familarises himself with the basics - as someone who hasn't edited too much, I know they can be overwhelming at first, and jargon that is easy to pick up for experienced or advanced users usually takes me a fair bit of reading to understand. I assume that for someone with a worse level of English (no offense intended) it is probably harder.

I will try to point a few things out for his benefit. I know some of these explanations may sound redundant given that links were posted, but this user mostly communicates by messages left on his edits so I'm assuming he doesn't really check a lot of the features in Wikipedia (that's on him of course, but still). I also know this will most likely go unread, but I'll give this a shot anyway:

ANI: Dmytro, when user @Ymblanter told you to go to ANI he meant a "case" against you was opened at the administrators' noticeboard. You could've participated in your defense if you felt you were being unfailry targeted (given your reaction, that wouldn't have done you much good, but know that you are able to defend yourself from accusations).

WP:NPA, also mentioned by Ymblanter, is a link to a page explaining Wikipedia's policy against personal attacks. By accusing someone of "cultural appropriation" without basis you are breaching that policy. Even if you're frustrated for what you perceive as an injustice, try to understand their position and criticise their argument rather than the editor himself (I won't be too harsh here because I have also lost my temper a few times).

This leads us to WP:RS - this takes you to the Wiki page covering the use of reliable sources. The use of high-quality secondary sources (for example, a paper published in an academic journal, or a book written by a specialist) is preferred, especially if we're making a major addition to an article. If several, contradictory positions exist, then the best we can do is to try to integrate them somehow, weighing them accordingly. If several editors hold radically different points of view, then discussing in an article's talk page is advised (on the top left of an article you'll see tabs labeled "article" and "talk", respectively). What is not welcome is someone unilaterally pushing the version they consider to be correct to the detriment of all the others - one of Wikipedia's core principles is neutrality (WP:NPOV).

We try to avoid WP:PRIMARY sources unless we're saying something entirely uncontroversial or providing an example for something that has already been stated by secondary sources. We categorically do not interpret primary sources ourselves. Wikipedia doesn't do research (this is covered in WP:NOR), it compiles information from those who have already done research. Another policy related to this is WP:RGW, mentioned by Mellk. It stands for "righting great wrongs". Wikipedia was not intended to fight oppression, or to correct what some people perceive as mistakes. To give you an example that probably bothers you personally, you'll probably find many Ukrainian names are transliterated a la russe - you shouldn't take that as an example of Wikipedia being pro-Russia or anything of the sort. Today this largely stems from the fact that, after decades, even centuries, they are by far their most common version in English. If that changes (i.e. if serious publications change their preferred transliteration), then Wikipedia will eventually adapt (as was the case with most Ukrainian cities), but until that happens, they should probably stay as they are because it is actually more helpful for an English speaker (remember, this is the English Wikipedia!) to find the information they need. Paraphrasing WP:RGW, Wikipedia doesn't lead, Wikipedia follows.

I know this is long and most likely nobody will read it, especially not the user it's intended for, but I believe it's worth the shot. I hope to see you back in a week, Dmytro.

(edit: re-reading, this sounds awfully pedantic. I apologise if it comes across that way, it is not my intention at all) Ostalgia (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to write this Ostalgia. You are right on some occasions, I admit. Maybe my understanding of Wikipedia is still not perfect, and I will research about that. I would gladly except statement that Wikipedia must be neutral, but from only one example above I'm afraid it is not true. The statement by Ymblanter "the whole available literature with the exception of Ukrainian propaganda defines him as a key figure of the Russian avantguarde" has been left unnoticed, meaning that any scholar from Ukraine here is being perceived and "Ukrainian propaganda", and it doesn't bother anyone. While, most of the resources are base on Russian scholars. A bit bias, don't you think?

As of talking about primary sources, I have provided articles of scholars who wrote about primary sources, and primary source itself. But that still being deleted and not taking into account. If anyone felt attached, I am sorry, but wiki is not personal, and anyone here should check sources, not person behind it.

All my edits on other subjects that some of which you are aware of has been deleted with citations as well. Which just reaffirms my concern. It seems that most of editors here do not want to look into resources that provide information about anything Ukrainian. As you mentioned, this is Wikipedia for English speakers, but it appears to be Wikipedia of pro-Russian people for English speakers. Otherwise, editor would look into Ukrainian resources, and check them, rather then call "Ukrainian propaganda".

We will talk sometime again Ostalgia. Thank you for your response. Dmytro91 (talk) 01:17, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

September 2022

You have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces ((Article)) for a period of 1 week for WP:DISRUPTION-- please discuss this matter at WP:ANI. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)