User talk:Piznajko/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Piznajko, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev spelling

Please review the policy for naming conventions on English-language Wikipedia, WP:COMMONNAME, and the related discussion at Talk:Kiev/naming and its archives. Thank you, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was for Kyivan Rus Park, which has an official English spelling (as can be seen on their webstie). How is your comment related to the official English name of an enterteinment park?, e.g., Talk:Kiev/naming bears no influence on the way private and/or public institutions choose to spell their name in English, in other words if Kyivan Rus Park chooses to spell it that way in English - they 100% have a right to do so, English Wikipedia cannot tell them they can't do that. --Piznajko (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 17 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Doctor of Philosophy page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Piznajko. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Piznajko. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Mikhail Bulgakov". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 March 2018.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Mikhail Bulgakov, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Copyright problem on Symon Petliura

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from "Ukraine: A History" By Orest Subtelny, page 364. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed with your help, thanks @Diannaa: for your constructive edits.--Piznajko (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring warning

Your recent editing history at Mikhail Bulgakov shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Icewhiz (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At the edit warring report I have suggested you be blocked unless you will respond and promise to take a break from editing the article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: please see my response on At the edit warring report page. Let's continue our discussion there rather than here, but in summary here is my view on this: I believe I haven't violated the 3RR rule as I've only reverted 3 times not 4 times within 24 hours; also I don't have any intentions to continue reverting repeatedly - it is my own intention that we arrive to a version of the best possible version of the section. I don't, however, believe that unwarranted full revert done by 'My very best wishes' (not returning to a different version of that section, but simply removing all edits) is highly destructive, violates Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and is surely not getting us closer to a better version of that section.--Piznajko (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that removing whole section was absolutely necessary per WP:NPOV. Besides, Look, so far you and Avetory made a lot more reverts on this page than anyone else. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DS alert

I checked your edits on a couple of pages and posted questions [1], [2]. Could you please fix your changes as to make them more consistent with WP:NPOV? Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You probably do not understand it, but on the page about Petlura I am actually on your side, and you was arguing about a non-issue on the antisemitism page. Yes, I disagree with placing biased and non-notable opinions about Bulgakov and Brodsky. My very best wishes (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well great, then let's work constructively towards a consensus. I've always been a proponent of finding one through dialogue and discussion.--Piznajko (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please check links to EB and another encyclopedia that I mentioned on the talk page. I am sure you would agree with EB version as a basis for the lead. That's because it is a neutral version that suppose to be OK for everyone. Besides, I agree not revert your edits on these (Petlura and antisemitism) pages if you can reasonably fix all issues yourself. My very best wishes (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking about things you want to include on the page about Brodsky, please realize that you generally need WP:Consensus of other contributors for including new materials on the page - if there are justifiable objections from other contributors, as in this case. Please do not edit war to re-include such challenged materials. My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very well aware that Wikipedia is based on consensus. See my response here.--Piznajko (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Based on the previous editing history of this page [3], the consensus is to not include this content. I hope it was not you who previously inserted it the page and was reverted by three other contributors? My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Upon inspection, it seems that those edits were from 2013; they weren't mine (but what difference does it make?). I'm not even sure why you're mentioning them here - the discussion from 2013 isn't really relevant now, because back then the #1 argument for non-inclusion of this content was that editors were questioning the legitimacy of the poem "On Ukrainian independence"'s existence; in other words, they claimed the poem wasn't written by Brodsky. Since the tape-recording of Brodsky live reading of the poem in Pal-Alto in 1992 leaked on the internet in 2015, it became virtually impossible to deny poem's existence, so that argument from 2013 cannot be used any more--Piznajko (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Naming discussion Kiev > Kyiv

ALL discussions of renaming Kiev to "Kyiv" belong at Talk:Kiev/naming, not at Talk:Kiev. --Taivo (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hellp Piznajko. Consider fixing the spelling in this header: Talk:Kiev/naming#List of major English media outlets now using Kyiv spelling (will be continuously updated; don't achieve). Instead of 'achieve' I think you want to say 'archive'. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston - yup, just did.--Piznajko (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One place that you can keep your list is right here. Your Talk Page isn't subject to the same relevance restrictions that article talk pages are subject to. --Taivo (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point in keeping it here? The whole point was that I could add to it, but also other editors could add/expand it too.--Piznajko (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the function of Wikipedia. Until you have actual solid evidence that the common name for Kyiv in English is no longer Kiev, then your data collection isn't appropriate for article Talk Pages. Your evidence is peripheral at best. English usage is solidly Kiev (just like Warszawa is Warsaw and Praha is Prague). --Taivo (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you have been told repeatedly that your list is not relevant for the talk page and have had the reasons pointed out to you and you continue to ignore consensus and edit war against the closure and archiving of the thread you can expect a little frustration from other editors.--Khajidha (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

For the record, both you and יניב הורון were edit warring on Antisemitism in Ukraine. You also appear to have hit four reverts (also, note that 3RR is not a right to 3 reverts anyway). The only reason I haven't blocked you is because there looks to be multiple types of disputed content on that page with different users, so full protection is probably more effective. I've applied full protection for four days instead. Please consider this a warning against edit warring in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Did you warn יניב הורון as well? At least I understand the logic of the previous reverts (the whole discussion about chronological order), but his latest reverts seemed to just bring "Post Soviet Ukraine" term into the article, which is derogatory and offensive - Ukraine should simply be referred as Ukraine, not "Post Soviet Ukraine".--Piznajko (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You already gave them multiple warnings and I pinged them here. They were also edit warring even if they didn't violate 3RR. I don't have any interest in the content dispute on the page, so the logic behind why the two of you were edit warring doesn't really matter to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Message from 2A00:1298:8011:212:0:0:0:165 on WP:EEML

Hello Piznajko. Do you know about WP:EEML? With his old account name My very best wishes schemed with other anti Russian editors on a mailinglist. They even schemed to get their "enemies" to break policy, then one would make a complant, another would pretend to be uninvolved and tell how "disruptive" the enemy was, another would tease and insult to make the enemy angry, all planned on the mailinglist - very bad and sneaky stuff. Think about that when he tells about "NPOV". 2A00:1298:8011:212:0:0:0:165 (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @2A00:1298:8011:212:0:0:0:165:, thanks for the warning. I figured that was the case. BTW, what was his old account name?--Piznajko (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See the games he plays for many years:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Biophys'_stubborn_edit_warring "He would act like he was following the rules and knew what he was editing. However, discussing with him felt like talking to someone who pretends to be silly to make you lose your patience."

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Canvassing_and_other_illegitimate_actions_by_Biophys "I was amazed how several times when he was losing an argument someone who had never edited the article before dropped in to "help out" in an edit war"

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Biophys'_dishonest_and_disruptive_editing "he rolled back all my edits; grammar, references, format, unrelated additions, tags etc.. just to revert one of the edits"

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Biophys_sockpuppet_fishing "he accuses everyone who he disagrees with of socking." See how he accusses you of socking in section above?

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Nikitn_about_some_of_the_editings_of_Biophys_and_his_group "Here is a classic example of Biophys's disruptive edits Talk:Human_rights_in_the_Soviet_Union#Biophys'_reverting"

212.83.176.41 (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Look, you quite obviously followed my edits, and not for the purpose of improving content [4]. Following my edits to improve content would be fine. I do not want you to be blocked or banned. Think about this: why no one happened to agree with you on a number of pages? To the contrary, multiple contributors had happen to disagree with you, and they are generally different contributors on different pages. What can you do? Stop arguing with multiple contributors on these pages and do your best to actually improve something else. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes, stop harassing me. Some friendly-neighborhood anon has explained to me who I'm dealing with here and now I'm finally realizing what kind of editor I'm dealing with here. Please stop harassing me.--Piznajko (talk) 19:40, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bro, and you have the audacity to accuse me of following your edits, when you yourself confessed to following my edits about a month ago. WP:Unbelievable.--Piznajko (talk) 20:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One last time. Here is edit history. You reverted edits by four contributors, including me. This has nothing to do with WP:BRD. You edit war against WP:Consensus on this page, plain and simple. As about WP:Hound, once again, this is only a problem if X follows Y specifically to harass, rather than to improve content, and it is usually can be distinguished what was the motivation in each specific case. My very best wishes (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Icewhiz (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Antisemitism in the Russian Empire. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:12, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

This is over the top for a number of reasons, such our no personal attacks policy and also WP:OUTING. Bringing back very old stories is also a WP:BATTLE. Please rephrase or delete all your comments of this sort on all WP pages (where you made them) and never do this again. I am thinking about reporting this to WP:AE. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

removed, per request from the affected editor; apologies if you viewed this as WP:NPA - that was not my intent 20:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Swarm ♠ 20:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: care to elaborate? What exactly are you referring to as "WP:Personal attacks"? Is mentioning that a user used to edit under a differnet username (which is openly stated on WP considered a personal attack? If it is, please direct me towards a WP rule that mentions that.--Piznajko (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Literally your response to the above section. Comment on content, not contributors. You should not be making personal commentary of any kind. Swarm ♠ 21:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: I don't have years and years of WP experience (like I assume you do), please be more specific. I see editors (won't name them here) who on numerous occasions referred to my previous edits as "example of my bad character". I would genuinely appreciate you explaining to me how my answer above was different from that.--Piznajko (talk) 21:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[5]. If you're the victim of personal attacks, you should make a report at WP:ANI, with diffs, and someone will review your complaint. It is not an excuse to attack them back. Swarm ♠ 21:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Piznajko. First of all, you are not a newbie, but an experienced contributor who have been involved in numerous wikiprojects and made 35,000 edits on Ukrainian wiki [6]. Second, you repeatedly accused me of "tag-teaming" on various talk pages [7], [8],2,[9],[10]. This accusation is false. I never ever was involved in this, not in times of EEML, and not later. Meaning I never secretly asked anyone to make edits on my behalf, or "support" me with reverts. And no one was asking me about it. I do not have any off wiki communication with anyone from this project for years. If anyone decided to follow my edits (as you did), this is their business, not mine. Do not you own me an apology for making all these completely ungrounded accusations? P.S. Many years ago I was involved in off-wiki productive collaboration with a couple of contributors, but there is no way to consider this as "tag-teaming", and you do not even know them. My very best wishes (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed I'm a newbie, I said my WP experience is dwarfed in comparison to yours (I don't have desire or time to read all hundreds of pages of WP:EEML from 2009, but even the tiny bits that I did read indicate that there were some epic Wikipedia battles in which you were involved, which means you were able to survive them; hence, you have an insane amount of WP experience as compared to me). Look, you've obviously crossed paths with a bunch of editors over the years, many of whom are unhappy (why else would a random anon come to my Talk Page warning me about you? Whoever he is, you've obviously pissed them off a plenty), but I couldn't care less about you, your friends or enemies if only you left me alone and stopped stalking all my edits. ps. Regarding colluding, like I said above, there's virtually no way to prove colluding off wiki so let's leave it at that.--Piznajko (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear on this, none of these users hounded my edits, and I did not hound your edits - as described in the policy (checking edits by someone else to improve content is not wikihounding). Only you hounded my edits, and I can prove it if it comes to WP:AE (I would rather avoid it). My very best wishes (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You continue making personal accusations on article talk pages [11]. Now, you accuse me of "POV-pushing". What do you think my "POV" on this page is? Please explain. And I am still waiting for you to remove or strike through your previous comments of this kind. My very best wishes (talk) 12:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you removed all mentioning of Russian White Forces being the main perpetrators of the pogroms in UNR times in 1917-1921, backed by RS such as Peter Kenez (a highly respected researcher in his field); and instead you've brought a complete opposite view that the main perpetrators of the pogroms were UNR forces (backed by your source by Richard Pipes), which by definition means that you're pushing your point of view that it definitely was not Denikin Russian White Forces that were the main perpetrators of pogroms, but only UNR forces can be blamed for the majority of pogroms (you've said that exact thing to me earlier, for example here diff); that's UNDUE and against WP:NPV because if you want to show information in that article from a neutral point of view, you should include information from all sides, meaning you should've kept the source that says Denikin Russian White Army Forces was the main perpetrators of pogroms and should've kept P. Kenez's source and additionally you should've added to it that other researches, such as R. Pipes disagree and consider XYZ.

ps. I've told you before, please stop harassing me, you've been hounding (regardless of your denying and claiming you've done to merely "to improve content") all my edits for the last past 2 months to a point where I feel threatened by you; I've said it before I'm saying it again, please stop harassing me e.g., leave me alone (I understand it that your goal might be to force me out of WP) - I have no desire to interact with you anywhere: on my talk page, on article's talk pages on anywhere else. I'll attempt to avoid all articles where you're involved because I DO NOT want to interact with you. Please respect that by leaving me alone.--Piznajko (talk) 19:38, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I am not sure that Denikin has a lot to do with biography of Petlura. Did they meet or interact? If so, this could be included. Sorry, but I did not hound you and interacted with you on article talk pages in a reasonable and civil manner. I did not file reports about you on administrative noticeboards. I only asked you to comply with WP:NPA and other policies. Happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your recent edits, you are not avoiding me. Which is fine. So, I am responding to this. You continue to follow your overall pattern of editing in WP. So far you significantly edited only a few pages, and in almost all these cases (Bulgakov, Brodsky and Petlura) you strenuously argued about including some ~~poorly written nationalistic~~ texts that arguably do not belong to this pages. This is in addition to following me in Antisemitism in the Russian Empire with a sole purpose of making a long series of "revenge reverts", making unsubstantiated personal accusations, edit warring, and submitting a battleground ANI request about another contributor. Please do not do again anything of this sort, and you will be able to contribute positively in the project. This is my advice. My very best wishes (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked you repeatedly to NOT harass me and stop stalking all my edits (which means leaving my Talk Page alone as well), but that has been ignored by you (judging by your comment above.) Your comment "including some poorly written nationalistic texts" betray veiled WP:Battleground mentality aimed at WP:Gaming the system (as well as veiled personal attack that aims at forcing me out of WP and lable me as "nationalist". Note, I'm not sure what exactly you mean by nationalistic texts", whether it's the Sources I provide for my edits, or my own edits, but here's what I have respond to that: a) if you mean the sources I use, I always strive to add only WP:Reliable sources in my WP editing (meaning academic articles, from the likes of Oxford Univrsity Press, respected academic and non-academic journals etc.) b) if you mean my own edit to WP articles, I also edit to maintain WP:Neutral Point of View and don't write any claimed "nationalistic texts" gibberish. Your persistent obsession (that borders with badly masked harassing/hounding) with me as an editor is troubling and doesn't picture you as a good faithed editor who's here's for the purposes of genuine WP editing.--Piznajko (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one said that you are a nationalist. I am only saying that such, such and such your edits have been rejected by multiple contributors on multiple pages, and the reasons for the rejection have been fully explained to you on article talk pages. Continuing such debates may be interpreted as WP:TE. OK, I will not make any more comments on your talk page except official notifications required by the rules. My very best wishes (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the examples shown above are in any slightest way present an example of "nationalistic texts", on the contrary all three (such, such and such) for Joseph Brodsky, Mikhail Bulgakov and Symon Petliura are examples of good-faith edits, that expand the article and/or add new, well-sourced, relevant (aka DUE) material that made the articles better. In the case of the first 2 - my edits brought additional details to the writer's biographies that allowed the reader to know more about some lesser know, albeit darker/xenophobic, side of those writers - details that were completely missing from the article before. In the latter case I've made the article better by slightly expending it and adding new, WP:Reliable sources (also on the latter article - please don't attepmpt to WP:Game the system by showing intermediary version of my edits; e.g., after discussion with you and another editor I significantly shortened (as was requested by you) the long section in the Lead about involvement in pogroms and moved it to the article body and arrived at this version diff.--Piznajko (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Striked through. My very best wishes (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Your recent editing history at 4A Games shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- ferret (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 4A Games. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. It's time to drop the stick here. Multiple editors have reverted you on this topic and left message to follow the names as they appear in reliable secondary sources and the credits of the games that this studio has produced. If you make another edit on the names without achieving a consensus, you may be blocked. -- ferret (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm essentially giving you a final chance to drop this and move on. Other stricter admins might have already blocked you again for edit warring, since you have a history. -- ferret (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: I appreciate it. I won't change the article for the time being - untill hopefully more editors express their opinion regarding using correct spelling (it is very sad to see WP use wrong spelling (supported by RS), just because more users said on the talk page that they wish to see incorrect spelling.--Piznajko (talk) 03:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad

If you wish to discuss it then jump to talk page prior to placing your edits which some users, including myself, don't support. Instead you will just create an edit warring which will result in a block. Plus, you need a more reliable reference than solely Enc. Britannica and Wikipedia's information is not based on 'personal opinions' either. Regards. Oliszydlowski, 13:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please indeed discuss contemplated substantive changes to the "Joseph Conrad" article on its talk page. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 03:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ok--Piznajko (talk) 14:24, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert

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

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

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.

This is already your second alert; continued edit warring will lead directly to sanctions imposed.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:42, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: when was my first alert? Please provide diff--Piznajko (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

At you service: [12]. In the meanwhile, I also noticed that you have been previously blocked for edit-warring, so at the next instance I may just block your account without further warnings.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:51, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very kind of you to offer to block me.--Piznajko (talk) 07:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Piznajko. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Kyiv proof Hollywood (Creed II).png

Thank you for uploading File:Kyiv proof Hollywood (Creed II).png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

unblock

As you don't want someone who has dealt with the farce that is the renaming of Kiev, I cannot help you. Please read User:Deepfriedokra/ew for advice about how to better address the issues that led to your block. Please remove the chip from your shoulder. As you have not addressed the issues that led to your block, I don't see your appeal succeeding. -- Deep fried okra 10:43, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pro russian?

Perhaps the people you've dealt with are neutral? Perhaps you have a Conflict of interest in that you are "pro-Ukrainian"?10:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)~

@Deepfriedokra, from where did you deduce that the opposite of pro-Russian is pro-Ukrainain? But since you have "labled" me as pro-Ukrainian without asking me, let me assure you that I'm in no way pro-Ukrainian and if anything I'm pro-American.--Piznajko (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]