User talk:Trabant1963

February 2015

I think that info about bases in abkhazia and ossetia should be inserted together in one piece - Georgia, it's logically cause both of them are disputed by the one country

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at List of countries with overseas military bases and List of Russian military bases abroad, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

а не логично ли абхазию и осетию вписать в одну графу "грузия"? ну и плюс со скобочек предложения неправильно начинать

TRANS: "Wouldn't it be more logical to list Abkhazia and Ossetia in one entry for "Georgia"? Plus it's not correct to use brackets."

Well, that aspect of your changes was logical. I've reinstated your changes, including removing the brackets around Georgia, however not the rewording of the status of Crimea. I've also added references to the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia as disputed states (wikilinking them to List of states with limited recognition).

Additionally, I've alphabetised the entries. Thank you for the constructive input into formatting, but please stop changing the descriptions of the status of disputed territories to reflect your POV rather than English Wikipedia's representation according to reliable sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

правильно, и про крымский референдум тоже надо написать, так как он был на самом деле и имел ключевое значение для статуса региона. Логично написать вот так в скобочках: (now joined Russia as a result of the 2014 referendum, which was not recognized by the majority of the countries) - так конструктивнее

Crimea-located places in Ukraine or in Russia

Hi, i noticed this edit changing a stub category from Ukraine to Russia, for a Crimea-located historic palace. I figure that is political/contentious. Maybe a compromise is to put it as a Crimea stub, i wonder, but I'm not up to speed on consensus in this area. Can you explain and/or point me to current Wikipedia policy/practice on this topic? Cheers, --do ncr am 16:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, it would be the compromise (cause in contrast to "ukrainian stub" or "russian stub", "crimea stub" is undoubted status)

Okay, good, and I just now find {{Crimea-stub}} exists. So could you change it to that? And there are other palaces and places in the Crimea, listed in the Crimea article (which describes Ukraine internationally-recognized vs. Russian de facto possession). Surely better to use existing or create new Crimea categories that should be stable. Thanks. --do ncr am 16:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, doncram. Several editors have been trying to explain the difference between reliably sourced and consensus renditions of the status of Crimea over WP:POV. It appears that Trabant1963 isn't prepared to understand. I've just had to revert more refactoring by the user. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Iryna Harpy's post links first to an ANI discussion which I thought at first was a live discussion, and only later do I notice the last comment was on February 16 and that the discussion was archived. I was going to give some comments in the ANI, but will just drop them here with some more thoughts:

In the ANI, I don't see much if anything wrong in the diffs I checked. What's bad in the diff that Drmies gave? Is it just the fact that Trabant1963 (in December) deleted a warning-type posting from Iryna Harpy (from October)? That is FINE. Users are free to delete almost anything on their own Talk page, immediately. Removing a section is in fact an acknowledgement of having received the message, in this case having re-read it two months later. On the other hand, T, it is courteous to allow discussion on your Talk page, between you and editors who have concerns, especially if several editors are saying there's an issue. You are allowed to delete others' posts, but in my opinion, it's more courteous and better not to delete them right away, to allow discussion. And when removing old Talk page sections, it's better to move them to an archive, IMO.
It's not disruptive to open new sections on Talk pages. In the first diff given, Trabant1963 is offering/announcing that they're planning to adjust a map file so that another disputed region will be shown in the same lighter tone as other disputed regions. That seems like a courteous notice, before creating an adjusted map file, and before including it into the article. Seems perfect for discussion at the article Talk page, not at ANI.
About diffs on the List of Russian military bases abroad article, I see some merit in Trabant1963's apparent perspective. Certainly it would be better for editors to talk it out and gain consensus at the Talk page. And T, please do pay attention to wp:BRD process. But, shouldn't a list-article about Russia's bases abroad be presented from Russia's perspective about names of countries and which bases are abroad or not? Like we defer to British usage, rather than using American usage, for language in articles about British locations. I would think the right default is probably to reflect Russia's perspective, at least first, and where the official perspective is sourced. If it's now officially Russia's perspective that Sevastopol, in the Crimea, is within Russia, then Sevastopol is not "abroad", say. And then the list-article should then give differing perspectives (and definitely list Sevastopol, of course).
And in the issue that brought me to T's Talk page, my seeing one or more stub-categories changed from "Ukraine-stub" to "Russia-stub", we agreed "Crimea-stub" would be better, avoids problems. Trabant1963 was perfectly civil and agreed to use that going forward, and also went back to update the article(s) where I had noticed it.

Thanks Iryna Harpy for the ping. I hope that more communication is going on now, hope there's respect for other editors' perspectives, both ways. Cheers, --do ncr am 05:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: The only talk page discussion by this user has been on the Ukraine talk page here and here. Two sections were started by Trabant1963 which were responded to, but there was no further input by the user. From my understanding, T's knowledge of English is extremely weak. As you can see, below, the user has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring (not reported by me, incidentally).

While I can appreciate that the user is trying, to some degree, to contribute constructively, lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines make it extremely difficult to communicate what is wrong with their edits. Unfortunately, rather than trying to communicate even in Russian, the user resorts to edit warring. Again, I can appreciate how frustrating it must be to work on English Wikipedia without having a reasonable grasp of the English language, we know there is a degree of WP:COMPETENCE required by the contributor in order not to be fairly consistently disruptive. No one, including myself, wants to have to act as translator for a user who remains adamant that they're right and everyone else is wrong. I'm not concerned with his/her blanking their own page (although I've had to go through the history to find the very short interaction between the both of you over the Crimea stub template): I'm concerned at the cumulative disruption.

Unless T is open to discussing content changes, meaning needing to be patient and wait on the other editor to respond when they're busy on other articles or IRL, this form of compromise is unworkable. If Trabant1963 is willing to follow the golden rule of its not being a race, some form of compromise can be worked out. This is not, however, exclusively down to you and I. There are other experienced editors who have the reasons and the right to work without constant disruptions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iryna Harpy for responding and explaining. About the stub category changes and where they are in history, i did give a diff in my first post here, of Trabant1963's change to use a "Russia-stub" in the Yusupov_Palace (Crimea) article that I questioned, and Trabant did implement the discussed change to "Crimea-stub" instead in this following edit. Maybe that was the only change, I am not sure.

To Trabant1963, I think Iryna Harpy is right in saying that you need to be willing to discuss changes to articles with other editors at the article Talk pages. You should follow the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle (wp:BRD. If you make an edit and another editor Reverts it back to the previous version, then you should understand that they consider your edit to be a Bold change and to be controversial. Then you should not re-make the same change, but instead you should post to the Talk page about it. And you should wait for the other editors. you should give them time to Discuss, and you should Discuss also and explain your reasoning. Please ask questions and answer questions from others. Further, since there have disagreements already, I think you should NOT re-make the changes you want after discussing them, but rather you should request that someone else implement the changes that are discussed. Please do show respect for other editors by participating this way. I hope you understand that I am trying to be helpful. sincerely, --do ncr am 21:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

24 hour block imposed

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Diannaa (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted a section title "24 hour block imposed" here. About the block, I requested at User talk:Diannaa for them to explain further here about the block, including to give any specific evidence about where Dianaa believes edit warring was occurring. Dianaa replied there without giving more specifics and did not explain here as I requested. There was no wp:ANI or other noticeboard discussion open. So I think the block was not proper, because it was not properly explained. It was not explained not well enough for a person to appeal it.

Looking at contribution history, I am guessing that Dianaa saw this edit by Trabant removing a warning about edit warring here on this page and Dianaa blocked after Trabant's next edit which re-made a disputed change at List of countries with overseas military bases. Trabant is allowed to remove postings here, but the removal does document that Trabant received and read the message. I know that the change at the List has been disputed already and is considered a Bold change. And it is considered edit warring if an edit is re-implemented again and again. It is edit warring even if the "bright line" (3 reverts by one editor within 24 hours) has not been exceeded.

I just now have myself Reverted that last edit by Trabant. Trabant, I think you should discuss the changes you want at the List's Talk page, following the Bold-Revert-Discuss wp:BRD cycle. I will open a discussion section at Talk:List of countries with overseas military bases#Russia-related changes now. Please explain what you want there, and explain why, and allow other editors to respond, and please don't reimplement your preferred change. Instead please ask at the Talk page for someone else to implement the changes. I will watch there and will probably see any discussion. But please feel free to contact me at my Talk page, also, which is the most reliable way to get my attention. sincerely, --do ncr am 21:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

show where i lie in my edit

Pleas sign your comments using four "~"

Xx234 (talk) 07:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at List of countries with overseas military bases. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Russia, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Trabant1963. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 23:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Trabant1963. You have new messages at Iryna Harpy's talk page.
Message added 23:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:32, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

October 2015

Your recent editing history at List of Russian military bases abroad 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained why 'disputed regions' (not 'partially recognised territories') is the terminology used many times over. I do not want to keep explaining the same thing over and over again, so please stop leaving notes on my talk page. Again, see the talk page of the article which makes it clear as to why this distinction is used. Your objective appears to be to WP:EXHAUST anyone who does not agree with you. Enough. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Allies

I see you open a discussion about allied order in talk page of Allies of World War II. Actually the original allied order is USSR first. The link of the original version is [1].This is the same order in original version of main article world war II which is [2].This order is based on many discussions about World War II. One of the discussion is [3]. The country list of World War II has been removed from main page World War II based on the consensus of Talk:World War II/Archive 51#Request for comment: WWII infobox. The order in Allies of World War II was changed by E-960 [4] without discussion in that time. Then this order is insisted by E-960, Calidum and some other users. This is how the current order comes from. I see another discussion about this order Talk:Allies of World War II/Archive 9#POV/NPOV but did not change the current order. Basically, I guess no one will continue the discussion about order dispute.

April 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for disruptive editing. 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 ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been made clear multiple times that simple replacement of Ukraine -> Russia in Crimean articles is not acceptable, however, today you decided to make this replacement in dozens of articles. The next block can very well be of an indefinite duration.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]