User talk:Ulianurlanova

I ask the administration for help as the rules of the project are not explicit. User User: Qiushufang deletes all my edits to Balhae Balhae controversies without discussing or justifying the deletions.

I do not know what procedures are there to prevent the war of edits, and on the page about the rules there is no explanation of how to call the administration to stop discrimination by a longer user in the project and knows its features.

I just read the rules and was going to add some knowledge to the project. And I'm not ready for such an attitude.Ulianurlanova (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use edit summaries that are misleading, intentionally or not, as you did at Liao dynasty, you may be blocked from editing. Deletion of referenced content citing unverifiability in edit summary. Content includes a direct quotation, which can be provided within the text directly. Unlikely that user is unaware of this. Qiushufang (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Balhae. Section blanking and numerous edit summaries based on accusations of Korean nationalism and interference. WP:POVPUSH, deletion of referenced content, and insertion of Russian sources over English ones. Qiushufang (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Qiushufang (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Targeting the wrong editor

Thank you for helping correct the bias in articles such as Balhae, but I think you are targeting the wrong editor there. You have probably not seen what a sorry state the article was in, two years ago, when it was owned by an actual ultranationalist editor (now blocked). The content has been greatly improved since then, due to contributions by Qiushufang and others, and it is still getting better. I would recommend diverting the energy to more aricles on related topics, since much the content written by those blocked editors are still being actively maintained. You can do more to help the content's neutrality there. Esiymbro (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No - this is most likely the same Korean nationalist but only changed the tactics of work. Instead of a direct attack, as the Koreans were doing, then he began to make minor edits that distort the positions of countries and fill the article with text without reliable references.

This is the state policy of South Korea. They even named their warship after the Tungus which they wrote down as Koreans. Enormous funds are allocated for this. And I'm just a history student. just look at how he formulates his claims in a professional style, just like those Korean nationalists used to do.

I also see that dozens of Russian accounts were previously blocked only for demanding links, making links to scientific works. How the entire array of references to cyberleninka was removed - and this is analogous to the library of the US Congress and scientific works are cited there in various scientific catalogs.

At the same time, they filled the article with links to books and self-publishing that did not have international recognition and citation in the scientific community.

All I was striving for in this article was that all controversial statements were supported by verifiable and reliable scientific papers. And if there are none, they would be neutral. But this is a matter of war between the Republic of Korea and its neighbors. Preparing public opinion for military action. Therefore, Koreans will never leave this article neutral.

Also, Koreans constantly write nasty things about the Khitan, but no one in the project cares.Ulianurlanova (talk) 14:56, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Balhae

I've no idea what you are trying to achieve here, and that is at least in part because edit summaries like "support for Korean Nazism will end with nuclear strikes on your cities. Do you want that ?" in no way help. Please explain clearly without ad hominem attacks on those you feel are antagonising you why you are making changes to articles, preferably on the talk pages where such reasons can be explained at length. Britmax (talk) 20:44, 9 February 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) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]