User talk:Whydoesitfeelsogood

Hello, Whydoesitfeelsogood! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{Ping|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 03:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Drotaverine. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog Hang on now, I've only reverted once. You've reverted twice, and I'm the one "edit warring"? Realy?? Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 05:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kogalymavia Flight 9268. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 09:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Whydoesitfeelsogood. 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]

Cпасибо за ваши правки к 2017 Saint Petersburg Metro bombing. Большое спасибо за помощь. Cheers, FriyMan ^talk 17:06, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Whydoesitfeelsogood. 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]

Hello, Whydoesitfeelsogood. 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]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Talk:2020 Belarusian protests, you may be blocked from editing. Please see WP:NOTFORUM Drmies (talk) 00:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly urge you to spend some time on basic research on how to edit on Wikipedia, because what you're doing here and here is actually destructive: you're using the wrong citation templates, wrong dating style, half of what you're writing is not sourced, you're not paying enough attention to the grammar, including tenses, you're submitting edits with broken references, you post the material already present in the article, which means you don't check the article prior to editing, you're not positioning the references right after the corresponding material and, what is even more important, you're filling the section without any thoughts about its future length - if you continue to put so much detail into those daily updates and do it in multi-paragraph edits, the section is going to get absolutely enormous. Think about how much work other editors have to do with your material in order to make it somewhat readable and Wikipedia-like. Best wishes. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Of course it will "get enormous", because all this material is basically calqued from the Russian Wiki, where they actually made a separate article chronicling the events. Unless it is clearly written that protests per se have stopped and turned into solidarity actions, the section will be getting huger and huger every day. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about the source of the material, it's about the form you're presenting it in, which currently is neither readable, nor easily manageable from the editorial point of view. Just look at how many fixes are required to make your edits semi-coherent with the rest of the page just in terms of the citation style, let alone the rest of the stuff I've mentioned above. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at your edits regarding sources, and here's what we can do to work things out. I'm going to translate crude Russian text from the aforementioned article on Russian WP into English exactly as they cite it there, and will be saving the whole thing in my sandbox. You can then take the text from therein, do your usual correction, and publish it in the English article. If you don't agree to this, I can also simply stop editing the whole thing. Because although your determination to build style over substance is understandable as it is the preferred way to build up a normal Wiki, this definitely isn't the way with Russian WP, where substance over style is clearly prevalent. Just to give you an example, right now there is about twice as much information as I've already translated, only in the past 12 hours there are mentions of overnight activities as well as what has happened on 3 September. I simply cannot translate + correct sources + verify their facticity at the same time. Maybe you don't know this, but in Belarus (pretty much as in Russia), "news" are pitched in by individuals filming ongoing events with their smartphones, then posting the footage alongside their own interpretation of events. News media there "have no time" to verify claims and many articles get deleted within the first 24 hours of publishing, but that's just how their media works. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 19:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a better solution would be you taking your time and checking out the Wikipedia guidelines, so that you wouldn't have to ask other editors to do your job for you. As to the "substance" argument, what you bring to the article is a barely readable, badly structured and incorrectly sourced news compilation, so I'm not sure what "substance" you're talking about here. UPD. I forgot to add that it's absolutely unnecessary to translate every single passage from the Russian article, because this way the section becomes too long and cluttered. If you really think every single detail should be mentioned, please, consider creating a separate article dedicated entirely to the timeline. Until then, I strongly urge you to concentrate only on the most important things. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that half of the sources in this edit of yours are dated 2 September, while you post all that as a 3 September events. You have to check the dates prior to posting. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, these events started occurring overnight. The Russian media referred to them as happening on 2 September. I think we need more English sources for that section, don't know if there are more. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judging by your recent edits, little has changed since the time of this dialogue: you still prefer to post unchecked material and not pay attention to how you fill the references (especially when it comes to the access-date and publisher parameters). I strongly urge you to start paying attention to these things and start fact-checking at least 50% of what you post there. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, my problem mainly lies with TUT.BY being constantly updated, as to not find the information stated in Russian WP actually in the source (which is not reverted there, but you do constantly seem to revert it here). I am therefore coming to a close of not citing TUT.BY as a source at all. What does it change whether I check the cited news therein or not, if the actual news changes as we speak? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 20:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I struggle to understand what you've just written, but there really are no excuses to this editing style. And it's not like you're being asked to do something extraordinary: just carefully read the sources you attribute to a text, check, whether this chunk of text is actually supported by the source, check, whether you refer to a correct publisher inside the ref tag, do not forget to provide an access-date, and that's it. This would make lives of other editors much easier. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 20:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is "access date" and why it is needed now? What happened to the times where you could just chuck a link with ref /ref and that's it? You already made me double bracket cite news whatever, what do you want from me now? Why is everything so complicated? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Access-date" is the parameter indicating the date a source is being added to an article. Its main purpose is simplification of distinguishing between different versions of the source, in case, at some point, its content gets redacted for one reason or another, and a person reviewing someone else's edits gets confused. Here are the Wikipedia guidelines on citing, which you may find interesting. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that copying text from the sources (as you did in this edit) is not allowed by the Wikipedia copyright policy. Please, check this out. -- Nicholas Velasquez (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whydoesitfeelsogood. The en.Wikipedia and the ru.Wikipedia decide specific editing policies and guidelines independently, even if the core principles are expected to be shared. In the early years of en.Wikipedia, providing sources to justify added text was something that could be safely left to other editors motivated to add them. The en.Wikipedia community has grown by a huge amount since then and the standards have tightened, based on wide community consensus. However, copyright violation was never considered as an acceptable temporary status of en.Wikipedia text.

I fully agree with Nicholas that you need to read and understand the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that he has kindly pointed you to. If you want to persuade people that those policies and guidelines are unreasonable, then you'll need to go to the talk pages of those policies and guidelines and convince people to change. Would that take a lot of effort? Yes, it would. It's also taking a lot of effort to overthrow Lukashenko - millions of Belarusians are discussing with each other what to do, what policies and guidelines to follow and how to change existing policies, guidelines or formal rules and laws. Are en.Wikipedia policies too authoritarian and worth changing? Maybe. They're not written in stone. It's up to you to judge that, but it seems that neither Nicholas nor I wish to make any non-trivial changes to any of the main en.Wikipedia policies or guidelines - at least not the ones that Nicholas has mentioned above. The Belarusian protest articles are not the place to try to change Wikipedia policies. So please read the policies and avoid creating unnecessary editing work for others. Boud (talk) 13:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, what does my editing style have to do with overthrowing Lukashenko? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your current editing style (with examples given above by Nicholas) is (in some cases) a rejection of well-accepted en.Wikipedia guidelines. The Wikipedia guidelines are effectively a body of rules supported by a huge number of people supporting their implementation. Lukashenko currently still has a lot of people supporting and implementing his rules.

There are, of course, huge differences in the two situations: Wikipedia rules, decision-making and their implementation are radically transparent and horizontal and bloodless; Lukashenko's rules, decision-making and implementation are opaque and vertical and brutal and bloody. Another difference is that there is no major community push to overthrow the en.Wikipedia guidelines, but there's a huge community push to get Lukashenko out of power.

To get back to the point: if you can convince the en.Wikipedia community to change the policies and guidelines mentioned above, then please do so, and then I (and, I assume, Nicholas) will accept that. Otherwise, please edit the en.Wikipedia in line with those policies and guidelines. Boud (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. While your interpretation of my edits seems both largely frivolous and non-encyclopedic whereas your comparison falls out of place for the most part, you do seem to have a valid point :) --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 the Balkans or Eastern Europe. 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.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good grief. You are aware of discretionary sanctions, right? I acted as an ordinary admin, but you are on dangerously thin ice. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:33, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Toddy1. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Borscht that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have an issue with the behaviour of another editor, the place to discuss is it Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Thank you. -- Toddy1 (talk) 05:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert your revert because a) I seldom revert and b) you may be right. But that user is definitely trying out my patience. What does Russia and Moscow seem to have in common with what I replied to him? Why are they allowed to openly mock my words like that? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever read any of Irving Janis's work? I recommend Victims of groupthink. If you read it you will understand better why engaging with people who you disagree with is a good idea.

The Wikipedia rules are designed to help. This is why on Wikipedia, "behaviour" discussions and "article content" discussions are segregated. Issues about improving or changing article content should be discussed on article talk pages. Issues about editors' behaviour should be discussed at places like Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (there are a selection of places for different types of issue).

I feel that I have learned a lot from engaging on Wikipedia. One of the areas I have learned, is to gain a bit of an idea what the issues are on many topics. This includes the sensitivities. It has also prompted me to buy and read books on a much wider range of topics than I would otherwise have done.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are subjective. Unlike you, I do find that TaivoLinguist (Taivo) lacked civility from the start of our topic conversation, with remarks like "it's not my job to correct your mistakes". Later on, he openly mocked my propositions by 'on quote' "Russian" point of view. He did not just mention Moscow out of the blue, it's called ethnic profiling and there are laws that exist against it in the country I'm from. With all due respect to you and other editors actually trying to help me, TaivoLinguist's talk edits (at least to me) seem provocative enough to call him out. And the same reason I restrain myself from reverting is the same reason I do not wish to report him (just yet). I seldom meet editors who discuss the person's editing style, ethnicity, knowledge on English, but unfortunately, such is the case here. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of fungi are saprophytes, which live on dead animals or plants, and others live on other organic materials. The fungi that generate on my wet sheetrock and wet books in my basement are clearly not parasites on other living organisms. Hardyplants (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have a question. Do all your fungi feed on other organisms? If so, they are parasites just like you and me. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 10:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Most fungi are saprophytes, feeding on dead or decaying material" - https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/fungi/fungilh.html#:~:text=Most%20fungi%20are%20saprophytes%2C%20feeding,organisms%20which%20may%20eat%20fungi.

Some even live off of rocks: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/03/iron-eating-fungus-disintegrates-rocks-acid-and-cellular-knives#:~:text=Iron%2Deating%20fungus%20disintegrates%20rocks%20with%20acid%20and%20cellular%20knives,-By%20Eric%20Hand&text=When%20a%20hungry%20fungus%20anchors,has%20a%20plan%20of%20attack.&text=Microbial%20geochemists%20have%20long%20known,and%20physical%20breakdown%20of%20rock. Hardyplants (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alexandra Agiurgiuculese, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Italian and Romanian. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

do you have references about her father's origins? --2.226.12.134 (talk) 07:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please avail yourself to the Wikipedia's policies on WP:CITEing WP:RELIABLE sources which other editors can WP:VERIFY - that is how the encyclopedia is built. William Harris (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for everything, but usually one doesn't build an encyclopedia blindly citing sources without fact checking them firsthand, as in just believing what they say and heavily relying on that alone. If you check the Russian WP, you would see how they built their "Dog" article and how it goes. Too bad English WP didn't pass the consensus of article patrol, whereas editors would actually see how important the edits are. BTW, I'm adding the source about the dire wolf, feel free to challenge me on the article's talk (not here), TYVM, --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 03:48, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One cites expert, reliable sources. In this case, two of the world's most noted paleontologists. When they look at bones, they know what they are talking about. I do not know what happens on Russian WP and it is not my concern. As for dire wolf, it will be assessed on its merits. William Harris (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've had a look at the Russian WP article, largely unreliable news reports, websites, and the only decent journal articles are dated. William Harris (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dog, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lupine.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm William Harris. Your recent edit(s) to the page dog appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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.

At no stage did Perri 2021 state that the dog descended from the dire wolf. William Harris (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing how to translate a word to the common English equivalent is not a reason to revert an article back to a version that includes your WP:OR in the form of WP:SOURCEHIJACKING. You may want to clarify a narrative with things you've heard, but that needs additional sources. You can always ask about language barrier issues at the talk page, rather than make irresponsible reversions. Kingsif (talk) 15:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We'll keep it on your talk page instead, because this is serious. Thank you, --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 16:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a warning, not a discussion. Kingsif (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was not aware of your history of similar disruption. Please consider this a warning shot. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for editwarring, WP:OR, and making unsourced edits.. 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) 16:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: First of all, that whole section is a mess. It has chronology issues. The first three paragraphs mention events which took place around Tsimanouskaya's defection to Poland, while the rest list events which occurred at or around the same time, but do not necessarily pertain to her. Second, there are issues with style as most phrases are inserted in disregard of the general idea of how the paragraph is written. Poland did not grant Tsimanouskaya asylum before she booked her flight to Vienna. Japan did not pronounce itself until after the EU member-states did. Third but not least, most sources are not in English, therefore their interpretation is more open pertaining to what was actually said by Tsimanouskaya herself in her videos. Even if improperly translated, this is still not source hijacking. I barely tied up information together by using loose bits of what was said in her videos and when those were posted (July 30 - August 1 interval). --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have talk page access, you can propose changes, and I welcome any improvements, seriously. The block is because you explicitly said you would edit war, and because of the unsourced OR, not a content issue. There is a fine line between improving style (which, again, not really happening, idiomatic English isn't easy) and embellishing things beyond the scope of the sources. You vaulted over that line. Kingsif (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have an ongoing problem and now you are just trying to Wikilawyer and cast things as being different from the way they are. Feel free to request unblocking, if you can really address the reasons for your block. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: I doubt it to be any harder than what the style of the current section is. They are just sentences followed by source refs and have to connection to each other. If I retained the right to edit that article's talk page (@Deepfriedokra: please confirm) then I would soon propose my variant, but ask of you not to revert it ASAP because this is still very rude. Regards, --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 17:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif and Whydoesitfeelsogood, "talk page access" refers to this page here, not any other talk page. This is usually not an invitation to make article improvement requests during the block, as this is the wrong page for doing so. See also: WP:PROXYING. I'd argue for converting it to a partial block with actual access to all talk pages, but not in case of a week-long block after past disruption. In this specific case, I'd rather argue for waiting the week to reconsider the approach to editing and Wikipedia in general. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would soon propose my variant, but ask of you not to revert it ASAP because this is still very rude. - I don't think you can see, but this is poor English. Rewriting the bulk of an article like this would be reason enough to revert, before other issues. But let's get to the main issue: you threatened edit warring after trying to make yourself sympathetic, but are here assuming bad faith by saying you expect I would unnecessarily revert you. Why? And as another note, it is not inherently "very rude" to revert, undo buttons exist for a reason, and you can't assert that anyone who undoes your edits with good reason is just being rude to you. While I'm sure you have actual suggestions, especially on translation, and might argue that cool-down periods don't need to be a week, I'll defer to Deepfriedokra and ToBeFree on the approach. Kingsif (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: Perhaps I should abstain from editing English WP altogether, because even though the block is supposed to be a disciplinary measure, I simply fail to see how undoing someone's good faith edit (even if it violates, say, multiple WP policies at once) is not considered lack of editor etiquette. This time around, I'm mostly active in Russian WP, where we as editors usually do not revert an edit that, for example, failed to provide sources with "RV unsourced content" in the summary. At the contrary, we would put {{citation needed}} after it or something, unless, of course, the edit itself is clear vandalism and was done with bad faith. To give you another example, if I were to go to Russian WP article about Vladimir Putin and write something like "Since 2010, Putin has undergone a number of cosmetic surgeries regarding his osteoporosis, which resulted in Botulinum toxin injection therapy eventually granting him the "Botox guy" moniker among the masses" (roughly put) in the appropriate section of his biography, 95% chance is my edit would not be reverted even by an administrator. This is OR. I might have made it up or read it from an unreliable source. But this information may still be relevant to the article, therefore leaving it with a {{citation needed}} markup seems to me way more logical than undoing the whole edit. Hopefully this is English enough to be understood, as even though my native language is Russian, I have a semantic disability due to my psychiatric condition and this is the best I can do. Regards, --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Подходите с максимальной строгостью к качеству источников, особенно касающихся подробностей личной жизни. Любая оспоренная или даже потенциально спорная информация должна быть опубликована в надёжном источнике, на который в тексте должна быть сделана сноска. Спорный материал о живущих (или умерших не более года назад) людях без источников или со слабыми источниками — негативного, позитивного, нейтрального или просто сомнительного характера — следует удалять немедленно и без обсуждения.
— ru:WP:БС

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:25, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(The English is fine, by the way, no worries about that. The described example is alarming, though; it seems to display a severe disregard for verifiability and the potential damage caused by publishing unverifiable information about living people. See Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident for the incident that led to the creation of the WP:BLP policy on the English Wikipedia.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whydoesitfeelsogood: Your English is fine for communication, it's the tone and vocabulary expected of an encyclopedia that can be an issue for even native speakers, hope I was clear with that. I think the simple thing to say here is that English Wikipedia is very much not Russian Wikipedia in that regard. There is a lot of news coverage about the sourcing problems in non-English WPs, but I am shocked at how lenient one as big as the Russian one is. It is true that many (most, probably) English Wikipedia articles have citation needed tags, though these are mostly historic. It has been years since a clampdown, and any information that does not have a source or seem like it could be sourced, however relevant or important to the topic is removed. To the extent that we have removed people's names. This is common here, and I feel like you should be questioning Russian Wikipedia's processes regarding sources rather than ours. Kingsif (talk) 13:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: You seem to be correct about it being so harsh on living/recently deceased people's articles on WP. My example falls out of league. However I would like to bring to everyone's attention the fact that I wasn't specifically editing Tsimanouskaya's biography, but just the Incident part. Those couple of paragraphs could've been located within any other article (Belarus at the 2020 Summer Olympics, for example). I did not touch that person's private life, neither did I speculate about her personal details. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Whydoesitfeelsogood: This is true, but the BLP policy does not just apply to editing biographies/biographical details. It would apply to any article or section thereof which contains material, especially contentious material, about living persons. In short: any part of an article that talks about Tsimanouskaya (including Belarus at the 2020 Summer Olympics) is covered by the ruling.
I'd also like to address your assertion that [you] simply fail to see how undoing someone's good faith edit (even if it violates, say, multiple WP policies at once) is not considered lack of editor etiquette. Again, a lot to unpack here. First, undoing a good faith edit is not a "lack of editor etiquette", even if there is nothing seriously wrong with the edit; if the edit reason is sensible (e.g. "good faith but does not add encyclopedic value"), there is nothing wrong there. With this statement you are trying to argue that it is never ok to undo someone else's edits unless they are a vandal. This is simply untrue, and even more so when, as you admit, the good faith edits violate multiple policies. You are literally trying to say that allowing every edit to stand uncontested is preferable to Wikipedia upholding its own policies, even though those policies were designed to help work out which edits should not stand. You seem to have a very misguided view on what editing Wikipedia is. We are trying to build an encyclopedia, not just let everybody write what they want to. This is also shown in your early plea to me that you put hours of work into editing the article. I'm sorry you wasted time, but on Wikipedia you have to prepare to have your edits usurped for an improved version, we donate our words and the 'pedia is allowed to reject them.
I write all this with the best of intentions; an attitude adjustment as suggested by TBF above will help. Hopefully this message brings a helpful perspective. Kingsif (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: (first comment) Being prejudiced against an editor whose lack of encyclopedic English would somehow discourage them from editing WP is ridiculous IMO. You definitely won't be building an encyclopedia (for human beings) if you keep reverting the work of anyone free and able to edit it on those grounds alone. I am shocked to see a fellow editor (who may have been one longer than I am, but still) wishing to turn a website based on Wiki principles into some regulation-ridden framework where WP:BLUESKY is meaningless, because to me if you can't prove that an animal quacking, walking and swimming like a duck is an actual duck without "OR, unsourced and whatever", then you don't deserve to take part in such project. And thank god Russian WP hasn't come to this (so far) yet. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 16:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: (second comment) I'm not judging you in any way, I know there are many other editors here who think the same. But my ways differ. You think, simply put, that a jaywalker deserves to be punished no matter what, because they're a jaywalker. Use the pedestrian crossing like everyone else or don't cross at all, right? Well, I think that any jaywalker deserves a right to do so unless their doing is immoral and must absolutely be punished. We are humans and we make mistakes. About a month ago I had a heated debate with another editor who simply reverted my edit on Binturong because I made a typo and wrote "gender" instead of "genus". Boy was that awkward! And I think this kind of paradigm gets you nowhere in life in general, not just on WP. Laws are made to follow, but there is moral, principles, etiquette, etc. Teach me how to interpret sources and I'll teach you how to cure text into more fluent sentences. I will always abstain from reverting edits unless they are clear vandalism/bad faith, but if I don't like an edit, I would try to incorporate it, correct it, improve it. This is my way and if English WP is not meant for people like me then I would be happy not to "rain on your parade" anymore. No offense intended. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to make mistakes. Your duck/jaywalking/etc. analogies are wildly misrepresenting the situation. I have encouraged you to continue editing on English Wikipedia as long as you present sources as English Wikipedia requires them. I have encountered you only editing a particularly contentious area, so that is what my responses are about.
But you have said you like the Russian Wikipedia's attitude where every edit stands, no matter how obviously ridiculous, in case it might become true one day. An encyclopedia is not that; there are many true things that don't belong in an encyclopedia. You approach Wikipedia as something fun, and it is, but it also has a functional purpose, which you don't seem to acknowledge. If you don't want to edit within policy, you are only going to ruffle feathers, that's all I can say. P.S. it is hilarious you think you can teach me to write more fluently in English. I have literally been an English teacher, and you are Russian. This isn't meant to offend, I mean, I am actually laughing at the fact you have said that, though confused as to how you could think it. Encyclopedic style is what an encyclopedia is supposed to read like, even if you don't like that, either. Kingsif (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will wait until the block wear off, but I will let you (and other editors who wrote here) know of my version of the edits that I would like implemented, so we can discuss it on the talk page. I will not debate the rest with you because we both clearly have different opinions on how to build an encyclopedia, and I don't believe that your approach is more "functional" and less "fun". Like I said, there are users like yourself who think the same way and whom I will never agree with. If one day I will be blocked for good, then so be it. As a reader, I already prefer a number of other sources over WP for information. Regards, --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

we both clearly have different opinions on how to build an encyclopedia, and I don't believe that your approach is more "functional" and less "fun". Like I said, there are users like yourself who think the same way and whom I will never agree with. *Sigh* for the last time, this isn't my thoughts, this is Wikipedia policy that I'm trying to explain. Even though you clearly don't like it (and maybe I don't like, huh, I haven't actually given an opinion; don't try to ascribe views to just me so you can act like it's just one person you're disagreeing with), you have to follow it. Kingsif (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I don't have to revert any good faith edit that fails to respect a given WP policy. I prefer correcting someone else's mistakes myself, rather than policing them in an unconstructive way at the risk of causing useless conflict. Don't be under the impression that since I'm the one who got blocked, your unquestionable revert of my edits was fully ethical and was indeed the only given way to abide by WP policies, @Kingsif:. Regards, --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to, but it would be helpful. And as I said, 1. it is not considered impolite to revert edits with reason on English Wikipedia so I don't know what you get for calling me unethical of all things, 2. in the case of source hijacking, unless an editor is going to immediately research and add sources to every new piece of information, the way to go is reversion. This is how it works here: if you want to hide unsourced text between other references and not get reverted because it upsets you, you've said it yourself, a strict Wikipedia isn't the place to be. Kingsif (talk) 21:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kingsif: In order for source hijacking to take place, one must first prove (not assume) that. I was merely cleaning up the section for readability, and wanted to bring it to a chronological order as well. After seeing the "Aftermath" subsection doesn't make sense either (as the last three paragraphs describe evens that took place during the main event, as well as document reactions), I wished to go one by one with you, but see how things turned out. Also, would you kindly point me to the policy that states "it is not considered impolite to revert edits with reason on English Wikipedia", please? --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - however incompetent, he can not leave right now, because that would be the best present to the enemy in the event of the attack (and the attack will even more likely happen if he resigns). The best one can do is to declare/conduct mobilization and stay on the ship until the very end, even if he will be captured or worse. Remember Kagemusha? My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: как-то странно Вы берётесь сравнивать нынешнего президента Украины с персонажем из к/ф. Тем более что, кроме как "комика из 95 Квартала", страна его больше никак не запомнит. По поводу "нападения" Вы охотно верите в то, что президент РФ, имея тактику "бей первым" и зная, что от него хотят "западные партнёры", намеренно начёт операцию вторжения именно таким образом, который от него ждут, и именно тогда, когда это предсказали западные СМИ? Если Вы при этом живёте в РФ — то мне Вас жаль, ибо Вы совершенно не знаете президента Вашей страны. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, fortunately, I do not live in RF, and for a very long time. As about Ukrainian president, well, this is hard to say how he will be remembered. Maybe even as a martyr. I realize you did not see the movie. As about starting the operation, this is not possible to prepare a so large-scale military operation in our time without whole world knowing about it. The exact date can be adjusted, sure, but only to some degree. More exactly, the latest date for the attack will be the end of "exercizes" in Belorussia and Black Sea. Next time window will be in Summer. My very best wishes (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sure, keep thinking that. Cheers from Canada and Zelensky is a khuilo! ;) --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 00:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow Was the War. Of course I hope not. As about Khuilo, no, see here, and especially at the very bottom, where it comes to the USA. I had exactly same thought after the previous elections. My very best wishes (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao. Urban dictionary for a source. When you rely on people unfamiliar with "хуйло" you get pretty much this, especially from the USA. I suggest you watch some of Anatoly Shariy's videos on YouTube, his channel isn't hard to find. And his WP article has RS embedding what "pro-Russian" and "Putinist" terms actually mean. That is, if you care to think the slightest. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares about Shariy? I like this [2]: "And that’s his goal: to not get shot in a ditch." (then he better not attack) versus " ‘I can’t believe that they’re letting me get away with this s***.’" (so he can attack). Everything depends on one psycho. Speaking more seriously though, this [3] is good analysis (and Felgenhauer is saying basically the same). This shows an operation on a world-wide scale, and one that can lead to WWIII. My very best wishes (talk) 17:35, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you read about Russia in English (knowing you understand Russian), then you're either a troll or not a very bright person who likes what several faggots write about a country which isn't theirs and don't even live in it. Intelligent people who are able to think watch Shariy.--Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shariy? I do not know much about him, but he apparently is a team-mate of Vladimir Solovyv, as plainly obvious from their presentation on YouTube [4]. Yes, he is an intelligent man just as Solovyev, but he serves..., well, as one well-known poet said ("diavoly sluzit' ili propoku kazdyi vybiraet dlja seba"). As about my personal perception, I wrote that long time ago:

Good luck with listening that guy! My very best wishes (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does he have nothing to do with Solovey (Soloviev neither, but that's another story), but he often criticizes him for overtly lying about Putin's health etc. Shariy left Ukraine after he was framed under Yanukovich for investigating corruption. When Ukraine deprived him of his motherland's citizenship, he sought asylum in Lithuania and then moved to the Netherlands. The guy single-handedly formed his own political party in Ukraine, knows much about cryptocurrency and keeps investigating certain individuals' involvement in corruption (not limited to Ukrainian politicians). Even though he has a somewhat wicked sense of humor and to my personal taste comes off a bit simple and narrow-minded, I have great respect for Anatoly. Navalny, on the other hand, is a moron who has earned his presence in the colony. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have listen a couple of YouTube presentations by Sharyi maybe for 15 minutes and have learned absolutely nothing on the subjects he debated and I might be interested in (I am not so interested in the specifics of Ukrainian corruption; sure there is a lot of this in that country, just as in Russia or even in USA). As about Navalny, I do believe that was brave but stupid. But it does not mean he "earned" it. This is something Soloviev (and Sharyi?) would say about him. Here is what I thought (in the style of Bylina):

Happy editing. My very best wishes (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Marleeashton. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Shepard Fairey have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Marleeashton (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]