Welcome to Wikipedia! Have been following the Azov talk and wanted to give you the friendly advice that allegations about other editors & their intentions, and overfilling talk pages are often counterproductive in winning consensus to your position. There are a number of editors who have clearly stated that there are problems with the current state of the article, but Wikipedia can only fix those problems by following its consensus-based procedures. I recommend reading WP:AGF and WP:BLUDGEON and bearing them in mind while interacting with other editors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
@Bobfrombrockley: I am not convinced that we *need* to have an RFC, can you tell me where you see that? I am pretty sure it isn’t a good idea. An RfC lumbered us with this ridiculous lede in the first place, because people keep pointing at it and saying there is consensus. But didn’t I see you say that it actually closed *against* neo-Nazi in wikivoice? Not that I am questioning your advice here, but if you go back in the history of the article there is some really breathtakingly biased stuff in the history. I am not sure we should be voting on what is the truth in a complicated question, because it is a sad truth that the people who vote in these things don’t read any of the materials. Just some food for thought. Elinruby (talk)
Saw your question about this on another page. The conventional wisdom that most people will tell you is that you were bold, you were reverted, now discuss. I am pretty sure they are going to try to shut you down on the talk page though though, although Bob manages to survive. One other way to is to attract some fresh editors. There are currently two sources from this article being questioned by moi at the WP:RS noticeboard. Take one of the other ones over there. Read the other questions on the board and comment, maybe, but you do seem to have a really good grasp of the policy, so I am not telling you to educate yourself. I am saying that it helps *me* to be able to say well you know what, I have taken four of these sources over to the RS noticeboard, and you for a while I couldn’t get them to stop laughing and give me an answer. (Posts are US Congressman as an authority on neo-Nazis, and Policeman in Belarus as an authority on Ukrainian military). Warning, some of the people on the talk page really won’t want to hear it, but that is one suggestion). Hope that helps. Elinruby (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
An ice-cold Glass of Slavic Class | |
In thanks, to cool you down for your efforts in the heated East Slavic topic area! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC) |
Please read WP:NOTDUMB, its does not matter how many times you ask the same question. Only one answer counts. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
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.
Segaton (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
You must refrain from using such poor WP:SPS (self-published sources) like you are doing at Russian separatist forces in Donbas. Segaton (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
hi