This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: Eastern Europe or the Balkans They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Archives

/2004, /2005, /2006, /2007, /2008, /2009, /2010, /2011, /2012, /2013, /2014, /2015, /2016, /2017, /2018, /2019, /2020, /2021, /2022, /2023, /2024

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Edit this box

Wikipedia is celebrating its 15th birthday on January 15, 2016. I have thought for a while that it would be neat to meet some local wikipedians. According to the wikipedians in Winnipeg or Wikipedians in Manitoba category you are one of us. I am contacting people in this category to say: Let's celebrate this milestone. If you know other wikipedians, please ask them to join in as well.

I am posting this to your talk page as a transclude so that any updates will show up automatically.

Hope to see you there! Tenbergen (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One other Winnipeg Wikipedian showed up, in addition to a number of regular skullspace members. It was nice to actually talk to someone else who has worked with Mediawiki and actually "gets" transclusion. Cake was eaten! Tenbergen (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, apparently I haven't logged in to Wikipedia in over 6 years and I totally missed this message and the event! I guessed I missed any 20 year celebration, too. Let me know if you end up doing a 25 year one. :) Clayton Rumley (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a)) to your friends' talk pages.

Hello, Mzajac. You have new messages at Sargdub's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Wikiproject Ukraine, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here.

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I need your help by fixing WP:MOS issues on Alexander Pushkin and Pale of Settlement, by following this one: MOS:OVERLINK and WP:RUSTRESS. 43.247.36.6 (talk) 00:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve removed the stress marks in the second article (not sure about the diacritic in the Hebrew transliteration).

Which sections specifically are overlooked?  —Michael Z. 00:21, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing stress marks in Russian words, also remove this flag from infobox per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. 43.247.36.6 (talk) 00:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mzajac, this is a banned editor. Please do not proxy edit on their behalf.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:47, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really think we should limit our Russian categories to people who are nationals of modern Russia. While there are also ethnic Russians, I do not think that a category should try to merge multiple things together. For this reason I do not think that the Russian Empire categories should be treated as subcategories of the Russian category. Recently people have decided to fight back against this. They have reverted statements that link articles on people who were nationals of the Russian Empire to Russia. They have attacked me for categorizing Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov as a composer from the Russian Empire, even though he was born in, lived in, and died in the Russian Empire. Another editor seems to suggest that we should not place in Russian Empire categories anyone who was alive when it ended in 1917. I think the following. Do you feel these are reasonable views. 1. The Russian Empire was a distinct nation. It had distinct nationals. We should categorize them as such. 2. We mainly categorize people by the nation thry lived in. 3. The Russian Empire was a country that was destroyed. Later the Soviet Union filled a similar space. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Russia has filled a smaller space. 4. The Russian Empire lasted less than 200 years, we should not subdivide its residents into categories by century, since we cannot get 3 by century categories. 4. The Russian categories should be limited to nationals of the current country of Russia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jānis Ilsters

Jānis Ilsters was a resident of the Russian Empire all his life. The whole purpose of the People from the Russian Empire categories was to create a scheme where we could combine articles by the fact that the subjects were nationals of the Russian Empire. It was to avoid endless debates about a person's nationality. Yet my adding Ilsters to a category related to the Russian Empire has been reverted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you’re dealing with specific disputes that I’m not quite aware of.

I do agree that Russian-empire persons should not be lumped together with Russian-Federation persons as if these were one state. And I agree that there may be a lack of clear consensus on these questions that should be resolved in a coordinated fashion. I do see a general agreement with splitting the many “Russian and Soviet” categories which are likewise poor categorization for several reasons.

A key part of the solution is to categorize by country, and not only by state. Recalling that the Russian empire was definitely not a “nation,” as you termed it above, nor a nation-state, but a multinational empire. The broader concept of nation and nationality is not the legal one of which state someone is a citizen or subject of. In the empire, imperial identity was promoted and national identity suppressed (including Russian nationality to a degree, and certainly Belarusian and Ukrainian which were not allowed to exist as distinct from Russian). But the colonial era is over, and we do not categorize people as imperial persons, or at least we are still in the process of decolonization and trying not to (as the recognition of imperial Russia and the USSR as colonial has come late, for specific reasons in Western historiography).[1]

This is a trend I see in sources, often by clearly identifying their subjects’ place of birth, cultural heritage, place of activity, self-identification, and other details as are significant to their own identity. For example, look at Britannica’s bio of Gogol.[2] If you pay attention, you may notice it is largely about his close relationship with Russian literature, but nowhere does it refer to him as Russian (adj) or a Russian (n), because he was not Russian, but a member of the petty Ukrainian gentry from Ukraine.  —Michael Z. 15:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael. Ge with dot below came across my radar while doing NPP. I see that you've nominated similar articles for deletion and wanted to apprise you of this article if you believe it's not notable. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. It is dubious that that is a separate letter belonging to an alphabet, but more likely just the use of a dot under a regular Cyrillic letter. But I don’t know Arabic, and I don’t know about Cyrillization of Arabic, so have no way of evaluating it as a valid subject.  —Michael Z. 04:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Michael. I'll bring it to the WikiProject Writing systems talk page. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, @Crash48 opened a case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Ukrainian_language in which they accuse both you and me of POV-pushing, but it seems that they didn't inform you. I feel that the case will probably come to nothing because it doesn't meet the requirements, but since I have absolutely no experience with arbitration, I thought I should inform you. I'm not sure whether I should reply there or make better use of my time. Rsk6400 (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I just saw this and I see the request has been declined already. Will read it over so I’m aware of what’s up.  —Michael Z. 16:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see there’s one decline vote, so far. The statements seem to have a fair view of the situation, and I will follow. Please inform me if any further action regarding this arises at ANI or elsewhere. Thanks for the head-up.  —Michael Z. 16:41, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: They started Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Ukrainian_language. I'll inform you as soon as anything happens there. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looks like the spam articles from a former group AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A with acute (Cyrillic) you were the nom for are being recreated. Hope you are well, greetings from Los Angeles. I don't have experience with the topic, so I will leave it to you/others.  // Timothy :: talk  09:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ugh. I have posted a request for advice at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Deleted article recreated.  —Michael Z. 14:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Lists of Indigenous peoples indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Michael, Crash48 took the issue to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rsk6400. Rsk6400 (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

The Luhansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic ceased to exist, when Russia annexed them in 2022. The introduction of both articles need to be written in the past tense, not only because their establishment, existence and absorption were de facto, but also because they ceased to exist from a Russian perspective, after Russia first officially recognized them in 2022 and then officially annexed them as regions of Russia later that year. As you stated, Russia dropped all pretense of their "independence", when it annexed them. Maybe new articles about the de facto "Russian" regions of Luhansk and Donetsk should be created, to reflect the current situation of these two regions, just like there is an article about the de facto Republic of Crimea of Russia, as opposed to the de jure Autonomous Republic of Crimea of Ukraine.

Multituberculata (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Multituberculata: from a Russian perspective, these republics continue to exist as Republics of Russia. There are quite a few of those, none of them independent. Crash48 (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is my point. They were Russian-controlled and remain so, under the same names. Independence was a pretense that has been given up. Changing them to the past tense would be misleading as it would imply some supposedly independence-seeking Ukrainian statelets existed that never did.

These and related articles should be revised, with an emphasis on replacing contemporary news reporting with more recent expert and academic history sources. All the BS about “Russian-supported separatists” and journalistic both-sidesing can be replaced with what reliable sources in retrospect tell us they were: Russian-controlled illegal militias, aided by some local collaborators, violently occupying Ukrainian lands and people most of whom never wanted to join Russia.  —Michael Z. 00:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It failed by western media [3] . So why are you removing my edit? What are you trying to do? Kanikosen (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And he did send them into this, [4] with minimal air support, so mind explaining why did you removed my edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanikosen (talk • contribs) 16:30, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits violated the general sanction at WP:GS/RUSUKR. Please read and understand it.  —Michael Z. 16:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did they? So can you point what part, part where you try to defend Ukranian failed offensive, part where you claim that Missile Carrier being moved 15 minutes away (ignoring Russia have subs that can fire from anywhere in Black sea?) . So please, point me part of WP:GS/RUSUKR saying I can't write that? Kanikosen (talk) 16:44, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace to post constructive comments and make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive. So, go on. Kanikosen (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Neutrality of editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You’re defending your constant reverts by championing BBC Features correspondent Amy McPherson as a reliable source on etymology.[5] This is out of line now. I ask you to cut it out. The last time I even voted in an RfC that you were invested in you cast an aspersion.[6] I see you've said the topic area does not have to be so toxic yet you are contributing to the toxicity. Mellk (talk) 22:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you dig up a year-old edit if not to badger me? Maybe it could have been better but there’s nothing wrong with it. “And this is coming from a sysop” is just further personal criticism for its own sake. I don’t have to take your accusations when you are being toxic on top of your obstructive style of constantly reverting me. Just try to focus on improving articles instead of preventing edits.  —Michael Z. 23:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't dig up anything, you made changes to the etymology section and I remember the last time you made edits to the section, since I have done work on the section. I partially reverted your changes and asked you which source uses the spelling and then you accused me of nuking all improvements and always being obstructive. Now you try mocking me with the last comment about the BBC article. Of course, I get irritated by your false accusations and yes, you should not have sysop privileges and this has been said many times before. Mellk (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well here’s what I see. You often revert my good-faith edits, which I put work and research into, without any discussion. You restored some of what I did this time, but when I told you what else I had corrected there you didn’t seem to care. You dig up old diffs and let me know you don’t like me. You show no appreciation but apparent disdain for my work, thinking it’s okay to revert instead of cooperating or improving on it. You are unhappy that I have admin privileges; I don’t know why you should care. It feels like you prioritize obstructing me over improving the encyclopedia, and of course it’s easy to revert in 10 seconds after I’ve spent thirty minutes or two hours preparing some edit. Maybe I’m wrong. You probably don’t see it this way.

Maybe you could try to accept the idea that I will keep editing Wikipedia and that I will remain an admin, and that these things are not harmful.  —Michael Z. 00:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]