User talk:Piznajko

Welcome!

Hello, Piznajko, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! SwisterTwister talk 07:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Kiev spelling

Please review the policy for naming conventions on English-language Wikipedia, WP:COMMONNAME, and the related discussion at Talk:Kiev/naming and its archives. Thank you, Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

This edit was for Kyivan Rus Park, which has an official English spelling (as can be seen on their webstie). How is your comment related to the official English name of an enterteinment park?, e.g., Talk:Kiev/naming bears no influence on the way private and/or public institutions choose to spell their name in English, in other words if Kyivan Rus Park chooses to spell it that way in English - they 100% have a right to do so, English Wikipedia cannot tell them they can't do that. --Piznajko (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 17 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Doctor of Philosophy page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Piznajko. 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)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Piznajko. 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)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Mikhail Bulgakov". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 March 2018.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Mikhail Bulgakov, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Copyright problem on Symon Petliura

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from "Ukraine: A History" By Orest Subtelny, page 364. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Addressed with your help, thanks @Diannaa: for your constructive edits.--Piznajko (talk) 23:29, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring warning

Your recent editing history at Mikhail Bulgakov 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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.Icewhiz (talk) 18:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

At the edit warring report I have suggested you be blocked unless you will respond and promise to take a break from editing the article. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: please see my response on At the edit warring report page. Let's continue our discussion there rather than here, but in summary here is my view on this: I believe I haven't violated the 3RR rule as I've only reverted 3 times not 4 times within 24 hours; also I don't have any intentions to continue reverting repeatedly - it is my own intention that we arrive to a version of the best possible version of the section. I don't, however, believe that unwarranted full revert done by 'My very best wishes' (not returning to a different version of that section, but simply removing all edits) is highly destructive, violates Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary and is surely not getting us closer to a better version of that section.--Piznajko (talk) 01:35, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I believe that removing whole section was absolutely necessary per WP:NPOV. Besides, Look, so far you and Avetory made a lot more reverts on this page than anyone else. My very best wishes (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

DS alert

I checked your edits on a couple of pages and posted questions [1], [2]. Could you please fix your changes as to make them more consistent with WP:NPOV? Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 16:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

You probably do not understand it, but on the page about Petlura I am actually on your side, and you was arguing about a non-issue on the antisemitism page. Yes, I disagree with placing biased and non-notable opinions about Bulgakov and Brodsky. My very best wishes (talk) 04:05, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Well great, then let's work constructively towards a consensus. I've always been a proponent of finding one through dialogue and discussion.--Piznajko (talk) 04:15, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Please check links to EB and another encyclopedia that I mentioned on the talk page. I am sure you would agree with EB version as a basis for the lead. That's because it is a neutral version that suppose to be OK for everyone. Besides, I agree not revert your edits on these (Petlura and antisemitism) pages if you can reasonably fix all issues yourself. My very best wishes (talk) 04:21, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Speaking about things you want to include on the page about Brodsky, please realize that you generally need WP:Consensus of other contributors for including new materials on the page - if there are justifiable objections from other contributors, as in this case. Please do not edit war to re-include such challenged materials. My very best wishes (talk) 19:24, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm very well aware that Wikipedia is based on consensus. See my response here.--Piznajko (talk) 19:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

OK. Based on the previous editing history of this page [3], the consensus is to not include this content. I hope it was not you who previously inserted it the page and was reverted by three other contributors? My very best wishes (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Upon inspection, it seems that those edits were from 2013; they weren't mine (but what difference does it make?). I'm not even sure why you're mentioning them here - the discussion from 2013 isn't really relevant now, because back then the #1 argument for non-inclusion of this content was that editors were questioning the legitimacy of the poem "On Ukrainian independence"'s existence; in other words, they claimed the poem wasn't written by Brodsky. Since the tape-recording of Brodsky live reading of the poem in Pal-Alto in 1992 leaked on the internet in 2015, it became virtually impossible to deny poem's existence, so that argument from 2013 cannot be used any more--Piznajko (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Naming discussion Kiev > Kyiv

ALL discussions of renaming Kiev to "Kyiv" belong at Talk:Kiev/naming, not at Talk:Kiev. --Taivo (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Hellp Piznajko. Consider fixing the spelling in this header: Talk:Kiev/naming#List of major English media outlets now using Kyiv spelling (will be continuously updated; don't achieve). Instead of 'achieve' I think you want to say 'archive'. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@EdJohnston - yup, just did.--Piznajko (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

One place that you can keep your list is right here. Your Talk Page isn't subject to the same relevance restrictions that article talk pages are subject to. --Taivo (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

What's the point in keeping it here? The whole point was that I could add to it, but also other editors could add/expand it too.--Piznajko (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

That's not the function of Wikipedia. Until you have actual solid evidence that the common name for Kyiv in English is no longer Kiev, then your data collection isn't appropriate for article Talk Pages. Your evidence is peripheral at best. English usage is solidly Kiev (just like Warszawa is Warsaw and Praha is Prague). --Taivo (talk) 14:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

When you have been told repeatedly that your list is not relevant for the talk page and have had the reasons pointed out to you and you continue to ignore consensus and edit war against the closure and archiving of the thread you can expect a little frustration from other editors.--Khajidha (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

For the record, both you and יניב הורון were edit warring on Antisemitism in Ukraine. You also appear to have hit four reverts (also, note that 3RR is not a right to 3 reverts anyway). The only reason I haven't blocked you is because there looks to be multiple types of disputed content on that page with different users, so full protection is probably more effective. I've applied full protection for four days instead. Please consider this a warning against edit warring in the future. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Did you warn יניב הורון as well? At least I understand the logic of the previous reverts (the whole discussion about chronological order), but his latest reverts seemed to just bring "Post Soviet Ukraine" term into the article, which is derogatory and offensive - Ukraine should simply be referred as Ukraine, not "Post Soviet Ukraine".--Piznajko (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

You already gave them multiple warnings and I pinged them here. They were also edit warring even if they didn't violate 3RR. I don't have any interest in the content dispute on the page, so the logic behind why the two of you were edit warring doesn't really matter to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:49, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Message from 2A00:1298:8011:212:0:0:0:165 on WP:EEML

Hello Piznajko. Do you know about WP:EEML? With his old account name My very best wishes schemed with other anti Russian editors on a mailinglist. They even schemed to get their "enemies" to break policy, then one would make a complant, another would pretend to be uninvolved and tell how "disruptive" the enemy was, another would tease and insult to make the enemy angry, all planned on the mailinglist - very bad and sneaky stuff. Think about that when he tells about "NPOV". 2A00:1298:8011:212:0:0:0:165 (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi @2A00:1298:8011:212:0:0:0:165:, thanks for the warning. I figured that was the case. BTW, what was his old account name?--Piznajko (talk) 21:43, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

See the games he plays for many years:

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Biophys'_stubborn_edit_warring "He would act like he was following the rules and knew what he was editing. However, discussing with him felt like talking to someone who pretends to be silly to make you lose your patience."

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Canvassing_and_other_illegitimate_actions_by_Biophys "I was amazed how several times when he was losing an argument someone who had never edited the article before dropped in to "help out" in an edit war"

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Biophys'_dishonest_and_disruptive_editing "he rolled back all my edits; grammar, references, format, unrelated additions, tags etc.. just to revert one of the edits"

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Biophys_sockpuppet_fishing "he accuses everyone who he disagrees with of socking." See how he accusses you of socking in section above?

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Nikitn_about_some_of_the_editings_of_Biophys_and_his_group "Here is a classic example of Biophys's disruptive edits Talk:Human_rights_in_the_Soviet_Union#Biophys'_reverting"

212.83.176.41 (talk) 17:45, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Advice

Look, you quite obviously followed my edits, and not for the purpose of improving content [4]. Following my edits to improve content would be fine. I do not want you to be blocked or banned. Think about this: why no one happened to agree with you on a number of pages? To the contrary, multiple contributors had happen to disagree with you, and they are generally different contributors on different pages. What can you do? Stop arguing with multiple contributors on these pages and do your best to actually improve something else. My very best wishes (talk) 18:52, 22 April 2018 (UTC)