User talk:Mzajac

Wikipedia 15

Wikipedia15 Winnipeg maple leaf golden boy thunderbird house provencher bridge YWG

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)

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)

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)

Yo Ho Ho

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.

Talkback

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.

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Wikiproject Ukraine

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

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.

Happy St. Patrick's Day

Happy St. Patrick's Day! I hope your St. Patrick's Day is enjoyable and safe. Hopefully next year there will be more festive celebrations. Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk

A barnstar for your efforts

		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)

Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine#Commanders and leaders

This post is quite clearly a straw man argument. In responding, I did WP:AGF despite this. A strawman argument is a logical fallacy: A fallacy is reasoning that is logically invalid, or that undermines the logical validity of an argument. Your response (the first paragraph) not only represents a statement as a quote when no such statement was made but it is not even a reasonable paraphrase of what was actually said. It is another strawman argument. Given the first post referred to herein, I cannot see how this can be ascribed to a misunderstanding; however, if it is, I don't see that there would be a problem with redacting the first paragraph, notwithstanding that you might make a substitution. On the other hand, I would note that WP:STRAWMAN statements intentionally made are considered inherently against the civility policy. Either way, I would believe it appropriate to redact (strike through) the first para of your most recent post. I would also note that (per WP:P&G) it would be inappropriate to make edits to that paragraph at this time. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Replied there. —Michael Z. 14:17, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Michael, I believe you are doing this again - ie talking to only part of a statement (out of context) rather than the full statement in which I said: While Crimea is disputed territory in the greater scheme of things, it was nonetheless held by Russia preinvasion. [emphasis added] I did not sneak anything in nor did I imply that the Russian claim was legitimate or had been legitimised. I was simply pointing out that being in Crimea is not so clear cut and [i]t is certainly not a clear line that an Iranian presence in Crimea constitutes "boots on the ground" and an act of aggression. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

@Cinderella157, I replied to a statement that is absolutely wrong, in that context or out of it. Iranian illegal military presence within Ukraine’s borders is literally boots on the ground. Its participation in the invasion on the side of the aggressor state is clear involvement in the conflict and complicity in Russia’s crime of aggression (and may even constitute direct aggression according to the UN’s definition, para. 3[b]).[1] —Michael Z. 00:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

My statement that: While Crimea is disputed territory in the greater scheme of things, it was nonetheless held by Russia preinvasion. is factually correct in every respect. And it is not a a clear line that an Iranian presence in Crimea constitutes "boots on the ground" and an act of aggression. To argue that it is would be WP:OR - until we have authoritative sources (ie the UN) declaring that it is (as we have for Belarus?). Please dial back the WP:BATTLEGROUNDy rhetoric and refrain from WP:STRAWMAN type arguments that misrepresent the full context of what was said. One can have a robust discussion within the reasonable bounds of civility. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

In the most recent discussion on this subject, you make the statement: I think you are wikilawyering by creating your own non-consensus interpretation of the guideline that you foxiest mentioned here, to prevent perfectly normal and reasonable information from being placed in the infobox. Earlier, you stated: That a lot of dancing around the language. Dancing around language is pretty much pettifogging but it was not stated as a personalised direct allegation regarding conduct. You are now making a personalised direct allegation regarding conduct and bad faith (see WP:AOBF) that can be construed as a personal attack because it has been personalised. You should take the matter to a drama board and substantiate your allegation or redact the statement. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Pointing out your unsound argument is not a personal attack.

I should go to a drama board?!  —Michael Z. 15:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Pointing out an unsound argument is not a personal attack. Making a personalised (using you) direct allegation regarding conduct and bad faith is. Drama board = ANI. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I don’t think you are arguing in bad faith. I think your argument is unsound. I think you are applying an unreasonably strict and narrow interpretation of the advice in the guidelines on more than one count, and you don’t have consensus on your side. It is not a disciplinary matter, but it is needless obstruction of working on the article.  —Michael Z. 22:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I might make similar observations with respect to the arguments made to support inclusion. The distinction is that I address the argument not the person - ie the argument is unsound not your argument is unsound, which is personalised. One should avoid pejorative statements and definitely avoid personalising them (eg ... you are wikilawyering ...) unless you are actually making an allegation - because that is what it is. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

You have some nerve, after accusing me of “pettifogging.”  —Michael Z. 01:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

No, what I said was: such a case [the argument] would appear to fall to WP:PETTIFOGGING. This was after you having stated: That a lot of dancing around the language and such a statement would pretty much be a definition of pettifogging. The distinction is when one ceases to address the argument and starts to address the person. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Such an argument would appear to fall into the category of horse shit.  —Michael Z. 04:15, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Michael, one of us is a fenagling, pettifogging, wikilawyering bastard and the RfC will reveal which. If it is me, and you undertake to reciprocate, I will stand butt naked at my front gate and send you a photo (back view and without mooning) as proof and offer an apology here explicitly stating that I am the person so described. In the chance that the RfC has "no consensus" (versus a decision one way or the other) I undertake to offer an apology here "for any angst caused" (again, reciprocated). Should you decline this challenge, the honourable thing is to reddact the offending sentence in full (I think you are wikilawyering by creating your own non-consensus interpretation ...) with a hyperlink to this section of your talk page. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

No interest in any of that.  —Michael Z. 17:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

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) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Bolding Konigsberg in the lead of Kaliningrad

Hello Mzajac! I noticed that you reverted my edit of reverting an IP user bolding "Konigsberg" (I can't easily type special characters) in the lead of Kaliningrad. I decided to read the relevant MOS and I'm not sure if the MOS supports the bolding of "Konigsberg" as MOS:BOLDALTNAMES says "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative names (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold" (italics not mine). The main issue I have is that "Konigsberg" does not redirect to Kaliningrad, but instead has it's own article, and the MOS doesn't seem to say what to do in this case. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf, I will self revert for now (also because the name is a link), but maybe there should be a discussion about this. In my view, these articles are about two (chronologically separated) aspects of one subject that has had two names. See, for example, Istanbul, but contrast with Constantinople and Byzantium.  —Michael Z. 15:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright sounds good. I figured I would ask you first instead of just reverting since the MOS didn't exactly make it clear what to do in this case. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Kadiivka

Hi Michael, happy new year. I was wondering if English-language sources might have already started adopting Stakhanov's official name. The last RM was in 2018 (almost 2019), but the new invasion has increased the use of Ukrainian transliteration as well as instances of reliable sources discussing Ukrainian places. I would not be surprised if Kadiivka currently is more used than Stakhanov, it certainly is being used a lot now. It might be worth taking a look to. Super Ψ Dro 13:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus it’s a bit tricky to gauge, because Stakhanov is also a historical name and appears in unrelated contexts. I tried to narrow it a bit by adding Ukraine to the search, but that still finds results about the historical person, although they can mention the city too.

Google News results, limited to 1 year, manually counting results. (results over 100 are not shown in GN.)

• Ukraine "Kadiivka" when:1y -Wikipedia 100+
• Ukraine "Kadiyivka" when:1y -Wikipedia 20
• Ukraine "Stakhanov" when:1y -Wikipedia 73

Limited to the last week, results are 4, 0, 0.

Google Books, 2020 to present:

• Ukraine "Kadiivka" -Wikipedia 2
• Ukraine "Kadiyivka" -Wikipedia 1
• Ukraine "Stakhanov" -Wikipedia 15, 4 or 5 of which appear to name the city

Google Scholar, 2020 to present:

• Ukraine "Kadiivka" -Wikipedia 12
• Ukraine "Kadiyivka" -Wikipedia 2
• Ukraine "Stakhanov" -Wikipedia 227 (of the first 10, 4 or 5 appear to mention the city)

Feel free to propose the move and copy-paste my results above. I think it’s worthwhile, since the news is clearly using the current name, and the Scholar results may need a bit more investigation.  —Michael Z. 21:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It is clear to me that today English-language news use Kadiivka more widely. I have started the RM. Super Ψ Dro 01:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

"knowingly repeating disinformation"

See this. I’m serious, please act. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:22, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh and this - openly defend lies. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:48, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Kostomarov

Hi Michael Z. Would you consider withdrawing the new RfC and just starting a regular talk page discussion? It's possible that focused attention on the issue might lead to local consensus, and at worst it might help to iron out some concrete proposal language. If not, could you tweak your opening statement to be more neutral by removing the bit about "primary notability"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers, the question was discussed extensively to an impasse, leading to a 3rd opinion which was disregarded by the other party, and then an RFC where this part of the issue was not addressed.

Primary notability is material. Mykola Kostomarov was one of the “three figures who were to become the leading symbols of the Ukrainian national revival” (with Taras Shevchenko and Panteleimon Kulish), the “the founder of modern Ukrainian historiography,” and “one of the great founding fathers of Ukrainian history and literature.” His notability should precede a sundry list of his works in the lead.

The other involved editor, @Ушкуйник, constantly Russifies Ukrainian historical subjects by erasing their Ukrainian identity (e.g. [2][3][4][5]). This two-month dispute resolution effort is the only way I’ve been able incorporate due weight of material from reliable sources into this one article (without indulging in edit wars).  —Michael Z. 05:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow, now that I’ve written that down, it’s quite discouraging.  —Michael Z. 05:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear it MZ. I'm familiar with some of that background from my pre-closure review, but not all. I think you have a solid base of sourcing (though the first source is more relevant than the latter two), which I'd recommend citing in your !vote. I really do feel like

Should the lead describe Kostomarov as "a symbol of the Ukrainian national revival" in the first paragraph, before listing off his professional accomplishments?

would be a stronger, more neutral opening statement. I won't press any further, and I wish you all the best either way. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.  —Michael Z. 06:16, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

References

My thoughts on POV pushing Ukraine editors

A content dispute is not going to produce a block at ANI, but perhaps WP:AE for persistent disruptive and tendentious editing will result in a warning. Given enough warnings and an intractable dispute you could then obtain a block. However, for now, we can simply inform this user that there is no consensus for this fringe POV pushing because Ukraine is not run by neo-Nazis and hopefully they will hear and understand the message rather than persisting with this claim. Andre🚐 19:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@Andrevan, quite right. Although if this stuff keeps coming to ANI there will be awareness. But it’s a pain to do.

I have found that unchallenged unacceptable statements can multiply, and so I have resolved to keep drawing attention and pointing out what they represent when they are committed. (Whereas politely pointing it out on user talk is ignored or yields take a hike.)  —Michael Z. 21:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Super Dromaeosaurus, Mzajac and Jeppiz. Thank you. —Cinderella157 (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2023 (UTC)