User talk:Geohem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Geohem, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or Insert-signature.png or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! satusuro 15:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Neutrality in Crimea-related articles[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm CodeCat. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Sevastopol seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. CodeCat (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Warning re: edits on Ukraine[edit]

As an admin on the Ukrainian Wikipedia, I'm sure you know that contentious edits need WP:CONSENSUS before implementation. Your edit on Ukraine are not consistent with the consensus from past RfCs. The use of "occupied" is not neutral. Also, your edit made the population estimates incorrect by flipping which numbers included Crimea. We use the English spelling "Kiev", not "Kyiv". Please use the talk page before making any other edits. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have replied to you at talk page of article, it was revert to version at 11 april . Hope you will not continue to do not consensus changes at infobox --Geohem (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Geohem. 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)

Battle of Konotop[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. All sources cited in the references, such as the academic works by Davies, Kroll and Babulin, agree that the Russian army lost 4,679 men in total, a figure that has been proved by a recent study of 17th-century archive documents. It is not just one "Russian source", as you tried to brand it, but a conclusion of modern scholarship. These sources don't support your number, so don't place it before them to make it seem "sourced". Furthermore, the figure of 30,000 men has been criticized in detail and is now regarded by the leading experts in the field as a heavily exaggeratted number, which is not based on any credible evidence whatsoever. See the sources cited and the rest of the article. It shouldn't be placed above modern and more reliable estimates. SlavonicStudies (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You are wrong, removing reliable source it is a WP:POV. Such scholar as Davies has written, that 4,679 it is estimate based on the Russian documents, otherwise exist another estimate - 30000. As I understand, you didn’t read this book? Geohem (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
I guess it is you who should clearly read the sources instead of making disruptive edits and re-read my previous message, as you have failed to understand it. All the sources are critical towards the 30,000 figure, don't accept it and consider it a hugely inflated number. That old estimate has been criticized at length by modern scholars as unreliable, exaggerated, and not based on any credible evidence whatsoever. And again, I have to repeat that these sources don't support your number, so don't place it before them to make it seem "sourced". See the sources cited and the rest of the article. It shouldn't be placed above modern and more reliable estimates, though it can be mentioned somewhere in the 'Aftermath' section. Not to mention that all numbers in the infobox are from recent studies, whereas yours is an old one and has nothing to do with them. SlavonicStudies (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Can you quote where, for example, Davies are critical towards the 30,000 figure, don't accept it and consider it a hugely inflated number?Geohem (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Davies is just one of them and, as I have pointed out, he prefers the documentary evidence over the claim repeated by "some writers": "Although some writers repeat the claim that 30,000 Muscovites were killed or captured at Konotop, lists Trubetskoi submitted to the Ambassadors’ Chancellery report total losses of 4,769 men: 2,830 of L’vov’s and Pozharskii’s column sent across the Sosnovka, and 1,896 during the attacks upon Trubetskoi’s withdrawing wagenburg. Soloviev’s judgment that “the flower of the Russian cavalry had perished in one day” is true only in the sense that at least 259 of those killed or captured were officers or men of Moscow rank (zhilets and above)." Only 259 officers lost, documentary evidence over claims repeated by some writers. He also adds that the Russian army "numbered about 15–20,000 men, the maximum that could have been spared at the time from the Belgorod Line, when it had entered Ukraine in November". Needless to say, 15,000-20,000 men could not lose 30,000. If you have any problems with understanding his text, you can always reach him by email and he will tell you exactly the same thing and prove he doesn't accept the old estimate. SlavonicStudies (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
He represent the number of 4,769, as submitted in lists Trubetskoi. But he didn't prove this figures, as you told. Geohem (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
He doesn't need to, as other historians have already done it in great detail, and documentary evidence checked by a state commission is (regarded by historians and Davies in particular as) more reliable than claims made out of thin air and not based on anything worth of consideration. For the detailed criticism of those claims see other works cited in the article; the criticism has also been supported by Kroll, and no scholar to date has come up with any rational argument to counter it. SlavonicStudies (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)