User talk:Mhorg

Warning

Mhorg, whenever you accuse someone of WP:FOLLOWING, you must substantiate that with diff evidence, otherwise it counts as an WP:ASPERSION, which isn't allowed and may lead to sanctions. El_C 00:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry El C didn't know this rule. User User:Nicoljaus just starting deletion[1] of my very old edit of 25 May 2020. This is the same thing happened with User:My very best wishes, same deletion[2] in these days of harsh discussions. Again, MVBW removes[3] my old edit of 1 October 2020, and again he removes[4] my old edit of 9 October 2020. I guess they are checking all my old edits for malicious actions (they still have to bring me back one), but in the meantime, I guess they want to annoy me as well, otherwise these removals won't be explained after al this time.--Mhorg (talk) 07:23, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a very heavy and unfair accusation, because in fact I tried to save this table, taken from a primary source, by bringing a secondary source that discusses its data and puts it in the right context: 10:08, 18 February 2021, 15:38, 18 February 202. And it's not my fault that IP-users came out of nowhere and didn't let me do it.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't know what are you doing with all these anon users. I don't want to discuss other topics with you, what we are having on Navalny is enough for me, which is already draining my energy. I just got a notification where I saw that my old edit was accidentally and again removed by someone involved in our harsh discussions.--Mhorg (talk) 08:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

What "notification" are you talking about? I don't understand how you could get a notification if I just deleted a redundant section in the article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I have an RSS Feed on the articles I edited.--Mhorg (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I may not understand something, but the RSS feed should have pointed you to my previous edits too. In any case, you should have looked at the edit history before making such accusations.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Accidentally you started adding things to contrast my old edit, and again accidentally you deleted my edit. Ok, it's all a coincidence, you are not following my edits. It is I who am paranoid. Sorry.--Mhorg (talk) 08:48, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Reply

• Re to [5]. Whatever you think, we only had a few civil discussions on several pages, we did not start any edit wars, and the content was actually improved. Also, let me assure that I had absolutely no intention to harass you. When I came to edit a page for whatever reason (such as an article appeared in a discussion or I just looked at something related in WP), I frequently do not even check who edited this page before. I simply look at the page to fix whatever I think needs to be fixed and explain in my edit summary. Like here, here, etc. I simply do not check who and when originally inserted such content because I do not care. Yes, now I can see that was you, long time ago. But that was probably someone else? More important, when you objected like here, or here, I did not revert your edits. And you call this harassment? My very best wishes (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Believe me, you are the first user, after the sockpuppet User:LauraWilliamson, with whom I am having serious problems in 6 years of activity on Wikipedia. I'm sorry but I don't believe your words, on the contrary, I find them manipulative and mystifying, as I have already had the opportunity to explain in the AE request. In that same request I tried to show how you are following me from article to article, confronting me, as per Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. I hope some admin can kindly check this and help me out (if I'm right).--Mhorg (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

You say that I want to remove all "controversial" content under pretense of undue weight. This is not the case. There are criteria what content is due on a page, and I explained them to you here. Now, speaking about guidelines and your edit on page Alexievich, you inserted new content, and it can be reverted per WP:BRD, so you need to have consensus to include it. Moreover, this is a BLP page, and WP:BLP say about it: "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

As about our little content disagreement about Navalny, it can be resolved easily. If you suggest any reasonable and neutrally worded text related to Georgia based on the scholarly source mentioned, I will agree immediately. But if you insist on specific wording that includes insects and rodents, well, then you need to submit an RfC and see if that will be supported by community. My very best wishes (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

So, does it look like a good plan to resolve our single content disagreement on page Navalny? I believe we do not have any other disagreements on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

The fact that I have silently accepted Narod's total removal does not mean that I agree with what you have done. I was just focusing on the AE request. As for the Russo-Georgian war, I am waiting for your proposal on the matter for about 20 days, I made mine: it is precisely what Navalny wrote on his blog, without interpretations, without the possibility of misunderstanding.--Mhorg (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I do not have any because I am fine with omitting it, just as I am fine with inclusion if properly worded. "it is precisely what Navalny wrote on his blog, without interpretations" - yes, I think that's exactly the problem here. You are just finding something "controversial" and sourced to dump it to BLP pages. Same with page about Aleksievich. We must include content that has been interpreted (i.e. placed to proper context) by secondary RS, preferably review articles and preferably scholarly ones or written by experts. For example, that would be good RS about such views by Navalny, and that would be a good RS about Aleksievich. If we do not have such good sources, then it may be debatable, but we do have them, specifically on the subjects under discussion. Now, if you want to know what Navalny really thinks about nationalism, here is (Russian source) he explains it in dialog with Adam Michnik. My very best wishes (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

(You know Russian). So, according to this interview,

Michnik ask: "А сейчас нет визового режима?"

Navalny: Нет. И весь мой национализм в данном вопросе заключается в том, чтобы такой режим был, в том числе и для того, чтобы соблюдать права мигрантов. Потому что если мы таким образом фильтруем поток, то мигранты вынуждены получать разрешение на работу и оформлять медицинскую страховку. В случае необходимости они смогут рассчитывать на правовую и медицинскую помощь. А сейчас мы имеем совершенно дикую ситуацию. Допустим, нелегальному мигранту на стройке отрезало руку. И что ему делать? Умирать под забором? Лечить его никто не будет. Я считаю, что Россия должна ориентироваться на опыт цивилизованных стран, пользоваться такими инструментами, как визы и рабочие квоты. С этого нужно начинать. Если посмотреть шире, то моя концепция заключается в том, что нужно общаться с националистами и вести с ними разъяснительную работу.", etc.

This is a very very much different position from sometehing you are trying to include. My very best wishes (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

As about "Narod", I did not remove it. N. did. My very best wishes (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

It is clear that you have no proposals, this is precisely why I opened the AE request. If you wanted to solve it, you would have made a proposal.
On the Georgian issue you are forgetting (Wikipedia:ICANTHEARYOU) that if we had used the available RS, we would have simply written that he supported the war (this is indeed controversial). While the version with the mix between the primary source and the RS specified a different thing, namely that according to him Russia was required to implement various measures to stop the war.
Speaking of nationalism, you bring me an interview from 2015, when all of his pro-nationalist and anti-immigration statements and videos are from around 2006 to 2013. As for me you can also insert this explanation, specifying the year, the important thing is that you do not remove what happened before, it's called "whitewashing".--Mhorg (talk) 20:09, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

So, your suggested version is this, and this is your justification [6]? If so, then start an RfC. Then you will see if this is only me or other users will also object. My very best wishes (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

We're talking about the Russo-Georgian war, and you bring me the part about the NAROD videos. So we'll never understand each other, and maybe that's what you want.--Mhorg (talk) 07:09, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

But then what exactly "proposal on the matter for about 20 days" you made? Looking at the article talk page [7], I do not see any specific text you suggested. My very best wishes (talk) 15:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I have repeatedly argued that Nicolajius' version (the first) was acceptable (Alaexis agreed too), i.e. where we had combined the primary source with the multiple RSs. My final proposal is dated 9 February 2021, 20 days ago.--Mhorg (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you just gave me a diff to your minor edit on the page. What specific text did you suggest and where did you suggest it 20 days ago? My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

"To avoid misunderstandings and interpretations, we can simply report the measures proposed by Navalny on his own blog during the Russo-Georgian war. We cannot simply pretending that nothing happened. date:10:07, 9 February 2021.
For this reason I propose for now to restore the part about the Georgia, combining the primary source with the RS. date 21:30, 10 February 2021
Also Alaexis understood what part was proposed (the last part to restore [8]), because he answered: WP:NPOV: it's phrased in a neutral way, it's mentioned that he was against sending Russian troops to Georgia/South Ossetia and that later he apologised for the words he used. WP:UNDUE: this does not occupy too much or too prominent space in the Policies section, we should basically follow the RS when deciding the importance of this particular position. It was the part deleted by Nicolajius[9], but you continue to pretend you don't understand.--Mhorg (talk) 16:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

OK. Based on the diffs provided, you did NOT propose to include any specific text to the page. At this note, I am leaving your talk page. Happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

(Wikipedia:ICANTHEARYOU) Go ahead and pretend you don't understand. I specified that the text I proposed was the one we had built together with Nicolajius and Alaexis and that Nicolajius then removed. I don't know how else to explain it to you. It is very simple and clear.--Mhorg (talk) 16:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Right Sector VS Hungarians

Hello! I've seen the Right Sector's talk page, that you reverted my edits. Listen, the Right Sector hates the russian peoples and the hungarian peoples. I have proof mate, so it's real, and not fake. Here is my proof! https://kuruc.info/r/7/221272/, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/P-9-2020-006618_EN.html. That's the two proofs. If you speak Hungarian, or English, that you will see the Ukranian nationalists, that are hates the Hungarians and the Russians in Ukraine. It's real, not fake. Just belive me, and you can thank me later. Have nice day! --TomFZ67 (talk) 15:41, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

TomFZ67 I have no reason to doubt that a neo-fascist organization doesn't hate people from other nations. What I'm telling you is that you need sources that specify this hatred. The site you provided me does not seem reliable, at least from the images I see. The link of the European parliament does not talk about Right Sector instead. If there have been cases of violence against Hungarians, surely some reliable Hungarian newspapers will have reported it. Can you do a deeper research?--Mhorg (talk) 15:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I will take a look at this. My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

My very best wishes Oh thanks mate! I only speak English and Hungarian languages. :Mhorg If you need anything, just conctact me, i perfectly speak English and Hungarian language. Have nice day! --TomFZ67 (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

"My very best wishes", I wasn't talking to you, but do as you think... now you also join other discussions on my talk page. Ok...--Mhorg (talk) 16:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

MVBW, did you mistake Mhorg's talk page for your own or something? Because your terse interjection above (however well-meaning) comes across as darn pretty weird, context and all. El_C 16:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, user TomFZ67 commented simultaneously with me, I just saw their comment and decided to check what user TomFZ67 is talking all about (actually I meant to respond to TomFZ67). But whatever. As I said in my previous comment, I am leaving this talk page for good. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• TomFZ67 I found a source that could be used.[10] I don't know if it's reliable, but being a pro-Ukrainian source there is no conflict of interest and there is no reason to doubt the information reported. If you want, you can restore the part.--Mhorg (talk) 11:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Azov Battalion. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back:, ok, but I was just reverting the edit of an anonymous user, waiting to understand the diatribe in the discussions section. That definition had been there for months, I didn't enter it.--Mhorg (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

The edits of anonymous users are no less legitimate than the edits of the most seasoned editor and in this case the anonymous IP would appear to have a historical consensus on their side. A new RfC on the issue should be forthcoming shortly, you most likely won’t have to wait long until we have that or something close back in the lead. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Re: BLPs and Wikipedia

Hey Mhorg,

Remember that with BLPs, the harsher the allegation, the stronger the evidence must be. It's true that Greniuch was a leader in some far-right neo-fascist organization, and that he was photographed giving a Nazi salute; but that does not necessarily imply that he either was in the past, or is now a neo-Nazi. WP:BLP means extra sensitivity to these sort of distinctions, even if in some cases common sense may tell you they're redundant. Try to rely not only on good sources (with scholarly, peer reviewed publications at the top), but on a lot of them. In this case you have a lot of sources to establish the first two claims (former far-right leader, etc.), but only one for the third (actual neo-Nazi), so you should be extra careful if you decide to make that claim.

There's another aspect of this that you should be aware of: in WP:BATTLEGROUND-prone topic areas, it is not unlikely that some editors will be keeping track of what you do. Anything that can be construed as a Policy violation, whether intentional or not, could be used against you at a later time - so take care not to provide anyone with too much material!

Cheers. François Robere (talk) 21:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi @François Robere:, now I understand what that user meant. Maybe I take too many things for granted, I agree with you that I need to be more cautious. I'll first restore that Greniuch source, I will let the community decide whether such a character has legitimacy to be used as a source. Thank you for your patience and courtesy to explain these rules to me.--Mhorg (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Your help desk question

You did not get a response to this question and I'm not entirely sure what you are asking. Did you find an answer somewhere else?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:06, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Vchimpanzee: thanks for your interest. Currently I have abandoned the question, not understanding if it is of interest to the community and if it is legitimate to discuss it and where discuss it.--Mhorg (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic banned on all things relating to Lyudmyla Denisova, and a formal logged warning has been created regarding Eastern Europe in general. More detail is available at the WP:AE closure.

You have been sanctioned via the discussion at [11]

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It may interest you to know…

…that a user who I noticed you saying countered (all) your contributions to a particular article gets an unsavoury mention in the external article I’ve linked on my talk page. You’ll find it on my talk page under the heading that includes the words "names names". All the best to you. Boscaswell talk 03:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

June 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Slava Ukraini. This means that you are changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Arorae (talk) 13:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Ivan Katchanovski

Hello, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. I notice that you have recently, and very swiftly, reverted one or more of my edits to the article Ivan Katchanovski. I would like to remind you that you have been warned to be on good behaviour when edited topics relating to Eastern Europe. You have contributed constructively to the Talk page, please continue to use it when it is clear that there is not a consensus. Nangaf (talk) 07:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hello Nangaf. Mine was not a revert, I just moved that part of the text from the lede to the body. Please also note that I edited 6 times the article in one month, precisely to avoid something that could be perceived as editwar. Mhorg (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

BLPN Jorit discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts thank you for helping the community deal with this problem. The personal attacks by this anonymous user were becoming unbearable. Mhorg (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

My edit at Freedom of Russia Legion

Hi there, just wanted to apologise and say thank you for reverting my edit and correcting me. I made an mistake by not properly checking the source linked by the IP user and reading the article properly, as I should have. Sisuvia (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

No problem, mistakes can happen to anyone. Mhorg (talk) 13:51, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Ivan Katchanovski for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ivan Katchanovski is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivan Katchanovski (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Nangaf (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Petro Dyachenko, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nikopol.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:12, 5 March 2024 (UTC)