User talk:Nicoljaus/Archive

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Nicoljaus, 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:

You may also want to complete 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 ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Moonraker (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your greeting, Moonraker! If there are any problems with my contributions, I will be glad to correct my behavior.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ruWiki[edit]

Здравствуйте, уважаемый Николай, по моему вы напрасно затеяли диспут на странице по поводу темы связанной с ИК, всё это абсолютно бесполезно, вас никто не будет слушать и с вами никто не будет считаться. Вам в ruWiki не дадут править статьи. Целая группа агрессивно настроенных пропагандистов, а не историков, при полной поддержке админов вам это делать не даст. Писать можно в любой Wiki кроме ru. Это рассчитано, что большинство русскоязычных читателей ваши правки не увидят. Не каждый, имеющий ноутбук станет читать иноязычную Вики. С удивлением обнаружил, что в планшетах с операционной системой Андроид вообще нет колонки со ссылкой на иноязычные Вики, невозможно в планшетах и посмотреть историю изменения статей. Наши с вами оппоненты рассчитывают, что большинство русскоязычных читателей никогда не должны узнать негативные (по их мнению), но имевшие место события и факты. Это положение дел практически во всём русскоязычном интернете (на наиболее посещаемых сайтах).Wlbw68 (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Приветствую. Я, конечно, ни на что особо не расчитываю. Но наблюдать, как опытные участники извиваются ужами на сковородке чтобы оправдать сохранение в статье заведомой дезинформации — достаточно забавно.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Если вам это нравится, то ещё о Темпусе, который активно добивался моей блокировки. Начал переводить биографию Дворкина и обнаружил следующее: Дворкин учился в Фордемском университете. По своему содержанию это иезуитский, католический университет (у него и в логотипе стоит эмблема иезуитов). Для того чтобы это скрыть и обелить Дворкина (кому же из ревнителей православных понравится, что главный борец с сектами учился у "еретиков-католиков") Темпус переводит статью Fordham University и посмотрите как он её "переводит", в частности он пишет: "...был основан Нью-йоркской епархией Римско-католической церкви в 1841 году как Колледж Св. Иоанна (англ. St. John's College). Немного погодя колледж был передан под опеку ордена иезуитов и вскоре стал независимым вузом под управление светского совета попечителей, который, тем не менее, подтвердил преемственность образования «в иезуитских традициях»." Что же такое вскоре, а это 1969 год! Милый перевод. :-) Через 128 лет университет формально объявил себя независимым, но до настоящего времени любой президент университета священник-иезуит. Университет является одним из 28 учреждений-членов ассоциации колледжей и университетов иезуитов (независимый примерно как RT). Конечно об этом Tempus писать не стал. С чего он "переводил" — неизвестно, считаю что он просто скрыл значимые факты, исказил смысл и написал собственный текст с учётом пропаганды. Вы наверное помните словесную эквилибристику Темпуса, когда он в лучших иезуитских традициях защищал Дворкина, не давал внести информацию в статью, изобличающую автобиографическую ложь Дворкина, и при помощи админов банил оппонентов. Лгать везде и всегда, тех кто сопротивляется этой лжи банить при помощи не менее лживых чем Темпус админов. Вот такие нравы и такая свобода теперь в ruWiki.Wlbw68 (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Да, красиво. При этом встатье о Дворкине, разумеется, "так называемый «иезуитский университет»", просто основанный Католической церковью.--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Доброго здоровья, уважаемый Николай, сочувствую вашей бессрочной блокировке в ruWiki. Вы повторили мой путь в ruWiki (что и следовало ожидать). Могу сказать следующее: антисемитизм правит бал. В обе статьи "Кишинёвский погром" и "Войков" вы добавляли совершенно объективную информацию, в отличии от вашего оппонента, искажающего факты; за что собственно вам абсолютно несправедливо и нечестно влепила бессрочку та же самая дама, что и мне. В современной России, благодаря официальной пропаганде, фигура Николая II раздута до величайших размеров (какие-то ночные крестные ходы, общегородские молебны, всенародное покаяние, какие-то свистопляски с мощами и т. п.), она стала настолько неприкасаемой, что любой в ruWiki негатив удаляется вместе с теми википедистами, которые вносят его. Wlbw68 (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Да, было предсказуемо, эта фашизоидная кодла пользуется полной безнаказанностью. Обработка населения РФ на тему злодеев-пинхусов должна идти согласно плану.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018[edit]

Your recent editing history at Ruthenians 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. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:33, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ruthenians. Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Kulikovo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Don River (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

fixed--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Answer:[edit]

Tom Rogan wrote about real vandalism. And you are writing in wikipedia about this article. How do you think, who of us doing vandalism in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.161.41.70 (talk) 07:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an excuse to write trolling about "international ranks" with the fake article title in the ref.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicoljaus, I think that Tom Rogan is stupid face №1 is not an excuse to write about his stupid articles in Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.9.136.47 (talk) 08:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Girkin[edit]

А как у тебя получилось?[2] Там же стоит "В районе Тореза только что сбили самолет Ан-26[...]"(link). Ничего не стоит про то, кто збил. Heptor (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

В сумме. "Сбили" + "предупреждали же" + "в нашем небе". Ни единого дополнительного местоимения, которое могло бы указать на "третью силу" или указать на отстранённость "стрелковцев" - нет. Если ни при чем, то по-другому фразы строят. Ну, типа "их сбили, а мы же предупреждали". Тут этого нет, уточнения излишни, сторон всего две, никто не перепутает.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 19[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Panfilov's Twenty-Eight Guardsmen, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fabrication (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Poisoning_of_Sergei_and_Yulia_Skripal#Suspected_perpetrators

MartinezMD (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John of Kronstadt‎[edit]

Почему, вы вернули неконсенcунсую версию? Aleksei m (talk) 14:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not understand your discrepancies, but this is not an excuse to cancel all edits made since February. This behavior is very similar to vandalism. Discuss with Wlbw68‎; look for consensus.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you find this phrase. Please, show a citation from the book. Aleksei m (talk) 18:33, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Иоанн осуждал любой интерес к политике, хотя сам активно участвовал в событиях своего времени; его политическое направление было крайне правым. Он был непримиримым врагом всех, кто бросал вызов властям, и не только революционеров (для которых он требовал самых суровых наказаний), но и сторонников умеренных либеральных реформ."--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an answer. I asked for a citation for your phrase. Aleksei m (talk) 18:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a quote from a book in the ref, read it.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Aleksei m (talk) 15:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 11[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Kulikovo, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rusyn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find a suitable solution. I think that this quotation from the medieval work is best to refer to the dizambig.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wish[edit]

Hello. Help expansion article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. 125.214.49.215 (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested at all.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018[edit]

I saw that you were having some problems on the article on Ruthenia. I have reverted the edit-warring IP editor, and posted an edit-warring notice on his/her talk page. If the IP continues edit-warring, we may need to post a notice on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. One of the questions, when we do this, is has there been an attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page. It would help a lot if you made a brief posting on Talk:Ruthenia explaining why the information in dispute needs to stay.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your intervention. I'll follow your advice.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring[edit]

Hello. Please see the talk page on the Taras Bulba-Borovets page and please stop edit warring. 50.226.149.83 (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018[edit]

Your recent editing history at Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 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. Andrewgprout (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"SA-11" was in the article since July 2014: a damage pattern indicative of a SA-11. So, what we have:

1. Change in consensus version: [3] - the revert to consensus: [4]

2. Start of the edit war, re-introduction of non-consensus changes: [5] and the righteous revert: [6]

3. Third addition of non-consensus changes: [7] and the righteous revert: [8]

4. Finally, you Andrewgprout have made the fourth (!!!) entering of non-consensus changes and the third revert for this one day: [9] Did you expect that you will be able to push the changes because their revert will violate the Three-revert rule? This is definitely a game with rules.

Do you want to change the consensus? Try to justify the need to falsify the words of sources on the article talk page. When you get consent with your point of view, changes will be made. Not before, sorry.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threats without diffs? What's the matter?--Nicoljaus (talk) 00:18, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schism of 2018[edit]

Здравствуйте, уважаемый Николай. Вы начали редактировать данную статью, вы с английским дружите гораздо лучше чем я, может вы внесёте сведения о делении диоцезов согласно документу 1589 года? Кроме того, информацию о том, что после 1686 года Константинопольский патриарх остался главой Киевской митрополии (его должны были поминать на литургии перед именем Московского патриарха). Подробнее можно прочитать здесь: https://diak-kuraev.livejournal.com/2175268.html Если честно, то лживая пропаганда в России, как всегда, искажает исторические факты через СМИ. Wlbw68 (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Приветствую. Я только начал разбираться в этом вопросе и стараюсь очень осторожно править. А что за документ 1589 года? Об учреждении патриархии?--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Да, он и документ 1593 года, согласно им за Русской церковью закреплена определенная территория − Diocese, границы этой территории − константа, в 1686 году диоцез Русской церкви никто не менял. Возношение имени Константинопольского патриарха перед именем Московского патриарха за литургией, которое должно было быть согласно грамоте 1686 года, означает, что предстоятелем Киевской митрополии оставался Вселенский патриарх и Киевская митрополия это его диоцез. Ставил епископов для Киевской митрополии Московский патриарх по необходимости, а вовсе не потому что поменяли границы диоцезов. Вопрос здесь не так прост, как кажется, но вы знаете как его освещают СМИ России: Киев это наша каноническая территория, русский мир и т. п. В статье должны быть изложены обе точки зрения на Киевскую митрополию как Москвы, так и Фанара. Wlbw68 (talk) 16:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Тут нужны обзорные источники, крайне желательно на английском. Попытаюсь поискать.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:30, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Не нашел подробного рассмотрения этого сюжета. Нашел одну энциклопедию, там визит Иеремии II расписан буквально по часам, но про субординацию Киевской Митрополии ни полслова. С исторической точки зрению ужасно интересный сюжет, но чем больше читаешь, тем все сложнее, а нужен текст на абзац. Иеремия сразу после дарования статуса патриархии Москве проехался по Украине и даровал ставропигию многим православным братствам, это возмутило местных епископов и послужило дополнительным толчком к Брестской Унии. В 1596 в Киеве уже униатский митрополит. А в это время новый Александрийский патриарх только со страшным скрипом одобрил патриархию для Москвы, а Москва оскорбилась своим пятым местом, и устроила свару, требуя для себя третье место в списке патриархов. А вскоре - Смута... Очень динамичное время было.--Nicoljaus (talk) 16:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- С Киевской митрополией действительно беда. В "Деянии Константинопольского Собора 1593 года, которым утверждено патриаршество в России" написано о Московском патриархе: «главою всей области Московской и всей России и северных стран» https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/pravila/dejanie-konstantinopolskogo-sobora-1593-goda-kotorym-utverzhdeno-patriarshestvo-v-rossii/ Что это за территория? - Непонятно. Можно предположить что в границах Московской Руси 1593 года, как это сделал Кураев. Есть ещё один источник «Соборная грамота 1686 года»: https://www.runivers.com/bookreader/book174870/#page/537/mode/1up К сожалению это всё первоисточники, но думаю ссылки на них не будут лишними в статье. Кое-что есть у Тальберга: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Istorija_Tserkvi/istorija-russkoj-tserkvi-talberg/4_15 у Карташова совсем кратко: https://azbyka.ru/otechnik/Anton_Kartashev/ocherki-po-istorii-russkoj-tserkvi-tom-2/1_4_3 Wlbw68 (talk) 07:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pyotr Voykov[edit]

The sources provided on the paragraph you refer to are in Russian, thus I cannot verify if they're reliable than Rappaport's book. But I'll let it lie for now. Wolcott (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wolcott. Sorry to interfere. But in this case, I completely agree with Nicoljaus. Helen Rappaport is not a historian, her books are imaginative literature. There are no references to sources in the text of her books. At the end of the book she gives a list of used literature. But what kind of bad books for historical science are listed here! Here is her book. Written to her about Voykov is not in the book of any serious historians and is not supported by any document. History is a merciless science, in spite of its faces and ideology, it should rely only on verified documents and facts. Once again, I'm sorry to have entered the conversation.Wlbw68 (talk) 01:38, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Wolcott, I'm very grateful to you for your restraint. I know very well how it's discouraging when somebody reverts your good faith edits. I will try to explain the situation. Helena's book was written in 2008. However, after that, new data appeared. In 2011, the official investigator Solovyov made a detailed comparison of Soviet accounts with the materials of Sokolov's investigation of 1919 and concluded that Voykov was not involved directly in the murder of the Royal family. I'll try to translate the part of the cited Solovyov's interview:

As for Peter Voykov, he really participated in the voting for the shooting of the royal family. He was also asked by the Council to write order for sulfuric acid. There was no more involvement of Voykov in these events. All the rest of the fiction about how he take off a ring with someone with a gun in his hands, chopped up the corpses - this is complete nonsense. <...> Thus, from a legal point of view, Voykov did not take part in the murder of the Tsar. All the charges against him are based on apocrypha, which was distributed by turncoat Besedovsky.

The "Story of Voykov" was published by Besedovsky after the death of former, so that Voykov himself could not comment on its reliability. In addition, even the friend of Besedovsky acknowledged his addiction for hoaxes and false memoirs:

When I met him, he was a completely different person. He was under sixty. A brilliant story-teller, an ingenious inventor who knew several foreign languages well (he was the first secretary of the Soviet embassy in Rome before Paris, and before that in Tokyo), he had already released several “sensational” fakes. <...> The "Kalinov" were followed by the "Notebooks of Stalin's nephew" (killed in World War II), also fabricated by Besedovsky. I have already said: in fantasy and in the art of narration, it was a real genius.

Until all the remains of the Royal family were discovered and studied, and until the memories of the real murders were made public, Besedovsky’s fantasy was rarely questioned. Now the situation has changed, although the accusations against Voykov continue to come from those for whom he is “Pinhus Weiner,” the organizer of the ritual murder of the Royal Family, ordered by "World Zionism".--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wlbw68, you say Helen Rappaport is not a historian and that her books are "imaginative literature". Is that your personal opinion? Because I can't find any real criticism of Helen Rappaport anywhere online. She's still attending talks about the Romanov family. Not saying I disagree with you, but if her works are unreliable, why haven't you publicly refuted her? I actually own a copy of the book you linked and had I known she was a sham I wouldn't have wasted my money buying it.

Nicoljaus, I noticed in June you removed a text from the murder article with the edit summary: Wendy Slater gives a self-composed narrative. "The narrator is a composite figure, whose experience, related here, has been imagined" . Cannot be a RS for such a controversial statement." Do you have a reliable source refuting what she wrote in her book or is that also your personal opinion? Because it is my understanding that wikipedia discourages original research. Wolcott (talk) 08:47, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Wolcott: Hello. You can find the phrase "The narrator is a composite figure, whose experience, related here, has been imagined" in the referenced book of Wendy Slater, it's her own disclaimer. I am also familiar with the original sources that Wendy lists, and there was nothing about sexual abuse there.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That explains it at least. But what about Rappaport? Is she also unreliable as @Wlbw68: claims? Wolcott (talk) 06:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Wolcott. Sorry, I forgot about this conversation. I have not read the whole book of Rappaport. Of those pages that I looked, I have the impression that Rappaport is a brilliant storyteller but she does not explore the issue as a historian. What is even worse, "Rappaport’s sympathy for the czar often seems naïve". Here is what the review of her other book on related topics says:

Yet her book lacks two things. The first is sophisticated analysis of the big issues that divided Russia’s politicians and their impassioned supporters. <...> Instead, she uses rightwing tabloid cliches about “Bolsheviks and anarchists whipping up protests”, “the worst Bolshevik-led troublemakers in the garrison”, “feverish meetings inflamed by speeches from Trotsky”, “familiar overblown Bolshevik rhetoric” and “how difficult it would be, once stirred, to bring this violent rabble under control”.
The second problem is the lack of Russian voices in the book. <...> Whether they were enthusiasts, sceptics or critics of the revolution, most reporters in Petrograd in 1917 were not participants with tongues and ears but merely eyewitnesses, albeit often with a talent for powerful description. Rappaport chooses their graphic accounts brilliantly. What today’s editors like to call the backstory is the bit that evades her.

--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

Здравствуйте уважаемый Николай, простите если мой вопрос вам покажется наивным, но существует ли в Википедии какой-нибудь международный арбитраж (типа ЕСПЧ) над русскими администраторами Википедии? Потому что действия редакторов, которым покровительствует мадам Alexandrine, она же A.Vajrapani уже ни в одни ворота:

Правка 1 Правка 2

Эти люди огромные куски очень значимой научной информации вместе со ссылками и источниками удаляют, понимаю, что чужой труд эти весьма необразованные люди не уважают совсем, но как можно удалять чисто научные сведения, оставляя только те сведения, которые нравятся идеологам ФСБ-РПЦ? Или борьба с этими мракобесами, врагами науки в русском сегменте Википедии бессмысленна и все научные сведения необходимо переводить и писать только в английском сегменте Википедии? Простите, что задал эти вопросы... Но мне очень не хочется, чтобы мои соотечественники, читатели русской Википедии, получали бы только оцеженные сведения точно так же как в Российских СМИ, были бы лишены научной информации и оставались бы темными и необразованными. Wlbw68 (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Приветствую. Боюсь, что нет такого арбитража. Но, кстати, разве авторство "Соборного деяния" действительно общепризнано за Дмитрием Суздальским? Кажется, склоняются скорее к Петру I, а Дмитрия, который недавно умер, выставили "подельцем".--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- - Димитрий Ростовский, он же Туптало. Первое упоминание о Мартине в его книге "Зерцало" (эту цитату при помощи правки аноним, сделавший всего 2 правки во всей Вики, убрал), Питирим писал, что "Соборное деяния" ему дал Туптало. Петр был человеком далёким от религии, нет ни намека в документах, что он вообще занимался Мартином. Меня очень возмутила первая правка, благодаря которой убрана информация. В любом древнем или современном греческом тексте рассказывается, что Мария с 3 до 12 лет жила именно в храме, да ещё во Святая Святых. Это же самое рассказывает любой древнерусский текст до Димитрия Туптало. Например, текст из Октоиха: "Воспита́вшейся во хра́ме во свята́я святы́х", его же на богослужениях поют сейчас в РПЦ! Понимаю, что в ПЭ, где редактор Кравец, об этом нет ни слова, а вместо этого то, что придумал в конце 17 века Туптало: "Живя при храме", он ещё придумал каких-то мудрых дев. Но простите, проживание Марии в именно в храме — черным по белому в текстах. Католики в 16 веке вообще этот праздник убрали из своего календаря, потом вернули. Ещё раз повторю, что это чисто научные сведения, что меня больше всего возмущает.....Wlbw68 (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Утверждается, что "Зерцало" лишь приписывается Дмитрию Ростовскому (как и немалое число других произведений, опубликованных в сборниках, надписанных его именем). Сборник с "Зерцалом" был издан в 1805 году, а Денисовы, когда разбирали фейк с "Мартиным" специально подчеркивали, что у Дмитрия Ростовского в сочинениях такого нет. В его реальном сочинении "«Розыск о раскольнической брынской вере» такой мощный "аргумент" не используется. Петр сам-то Мартиным не занимался, но есть свидетельство, что он поручил подготовить такую подделку чтобы уесть "святош". В любом случае, когда готовили "оригинал" (а доказано, что он был сокращенной и улучшенной производной от "копии" Питирима) Дмитрий Ростовский уже помер.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - По первой правке согласен, просто зачистка "неудобной" информации.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Можно поинтересоваться:

1. В каких источниках вы нашли информацию о том, что Сборник с "Зерцалом" был издан только в 1805 году? 2. В каких источниках и у каких исследователей вы нашли информацию о том, что "Зерцало" не принадлежит Димитрию Ростовскому? Насколько мне известно, все официальные издания РПЦ называют безоговорочно автором Димитрия Ростовского. Если кто-то думает, что "Зерцале" это spuria, то он должен предоставить доказательства; в противном случае это всего лишь гипотеза. Есть ли у кого-либо какие доказательства?

По поводу разбора фейка с "Мартиным"; если вы читали Поморские ответы (а именно в них Денисовы подробно разбирают подлог с Мартином), то Димитрия Ростовского они не упоминают вовсе, да и зачем это делать. Ну кто такой Димитрий Ростовский для старообрядцев? — Каратель, мучитель, палач, клеветник по отношению к старообрядцам; его авторитет отрицательный для них. «Розыск о раскольнической брынской вере», достаточно клеветническое сочинение, написано в конце 17 века и опубликован в 1745 году. А "Зерцало" написано перед смертью Димитрия в 1709 году. Мне не нравится следующий подход: всю жизнь печатать сочинение , называя его автором одного человека; а когда получается из этого сочинения, что автор является составителем подлога, то дать задний ход и без доказательств заявить, что автор не он. :-) Wlbw68 (talk) 18:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Я запамятовал, не в 1805, а в 1803 в сборнике "Остальныя сочиненiя Св. Димитрiя, митрополита Ростовскаго чудотворца, доселе свету еще неизвестныя". Это было в статье Корзо "К ВОПРОСУ О ПРИПИСЫВАЕМЫХ ДИМИТРИЮ РОСТОВСКОМУ КАТЕХИЗИСАХ И ИХ СВЯЗИ С ПРЕДШЕСТВУЮЩЕЙ ТРАДИЦИЕЙ". Она пишет, что никто вопрос авторства не исследовал, и вообще "Зерцало" представляет собой "всего лишь сильно сокращенный пересказ сочинения Киевского митрополита [Петра Могилы] с небольшими и единичными добавлениями." Может, Питирим или кто еще из кружка составителей фейка сделал это "небольшое добавление" с Мартином. А может, это уже после канонизации.
- Два года это не принципиально, важнее другое. Откуда Корзо берет эту дату? В итоге имеем: кроме гипотезы одного человека — Маргариты Корзо без доказательств, нет ничего. В книге Шляпкин И. А. «Св. Димитрий Ростовский и его время (1651-1709)» "Зерцало" не упоминается среди spuria. Утверждать на основании гипотезы одного человека о том, что "Зерцало" — spuria, по моему неверно. Я не против отказаться от подлинности "Зерцала", но для этого нужны исследования и научные аргументы. Wlbw68 (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - А не подскажете, что там конкретно Шляпкин про "Зерцало" пишет? Я сходу не нашел.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:32, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - И не найдете, он вообще не упоминает об этом сочинений (в конце его книги есть алфавитный указатель). Шляпкин упоминает о сочинениях: Зерцало духовное, Зерцало великое, Зерцало Посошкова. Но все это другие сочинения, других авторов. Интересная вещь получается: в 2013 году я создал статью о Мартине, в которой процитировал книгу "Зерцало" Димитрия Ростовского с упоминанием Мартина Арменина Соборное деяние на еретика Арменина, на мниха Мартина. Понятно, что статью пытались удалить, ничего не вышло. Никто и не оспаривал принадлежность "Зерцала" Димитрию Ростовскому. Лишь в 2015 году нарисовалась некая Маргарита Корзо и без единой ссылки и без единого аргумента заявила, что оказывается "Зерцало" не принадлежит Димитрию Ростовскому вообще. Я даже научным исследованием её сочинение назвать не могу. Мне устроили травлю в русской Википедии и в итоге выписали бессрочную блокировку. А некто AOK87 , у которого всего 2 правки в Википедии, делает следующую радикальную правку, которая является настоящим вандализмом. Такие нравы. Я удивляюсь почему вся эта компания во главе с известной админшей так преспокойно продолжает все переписывать под действующий в России режим, вроде сервер и проект Википедия не русский, а человек даже свою блокировку не может оспорить вообще нигде? Wlbw68 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Откуда сведения, что "Зерцало" написано в 1709 году? Тогда как раз был дописан "Розыск". Отпечатан он был в 1745, но до этого ходил в списках, Дмитрий упоминает об этой работе в своих письмах, так что его авторство тут бесспорно. С тем, что сочинение достаточно клеветническое, согласен. И Денисовы ссылаются на Дмитрия Ростовского именно как на противника старообрядцев, который ни про какого "Мартина" не знает.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Дату я брал с какого-то сайта, это было давно и я его сейчас не могу найти. Можно узнать в каком сочинении Денисовы ссылаются на Дмитрия Ростовского именно как на противника старообрядцев, который ни про какого "Мартина" не знает? Я читал сочинения Денисовых, ничего подобного я там не нашел, может быть пропустил?Wlbw68 (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Так сразу сказать не могу. Я про историю с "Мартиным" знаю из книги Козлова "Тайны фальсификаций", ей посвящена 2-я глава, "Ко уврачеванию расколом недугующих". Там следующее было:

Ссылаются они [авторы "Поморских ответов"] и на авторитет таких церковных писателей, как Симеон Полоцкий и Дмитрий Ростовский, которые в своих трудах, в том числе посвященных полемике со старообрядцами, также ничего не говорят о древней ереси Мартина Арменина.

- - --Nicoljaus (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - В этом нет ничего удивительного, многие сочинения Димитрия были изданы после его смерти. Работа Козлова конечно интересная, на её основе можно было бы дополнить статью в русской Википедии, но это теперь никто не сделает.

Но вернемся к Мартину и Зерцалу; я повторю, что утверждение о том, что «Зерцало» не принадлежности Димитрию не имеет вообще никакой научной аргументации, целиком и полностью голословное. Будет научная аргументация с радостью перепишу статью в английской версии. Wlbw68 (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

В этом и проблема - как я понял, много сочинений ему лишь приписывалось. На мой взгляд, ситуация такая - на сегодняшний момент научно никак не доказано, что именно Дмитрий был автором "Зерцала". Поэтому строить какие-то дальнейшие рассуждения исходя из того, что он совершенно точно автор "Зерцала", нельзя. Можно указать как на один из вариантов.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- А разве проведено хотя бы одно научное исследование кем-либо и где-либо, и доказано, что автор "Зерцало" не Димитрий? Есть официальные издания РПЦ, напечатанные по благословению синода или патриархов, в которых назван автор "Зерцала" — Димитрий Ростовский. Непонятно — откуда сомнения? Если даже год первого издания этого сочинения нам неизвестен. По моему здесь история схожая с Иоанном Кронштадтским: самыми нечестными способами запретить распространять информацию. Замечу интересную вещь, в издании 1835 года "Зерцала" этот кусок с Мартином есть: страница 7, а в издании 1898 года: страница 9 этот кусок убрали. Почему я склоняюсь к тому , что сочинение написано в начале 18 века? — В сочинении есть фраза: ″Ибо так велит Собор, бывший в Киеве по поводу монаха Мартина, и так же утверждает святейший патриарх Антиохийский Макарий в ответе на вопросительное послание Патриарха Российского Никона″ Ответ Макария Никону есть в книге Скрижаль 1655 года, эту книгу больше не издавали, и этот ответ я не встречал ни у кого из писателей 18-20 века. Впрочем, кому это нужно и интересно? — У нас же статьи пишут в русской Википедии как велит действующая власть.Wlbw68 (talk) 17:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Nicoljaus. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1467-1560 Moscow–Constantinople schism ?[edit]

Hello, would you be interested in creating a "1467-1560 Moscow–Constantinople schism" article? Since the documentation about this schism is so scarce and that you are able to understand Russian, your help would be very precious and I could correct your English if needed.

The only sources I could find are:

If you are willing to do so, feel free to use my user page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Veverve ) to write the article so that the article can be put on Wikipedia when you and I think the article is good enough. Veverve (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion. Yes, this is an interesting topic for me. I'll try to do it. While I've created a page in the draft (there is no need to use your personal page for this): User:Nicoljaus/1467-1560 Moscow–Constantinople schism. I will post there links to found sources. You can also edit there.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Прошу прощения, что вмешиваюсь, но по-моему никакой схизмы 1467-1560 не было, это её Лурье придумал, в своё время я написал статью Константинопольский собор (1484). Если только в 1484 году, как сообщил Макарий Антиохийский на БМС, произошло осуждение греками Флорентийской унии, то о каком расколе (схизме) может идти речь, да ещё прекратившемся в 1560 году? Когда в 1518 году в Москву от патриарха Константинопольского Феолипта прибыла делегация, возглавляемая митрополитом Зихнийским Григорием, смотрите статью https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Максим_Грек Максим Грек]. Единственный источник о схизме с датировкой 1467-1560 годы, который я нашел, это Лурье. Но Василий Лурье большой оригинал, то он имябожничество возводит к Паламе, то пишет книгу «История византийской философии», в которой много всякой мути. Кроме Лурье хотя бы у одного историка есть понятие Раскол Константинополь - Москва, да ещё с датировкой 1467-1560 годы? Wlbw68 (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Вот надо это будет нормально написать. Может быть и название поменять. Осуждать унию стали раньше, а после падения Константинополя там от унии отказались по понятным причинам. Патриарх Дионисий униатом не был, но когда он поднял вопрос, в Москве уже открыто отказались подчиняться. Но я пока тоже с такими датами других источников не нашел.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Уния была подписана греками с надеждой на помощь Запада, ради сохранения империи. В 1453 году султан взял Константинополь и чисто по политическим причинам запретил унию на своей территории. В это время там не было патриарха. Палеологи правили в Мореи до 1460 года, до взятия её турками; а патриарх Константинопольский Григорий III находился в Риме. Ни Палеологи, ни Григорий Мамма от унии не отказывались. Не отказывался от унии и митрополит Киевский Исидор. В 1454 году султан разрешил грекам выбрать патриарха, им стал Геннадий Схоларий, в прошлом горячий сторонник унии. Вопрос об Украине: кого там признавали патриархом? — Патриархом там на государственном уровне признавали Григория Мамму, который для них в 1458 году поставил митрополита Григория Болгарина. Последний был униатом и был митрополитом до 1472 года. То есть до 1472 года Киевская митрополия находилась в унии. Его преемник — Мисаил был признан понтификом и польским королем, и стал митрополитом до смерти в 1480 году; а Фанар прислал Спиридона в 1476 году. Спиридон так и не занял Киевскую кафедру, был сначала в заключении, а потом жил в Московии. Естественно, что Фанар не признавал ни Григория Мамму, ни Григория Болгарина, ни Мисаила. Понятно, что это самый настоящий раскол между Киевом и Константинополем с 1454 года по 1480 год, или даже по 1482 год. Значит, что и рамки унии на Украине сдвигаются в 1482 год. В 1482 году православные на Украине независимо от Константинополя выбрали Симеона в митрополиты, а Фанар лишь прислал «Благословенное письмо». Получается, что с 1482 года на Украине самопровозглашенная автономия: сами выбирают себе митрополита без участия Константинопольского патриарха, а Фанар лишь подтверждает этот выбор. И похоже, что Константинопольский собор в 1484 году, на котором осудили унию, действительно был. До этого никаких прещений против ни Григория Болгарина, ни Мисаила не было.Wlbw68 (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Нет, именно Григорий "Болгарин" порвал с Римом, и тогда константинопольский патриарх Дионисий объявил его митрополитом всея Руси, вместо самопровозглашенного Филиппа, но был единодушно послан. Отсюда и исчисляется "подлинный раскол", потому что до этого (начиная с 1441) стороны как-то острые углы по возможности обходили.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Хорошо, Григория в Москву не пустили в 1467 году и князь Иоанн III Васильевич заявил: «имеем от себя самого того патреярха чюжа и отречена». По моему это не раскол — разрыв евхаристического общения, а нежелание князя принять ставленника Константинополя, в Москве был свой митрополит, другого принимать не хотели. Откуда берется дата окончания раскола — 1560 год? Если в 1518 году в Москву от патриарха Константинопольского Феолипта прибыла делегация, возглавляемая митрополитом Зихнийским Григорием и пыталась благословить митрополита Московского. Wlbw68 (talk) 13:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        В ответ на действия Москвы Дионисий их отлучил, как я понимаю. После чего Иван III начал игры с Римом, одним из результатов чего стала женитьба на Софье Палеолог (не особо принято вспоминать, но ее вез кардинал Антоний с латинским крестом наперевес). Дата окончания 1560 берется В.М. Лурье из анализа грамот, привезенных в Москву в 1561. Схема такая, что сначала венчание Ивана IV на царство, произведенное Макарием, объявляется незаконным, а потом он объявляется "патриаршим соборным экзархом" ну а тогда и венчание законное. Как бы вилку сделали греки московитам "хотите автокефалии - не будет вам венчания". Другой вопрос, что эта "соборная грамота" тоже по сути фиктивное творчество патриарха Иоасафа, который скоро с престола слетел за многочисленные злоупотребления.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        А текст отлучения грамоты Дионисия сохранился? Её подлинность установлена? Что касается Софии, то она была самая настоящая униатка, крещенная и воспитанная в католичестве. Это оказавшись в Москве она объявила себя православной. В общем и отделение Москвы после Флорентийской унии было чистой воды политикой. Князь сам хотел назначать предстоятеля для Русской церкви, а уния лишь повод и предлог. По поводу 1560 года, если грамота подделана Иоасафом, то нельзя говорить о конечной дате раскола — 1560 год. В эту дату не вписывается 1518 год, когда греки в Москве во главе с архиереем от патриарха побираются и вместе с русскими причащаются. По моему здесь статью создать невозможно.Wlbw68 (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        По поводу грамоты Дионисия - таких подробностей я пока не знаю, планирую разобраться по возможности. С Софьей - ну вот как-то так. То мы с латинством ничего общего не имеем, то мы дружим и кардиналов приглашаем. По поводу 1560 года - Лурье пытается доказать, что грамота была подделана в части подписей Собора, но по факту не выходила за пределы полномочий Иоасафа. Достоверность этой грамоты Константинополем отвергнута не была. В 1518 году Константинополь предпринял попытку наладить отношения, но кончилось-то все довольно скверно. Статью создать возможно, события-то все реальные, может только название поменять.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Вот как излагается ситуация с Дионисием в книжке про Василия III: [10]--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Ого! Кураев в своем блоге накатал сочинение в десяти частях "Московский автокефальный раскол: туда и обратно". Довольно подробно прошелся.--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        На мой взгляд раскол, если и был, то закончился в 1518 году. И посольские и Максим грек причащались с русскими с этого года. Кураева нужно читать очень аккуратно, помня что он лицо аффилированное к РПЦ и достаточно часто передергивает, а порой и перевирает в пользу РПЦ. Лурье — противоположность. Но ссылки на источники у них взять было бы полезно. Если у вас получится, сохраняя объективность и нейтральность, написать статью, то будет хорошо; желаю вам успехов в этом деле.Wlbw68 (talk) 18:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Samfisher9532[edit]

what have I done wrong for you to deleat the page I thought it was find I have valid proof so what was wrong with is Samfisher9532 (talk) 14:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Samfisher9532: you need to give us independent sources. Not the scans, but sufficient coverage in the main media, or books, or scientific articles.

I have an article it was in a African paper when Metropolitan and Exarch Patrick Mkhize became the Metropolitan and Exarch how do I down load it here I am not really good at this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samfisher9532 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Samfisher9532: I strongly recommend you to read this guideline: wp:General notability guideline. Does your topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"?--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019[edit]

Your recent editing history at Taras Bulba-Borovets shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you 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.
The next person to revert will be blocked. Use the talkpage. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DeltaQuad. I've already stopped the editing, as you can see in the history. So, you support the deletion of the sourced information?--Nicoljaus (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for stopping the edit war so I don't have to block, but do not drag me into this. Establish consensus on the talk or take it to a noticeboard for an additional opinion or if you think the users edits are that bad, roll it over to ANI. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 02:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, DeltaQuad, as far as I know the basic rules of WP, the previous (stable) version should be returned until a NEW consensus is established on the talk page. My opponent deleted the information from the stable version. Is it so hard to understand? And it is his task to go to the noticeboard, ANI, and so on, if he wants only “direct links” in this article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So far I have not seen an established consensus, so that's why I have not taken any action in that regard. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 03:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DeltaQuad, I think the history of the article will be of great help to you. Here is the first revert of my opponent [11]. In the version of 14:47, 26 March 2019‎ there are already both sentances, that my opponent tried to delete by the formal reason "I want only direct links!". You can use Ctrl+F for Borovets rejected German demands that his troops participate in the massacres of Jews and for Despite this, Borovets could not stop the escalation of the ethnic conflict. In fact, both sentances are present in the article since April last year (see version of 10:39, 23 April 2018. So it’s the opponent’s duty to prove the necessity of deleting this information just because he wanted “direct links”, but until then they should remain in the article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: Sorry to bother you, but the situation must be resolved one way or another. Themanhascome pushes all his edits through continuous warring: [12] [13] [14].--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, just because it existed before does not mean there is a consensus. Just means people did not object to it at the time. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as for me the basic rule WP:NOCONSENSUS describes this situation rather well: "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." If there are rules that interpret this situation in a different way, I humbly ask me to point them out so that I understand my mistake.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to resolve the issue on the talk page, Nicoljaus. You have yet to reply on the talk page of the Borovets article. Themanhascome (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC) Direct links might have been the wrong phrasing to use. Sources should be verifiable, because here at Wikipedia we should all be striving for accuracy in terms of information that is put into the articles. Also, the versions of the articles you support are not consensus versions, as you have deleted sourced information in consensus versions of the article that were supported by users such as Lute88. Themanhascome (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's just another untrue. My sources are verifiable, unlike fakes from Lute "Heil Hitler".--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS.--Lute88 (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No attacks, just a joke, Seignoir Galassi.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

St. Andrew Memorial Church edits (South Bound Brook, New Jersey) ‎[edit]

Hello. Please see the talk page on the St. Andrew Memorial Church page so that an edit war will not be started. Your edits seem to be in conflict with those of mine. Much obliged. Themanhascome (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring and personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nicoljaus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe the block can be lifted for the following reasons:

the block was in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption: I was involved in the war of edits, trying to prevent damage to Wikipedia, because I was sure that my actions were correct. However, in both cases I had stopped and appealed to the administrators ([15], [16]). So this block wasn’t necessary.
the block is no longer necessary: Now my opponent is blocked indefinitely ([17], thus the ground for the conflict has been eliminated, so it’s not necessary to continue blocking.

As for personal attacks, the nickname of the account Lute88 ( the auxiliary accaunt of the user Galassi) was insulting to me, because its owner is sufficiently involved in activity around nationalist movements to be aware of the usual meaning of the numbers "88". I am very sorry that I did not restrain myself and once joked on this topic [18]. In the future I will refrain from any actions of this kind. Nicoljaus (talk) 08:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request shows your lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies. What does that mean, "I was involved in the war of edits, trying to prevent damage to Wikipedia"? WP:Edit warring is, by definition, a damage to Wikipedia. You can't prevent damage by making more damage. Also, your comment that "opponent is blocked indefinitely, thus the ground for the conflict has been eliminated" is misleading. You are not blocked because of other people's behavior, but because of your own behavior. Whether others are blocked is irrelevant. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Greetings, Vanjagenije. I meant that I had canceled the edits not of a good-will user, but of a person known for using multiple accounts to harm Wikipedia. These accounts and IP accounts are constantly blocked and it was just one of them. Currently, the checkusers have checked this account and banned it. That's what I meant. And if at the beginning of this situation, admins could argue that there is a conflict between two good-will users, now it is known for certain that this is not the case. In this situation, I do not understand the reasons for such a harsh attitude, although I acted within the basic rules - in the absence of consensus on new edits, I returned the previous version, warned the opponent and submitted an application to administrators.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be brief, I consider that my actions are fully described by the following paragraph of the WP:Edit warring rule: "Reverting actions performed by <...> sockpuppets of <...> blocked users."--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:44, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad and Vanjagenije: Guys, what's the problem. I see you continue to find new socks of the same character [19] with the same disruptive behavior, but for some reason you continue to pretend that in my case it was a good-will user. Let me remind the rule clause: "The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy: <...> Reverting actions performed by <...> sockpuppets of <...> blocked users." You say, Wikipedia not a battleground, but you allow to use socks as a weapon for those who think otherwise.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said my peace, but the user account was not blocked at the time, the user you though they were wasn't involved, Wikipedia is not a place where you just take enforcement into your own hands and ignore the rules. And this wasn't the only concern. And your last sentence instills in me that this block is still valid and needed. This will be my last comment here unless another admin pings me back. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 06:24, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: but the user account was not blocked at the time - This is exactly what the rule item mentioned by me says about: "The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy: <...> 3. Reverting actions performed by <...>sockpuppets of banned or blocked users." In your turn, you are saing about the previous item: "Reverting edits by banned or blocked users is not edit warring." As for the rule you mentioned, it says: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Assuming that my actions included violations of some rules (although I think not), they are justified by this rule rather well. Making the conclusion: I am very sorry, but this case is extremely important to me. The abuse by this multiple-accounted person has been going on for a long time, he uses a lot of accounts for his disruptive actions and repeatedly mocks me. If in the future, instead of helping me, I will receive from the administration a prohibition on canceling his edits, rejecting my requests for investigation and blocking, then I will not have any opportunity to work in Wikipedia. Therefore, I will have to bring this issue to a wider discussion. If the community confirms that it approves of such an attitude towards me, well, that means I’ll just stop working.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Just to be clear, the reason why I haven't considered your unblock"[edit]

Just to be clear, the reason why I haven't considered your unblock is:

Wikipedia is not a battleground, and your use of opponent in the unblock request shows you clearly don't get what the right thing to do in the first place was.
Just because you report something, doesn't give you the right to continue to edit war because you think you are right.
If someone's username is insulting, UAA is this way. Given the article you linked, there is more than one use for 88, so the comment was completely out-of-line.

So that's just to summarize for any reviewing admin why I haven't touched this. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 09:31, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree that this is not a battleground and I did not try to push my views by means of edit warring. I only prevented the damage from the user known for his disruptive behavior, which bypassed the block. Since you know that Themanhascome has bypassed the blocking, I do not understand such a benevolent attitude towards his edits and such a harsh attitude towards me.
I did not continue the war of edits, that's the thing. Themanhascome started a new one, but I've stopped in it too.
It was obviously my big mistake and I regret it, as I've said earlier.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You did not know at the time that they were for sure evading a block, therefore it's not considered one of the WP:3RRNO. Also, it's not ok to claim that someone else started a second edit war that you also engaged in. There does not need to be 3 reverts within 24 hours for a general edit warring block either. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I knew about it perfectly, I have already met in this article about a dozen of single-purpose accounts and IP-accounts of the same character. Nevertheless, I repeat that I stopped both times in the war of edits. Themanhascome began a second war after FlightTime rolled all his edits ([20]) which you for some reason forbade me to cancel.--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"more than one use for 88"[edit]

@DeltaQuad: Here is the full text of the article paragraph I've linked. Explain me, please, what do you mean saying that there is "more than one use for 88":

Neo-Nazis use the number 88 as an abbreviation for the Nazi salute Heil Hitler.^[1] The letter H is eighth in the alphabet, whereby 88 becomes HH.^[2]
Often, this number is associated with the number 14, e.g. 14/88, 14-88, or 1488; this number symbolizes the Fourteen Words coined by David Lane, a prominent white supremacist.^[3] Example uses of 88 include the song "88 Rock 'n' Roll Band" by Landser, and the organizations Column 88 and Unit 88. Currently, the Michigan-based American Nazi Party uses 14 in its domain name and 88 as part of a radio sign-off.^{[citation needed]}

Just want to note, that Landse is a German neo-Nazi rock band and Unit 88 and Column 88 are neo-Nazi organizations.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I said article, not section. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 18:08, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sorry, I did not understand.--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ "Racist Skinhead Glossary | Southern Poverty Law Center". Southern Poverty Law Center. 2006. Retrieved 2013-12-06.
^ Natsiviittaus Ariel-pesujauhepaketissa herättää pahennusta Saksassa, YLE Uutiset 9 May 2014. Accessed on 12 May 2014.
^ [1]

Advice on Miki[edit]

Just a friendly piece of advice regarding dealing with Miki Filigranski's edit warring: for the sake of your sanity, give up now. You can't win. I spent months jumping through Wikipedia hoops just trying to give the Frankopan Family article a neutral point of view, as required by Wikipedia rule WP:NPOV, and remove obviously biased personal attacks on the family, and she reverted every edit, including simple grammar corrections. She deleted every sourced piece of information that didn't support her personal dislike of the family, over and over, and she'll just keep doing the same to you. Miki will edit war you into the ground and just keep insisting that you are WP:NOTLISTENING and lying (although I must say, I'm impressed that her favorite admin told her not to call you a liar; she called me a liar repeatedly and was never admonished by the same admin for it. Heck, she once "diagnosed" me with a psychiatric disorder, complete with link to the disorder's Wikipedia page, and the admin said that didn't constitute a personal attack). I wish you luck, but personal experience tells me that you're better off just letting Miki write whatever she wants. Lilipo25 (talk) 11:31, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel sorrow for your experience and also consider the behavior of Miki completely unacceptable and desruptive. I also understand how you perceive El_C's behavior, but believe me, this is better than the admin who blocks for two weeks for the first time just because you reverted non-consensual edits of the known sockpuppet-vandal. What really saddens me is the indifference of other editors - no one responded to my RFC. It is a pity that the self-government mechanisms do not work - it is much better than immediately looking for an administrator on any issue. --Nicoljaus (talk) 13:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to see what I was saying yet? Miki can openly call you every vicious name there is, from "liar" to "loser" to "pathetic", etc., over and over, and nothing will happen to her. Even when she gets herself blocked - which has happened numerous times - she just shops around to multiple admins to get them to make the edits she wants for her, and somehow even convinces the ones who blocked her to undo the blocks early. You, however, risk a permanent ban if you fight back.

Like I said, you can't win. I have no idea how she does it, but Miki is bulletproof on Wikipedia. She should have been topic-banned from editing any articles about Croatian issues long ago just for the edit warring and for using the articles for her personal agenda, but it isn't going to happen. Get out while you still have any sanity left. Lilipo25 (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of incidents noticeboard discussion[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:37, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Miki Filigranski (talk) 21:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of the White Croats is covered by discretionary sanctions[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

I'm leaving you this notice due to the ongoing dispute on this article which has been reported both at WP:ANI and WP:AN3. If problems on this article continue, admins have the ability to take stronger action. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I am sorry, there was an error with this message [21]. I thought I was writing on my talk page (the two messages from you were identical). Probably better to delete the post on the page Miki's talk page?

Consider opening a WP:Request for comments on the talk page of White Croats. You might also ask for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Croatia. Per this Signpost article from 2011, the Croatia WikiProject was quite active at least in 2011. Also you could ask User:GregorB, the author of that Signpost article, if they have any ideas. It seems you have ability in at least one of the languages spoken in this area, so it would help in attracting assistance if you could say anything at all about your background on your user page. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I see some problem here. Traditionally, Croatian nationalists emphasize that modern Croats come not from Slavs (like their neighbors and enemies, Serbs), but from Persians, Goths, Romans, etc. Are you sure that the person who proudly timed the creation of the WikiProject "Croatia" to the Victory Day over the Serbian minority in Croatia, will be the neutral mediator?--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the "person who proudly timed the creation of the WikiProject "Croatia" to the Victory Day over the Serbian minority in Croatia" is who exactly? GregorB (talk) 07:54, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I offer my deepest apologies, my first look at the Signpost article was inattentive and erroneous. I read it carefully and my doubts were dispelled. I apologize again. If you take the time to get involved in the issue with "White Croats", your help will be very valuable.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I suspected there had to be a some sort of mixup here, so that's out of the way now.

White Croats is a rather difficult topic (to me at least), so unfortunately I can't promise much beyond what I've already said...[22] GregorB (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've created RfC: Talk:White_Croats#RfC_about_the_splitting_of_the_article_"White_Croats". Could you help spread information about it to those who might be interested?--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I left a notice on all 4 pages of the WikiProjects mentioned on the "White Croats" Talk page. Well, I don't know what else to do here. And, it seems to me, LegoBot works incorrectly.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nikolay Nikolskiy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orientalist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Aleksei m (talk) 13:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Aleksei m (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Ivan Golunov[edit]

On 26 September 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ivan Golunov, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that just prior to his arrest in 2019, investigative journalist Ivan Golunov was examining the links between Moscow funeral businesses and the Federal Security Service? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ivan Golunov. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ivan Golunov), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

valereee (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Belyov[edit]

You should nominate Battle of Belyov for DYK.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "Did you know"? But this is just an article about an old battle, there is nothing outstanding.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019[edit]

You are currently engaged in edit-warring at Alexander Dvorkin. Please note that edit-warring is not a valid dispute resolution avenue, see WP:Edit-warring and WP:Dispute resolution. If the edit-warring continues, your account will likely be blocked from editing. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Woodroar (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re[edit]

You are right, but I can't help with editing this page. I normally only edit BLP pages about people who are interesting to me in some aspects (it does not mean I like them). But that guy is simply a мракобес. "О таких не поют". My very best wishes (talk) 03:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019[edit]

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you. Woodroar (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Woodroar. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Woodroar (talk) 22:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 18[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aleksandr Figner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Partisan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

" in which place this "minds" made this conclusion"[edit]

immediately brought forth in my mind a scene from Star Trek (TOS) episode The Gamesters of Triskelion.-- Deep fried okra 14:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's funny))--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't let them[edit]

Sir, do not let them drives you away with their bulling (persistent edit-warring), and few blocks from trigger-happy admin (and one whose identity bias and COI is already registered: 1, 2 (this one is worth reading in its entirety)). Aside with your recent edit in Donji Kraji, your stance in entire White Croatia issue was neutral, competent and generally commendable, along with your understanding of all the nationalism-in-wikipedia pitfalls. Don't give up just yet.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 18:15, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your kind words!--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome! Just hold on, don't let them discourage you, and be patient, edit-war bullies never get too far.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 00:45, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]

Christmas is tomorrow according to the Gregorian and the revised Julian calendars! May fate smile upon youn and those you love! Veverve (talk) 11:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and good luck to you too!--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:32, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

TomStar81 (Talk) 00:16, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, TomStar81. You said "Settle this on the talk page like adults". It sounds like you are an expert in communicating with Mikola22. Could you show a discussion where you could convince him of something? I am very, very, interested in learning how to do this. Because I saw a dozen discussions with his participation and never once did he take the easiest step from his position towards the search for consensus. See, for example this DRN discussion or multiple RSN discussions like this one.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect to convince him of anything. Editors like that one don't listen to anyone byt themselves. That being said, when he returns to the article with his BS it'll be clear that he's the problem here, which paves the way for a long term block or a topic ban or something along those lines. I note for the record though that neither one of you have taken that advice to heart, since there's been no post to the talk page of the article discussing this issue. TomStar81 (Talk) 14:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar[edit]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your continuous work against POV-pushing and blatant vandalism, congratulations! Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 01:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion[edit]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Mikola22 (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anna[edit]

Hi, unless you are just about to write an article for Bolshoy Fontan, I'd rather not have a red link sitting around for years. WP:red link. Thanks Anna (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anna. WP:red link says to as: "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name. Do not remove red links unless you are certain that Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject, or if the red link could be replaced with a link to an article section where the subject is covered as part of a broader topic". As I see, both Russian and Ukrainian Wikipedia have articles about this area of Odessa, and it has an interesting history. I will try to create this article using translation in the future.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block from Croatia[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month from certain areas of the encyclopedia for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 21:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: It's strange decision. There was edit warring in the article starting from 8 February, Mikola22 against three users. Only on 12 February he made three reverts in less than 12 hours. Maybe you at least write him a comment? He is sure that he is doing everything right.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A country article is too high-profile of an article to undergo a spillover of the chronic disputes between you two. If I wouldn't block both of you from the article, you are likely to be edit warring over it, indefinitely. No, when it comes to Mikola22 or vice versa, you ought to use dispute resolution requests and use them often, so that other editors can help break down the given dispute, and hopefully, figure out what's what. So, I'm going to let other editors decide what is to be done about the Croatia dispute, mainspace-wise. You two are welcome to use the article talk page to advance your respective positions. El_C 00:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

between you two Clear misconception. Start of the edit warring, revert of the revert: [23]. Does anyone see my actions here? --Nicoljaus (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're trying to say. Is the above even addressed to me? El_C 00:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to say that you are trying to show the situation as if it was the two of us with Mikola22 who had a conflict in this article. This is obviously a misconception.--Nicoljaus (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sitewide block[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 months for edit warring against Mikola22 while partially blocked (!). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 18:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, El_C, I wrote on the talk page: [24], I opened a RSN discussion: [25] and got a third-party opinion that "So, better source needed for such a contentious claim". What else could I do? wp:BRD canceled or what's the matter? --Nicoljaus (talk) 19:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The matter is that you seem to have violated 3RR today by reverting the very user your were partially blocked for having edit warred against, again. El_C 19:27, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, El_C, but I thought this sentence from WP:3RR excuse me: "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." I partially deleted material added ([26]) contrary to the open discussion on the talk page, with two consecutive edits: [27], [28]. Then I made a second revert (also two edits: [29], [30]). Then I made the last (third) revert with one edit: [31] and wrote on the discussion page contacting you: [32] and began to wait for the reaction, instead of continuing the edit war. That's all. That is, three reverts, with open discussion on the TP and the third-party opinion on the RSN. If I misunderstood the rule, please explain where I made a mistake.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether you violated 3RR or not, you were edit warring while recently partially blocked for edit warring (!). Again, the partial block was a boon, which I'm afraid you (both) squandered. El_C 21:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop, El_C, but there was very strange situation with this partial block! As I wrote to you in the topic above, there was a long-term war of revisions, in which Mikola22, contrary to the opinion of three (!) other editors, pushed his edits:

[33],
[34],
[35],
[36],
[37],
[38],
[39].

My participation in this conflict was rather small (two edits at all). In this situation, for some reason you suddenly blocked me, instead of explaining to Mikola22 that he was behaving incorrectly. He is still sure (or pretends to be sure) that "I have the right to edit warring, because I am right": [40] And then he continued to do the same thing - pushing his edits, ignoring the TP, the RSN and wp:DRR. We discussed this situation in the topic above, but you just broke off the conversation without saying a word that this is a “boon” and that now I have no right to reverting his edits. If this was a hint, then, unfortunately, I did not understand it.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC) upd22:57, 21 February 2020 (UTC)~[reply]

Did you really just tell me to stop? If you did not figure out that you and Mikola22 should not have been reverting one another anymore after the partial block, then I really don't know what to say. Please stop pinging me. You have the right of appeal, make use of it, if you must. El_C 00:55, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem with the word "stop"? I meant "stop, attention" - in this sense. You really need some AGF. As you can see, this was not obvious. Few direct words would have been more useful.--Nicoljaus (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration sanction[edit]

Upon your return to editing, you will be subject to a 1RR restriction on all articles that fall under the topic of Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly construed. The duration I fixed to this restriction is indefinite, however, you may appeal it no less than six months after it takes effect (2 months from now). El_C 18:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nicoljaus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

A two-month block was imposed by the administrator El_C after he imposed a partial month-long block for my actions in the article Croatia. In this article, I made two reverts, and the opponent (who was blocked too) made seven reverts, and also he waged an edit war with two more users ([41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47]). The administrator later stated that partial block was a “boon” and I should have realized that I could no longer reverting edits of Mikola22. Unfortunately, I did not understand this. Then, I made reverts in the article Slavonia. The administrator considered that I violated the 3RR rule. It seemed to me that I did not (and I still do not understand if I correctly interpreted the rule clause, see the discussion above). After that, the administrator made a symmetrical block on me and Mikola22, although I followed WP:BRD (information I deleted has just been added.), I wrote on the talk page: [48], and opened a RSN discussion: [49], and got a third-party opinion that "So, better source needed for such a contentious claim". So, I did my reverts to consensus version only after extensive discussion. In addition, that was I who pinged El_C:[50] and began to wait for his reaction, instead of continuing the edit war. In view of the above, I find the blocking insufficiently substantiated: 1. An ambiguous decision for partial blocking; 2. Unspoken warning; 3. Unclear situation with the 3RR.
Further. Sanctions are imposed on me - the 1RR restriction "on all articles that fall under the topic of Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly construed." ([51]. I believe that this sanction effectively prevents possible edit wars on my part. In this regard ("blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users"), I believe that my block can be lifted, leaving a restriction on 1RR. In addition, I will refrain from any intersections with the user Mikola22, in order to avoid possible conflicts in a different form.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for your edits, so your complaints about the other editor are not relevant here. Given your focus on that editor in your unblock request, I'm not confident regarding the commitments you have offered. Nick-D (talk) 06:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblock request 2[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nicoljaus (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Nick-D said my previous unblock request was focused on "that editor". Therefore, I completely rewrote the request, removing all rmentions to "that editor"!

A two-month block was imposed by the administrator El_C after he imposed a partial month-long block for my actions in the article Croatia. In this article, I made two reverts at all. The administrator later stated that partial block was a “boon”. Unfortunately, I did not understand this. Then, I made reverts in the article Slavonia. The administrator considered that I violated the 3RR rule. It seemed to me that I did not (and I still do not understand if I correctly interpreted the rule clause, see the discussion above). After that, the administrator made a block on me although I followed WP:BRD (information I deleted has just been added.), I wrote on the talk page: [52], and opened a RSN discussion: [53], and got a third-party opinion that "So, better source needed for such a contentious claim". So, I did my reverts to consensus version only after extensive discussion. In addition, that was I who pinged El_C:[54] and began to wait for his reaction, instead of continuing the edit war. In view of the above, I find the blocking insufficiently substantiated: 1. An ambiguous decision for partial blocking; 2. Unspoken warning; 3. Unclear situation with the 3RR.
Further. Sanctions are imposed on me - the 1RR restriction "on all articles that fall under the topic of Eastern Europe or the Balkans, broadly construed." ([55]. I believe that this sanction effectively prevents possible edit wars on my part. In this regard ("blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, not to punish users"), I believe that my block can be lifted, leaving a restriction on 1RR.

Decline reason:

You claim that you have "followed WP:BRD", but you have not. WP:BRD-NOT says: "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once." You've done exactly that. Therefore, I'm declining your request for a site-wide unblock. Instead, I am partially unblocking you so that you can edit all namespaces except articles. That way, you can make useful talk page discussions and show us your constructive intent. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm... impressed. Have you already banned anyone who had reverted new edits twice? Okay, this is a good moment to say "goodbye".--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:42, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked from editing[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for editing logged out in violation of the sock puppetry policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Callanecc. When I was young and naive, I asked for SPI on the same guy: [56]. But I get reply that CheckUser evidence cannot be used connect registered accounts to IP addresses. Please explain why in these two cases there was such a different approach.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at the comments written in the "Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments" section on the page you linked. The admin who closed the case stated, "I'm not going to block someone over creating an account after an IP block expired and they claim that they're someone different. I doubt an actual sock would admit that they had a range blocked." The evidence you presented was reviewed and the patrolling admin determined that there had not been a breach of the sockpuppetry policy. In your instance, I reviewed the behavioural evidence which was presented and decided that you did breach the sockpuppetry policy by editing logged out in the way you did. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I’ll say one last thing, I don’t understand why all chekusers so protect this guy from checks, although his various accounts have already been blocked many times: I think this is an IP-sock of Themanhascome, who is the sock of UkrainianSavior who is the sock of Umertan

and I don’t understand why the request from his next sock (just registered) was executed at such a speed. I made edits without logging in because I do not want to log in (I really want to left all this wiki-shit behind). I had to log in later just to offer another user to drop charges that he is my sockpuppet [57]--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure the Wiki community that I am not the sock puppet of any user. Personal attacks such as this are characteristic of Nicoljaus. It should be noted that the attempt Nicoljaus made to drag another user into this and get them to lie for him was deleted by that user. Ctvaughn555 (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This account is a suspected sockpuppet of Umertan (talk · contribs · logs) and has been blocked indefinitely.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kamala Harris on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment[edit]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Katrina Karkazis on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials as well as revert high-quality maps on Wikipedia without adequate explanation and participation in talk page discussion you may be blocked from editing or give restriction to edit a certain topic. You were already blocked and reported in the past for edit warring on the similar or same topic. Thank you.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This account is a suspected sockpuppet of Crovata (talk · contribs · logs) and has been blocked indefinitely.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This account is a suspected sockpuppet of Crovata (talk · contribs · logs) and has been blocked indefinitely.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020[edit]

To enforce an arbitration decision and for Violation of a personal WP:1RR restriction related to WP:ARBEE on the page White Croats, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.

slakr^\ talk / 09:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Yes, my memory let me down, I forgot about this limitation (I haven't been here for a long time). All I wanted from Miki was to get a source for the map with which he replaced the one that was there before: [58]. Here is a page from the article that the old map was based on: [59]. It can be seen that the new map seriously contradicts the source referred to. This is at least an original synthesis.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slakr: instead of rethinking their behavior, the editor is still trying to influence the editing of English Wikipedia by making a deletion request of a map I uploaded at Wikimedia Commons which is included in English Wikipedia articles. The editor is without hope because is making false accusations and claims although the map is reliably sourced and I could cite even more reliable sources. It is another example of their pushing of extremely biased POV and refusal to get the point about the topic and accept the editor's consensus. After almost a year of tiresome discussions and edit warring, it came to the point their behavior became highly disrespectful toward other editors.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what about link to the prototype of your map?--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You understand that you don't need the exact prototype of a map to create a new map using reliably cited information and borders? That many if not the majority of historical maps used on Wikipedia are not copies of copyrighted maps i.e. they don't have exact prototypes and are based on multiple reliable sources and maps to get the most neutral and reliable map? You understand that you're using your talk page for content discussion and WP:NOTTHEM?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote on the map removal page. There are no reliable sources that confirm it. On the contrary, cited source contradicts it. If your interpretation is so undeniable, surely someone has already drawn a map to which it corresponds.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stated another way, your edit break the wp:Verifiability policy. Are you pretending to be an expert who can create new information (map) yourself? then it breaks the WP:SYNTH rule.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not wasting any more time with someone who has personal agenda stalking editors, blatantly lying there are no reliable sources and interpretation of the policy. Enjoy your block.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 09:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"blatantly lying", etc., as usual.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have also to point out that my opponent violated the WP:3RR:

16:52, 13 October 2020
17:10, 13 October 2020
17:20, 13 October 2020
16:42, 14 October 2020--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have decency to bring that up after violating 1RR? You think that your disruptive edit should have been kept at the article for hours and days?--Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:01, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, technically, you violated 1RR too? This is my userpage^{[citation needed]}^{and this is my talk page^{[citation needed]}} 15:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This account is a suspected sockpuppet of Crovata (talk · contribs · logs) and has been blocked indefinitely.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Serbia[edit]

I start discussion at WP:DRN so it would be nice for you to join us to resolve this in good faith, thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 18:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikola22: with all due respect, I see no point in participating in this discussion alone. You can see a clear consensus against further expanding this issue in the article.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, cheers. Mikola22 (talk) 10:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive user on Alexei Navalny[edit]

~~Hey,~~

~~Would it be worth trying to get administrator intervention to stop the user on the Alexei Navalny page who keeps edit warring, amongst other things?~~ LauraWilliamson (talk) 21:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we need to show AGF (although I have few of it in this case). Such a statement really was and it is only necessary to bring it in the correct form.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:12, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~A few of the sources they are using appear to be non-reliable, especially the blogs.~~ LauraWilliamson (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The blog is just the primary source, but written by Navalny himself.--Nicoljaus (talk) 21:21, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexei Navalny - users keep reinstating content that is being discussed on talk[edit]

Hi, the content about Navalny's views on the war against Georgia that is currently being discussed on talk at Talk:Alexei Navalny#Did he support the war against Georgia or not? keeps being reinstated, which is obviously vandalism/edit warring. I've reverted these suspicious new IP's 3 times now, but don't want to edit-war. Could you possibly revert back to the status quo again while it's still being discussed on talk? LauraWilliamson (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure I have the right to do so, I an under restrictions - User_talk:Nicoljaus#Arbitration_sanction. And I advise you not to continue making reverts. Although the 3RR is a bright red line, you can be punished for less if some admin comes up with such an idea.--Nicoljaus (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oh I see yes fair enough. Yes I've stopped reverting at 3 now but probably should have just left it after the first couple.~~ LauraWilliamson (talk) 15:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Georgian Sentiment[edit]

 You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. PailSimon (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been banned from editing the English Wikipedia by the community. See also: Sockpuppet investigations/Apollo The Logician--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Sawing" issue[edit]

My Russian language translation change was correct. In order for the Russian to mean "sawing" it would have to be "распилил" from "распилить" (which is "to saw" as in to saw in half), not "распил" - which, I repeat, means "drank away" (correctly in the past tense).Moryak (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your Russian is probably not as good as you think. You can search for "распил бабла" or "распил бюджета" in Google. If you have a reasonable explanation for why "drank away" is here, please give it.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a verb, this is a slang-ish noun from "распилить", which indeed means "sawing off", though translating idiomatic expressions is never an easy task.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Ymblanter. Could you please stop this sluggish war? May be just revert to status quo ante?

Controversial edit: 22:45, 7 February 2021
Re-insertion 1: 22:27, 11 February 2021
Re-insertion 2: 05:21, 12 February 2021
The discussion was initiated on the user's talk page: 8 February 2021, no reply.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it would be more beneficial for everybody if I remain uninvolved here.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-Turkish War (1676–1681)[edit]

After reading more information concerning the result/outcome of this war, I feel we need to re-assess the result. I think a resolution like the Battle of Jamrud which indicates a result of disputed with a link to a paragraph in the article which discusses the different results.

I will start a discussion on the article talk page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Nicoljaus, as someone whom I have already placed Arbitration enforcement remedies against in the past, I'm letting you know that are coming awfully close to facing further sanctions, ones which are likely to be of greater severity. The WP:ASPERSIONS that you continue to direct toward Mhorg at Talk:Alexei_Navalny#Narod_movement cross a line. If you contend that there are violations, the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard is that-a-way. The article talk page is not for that. You need to take immediate steps to dial it back, because you won't get many more chances. El_C 12:14, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No wikihounding[edit]

I know we are having heavy discussions on Navalny's article (I hope we can reach a solution as soon as possible), and the accusations you and the other user are making at me are very insulting. But please, at least, avoid Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding. My time spent here on Wikipedia is becoming hell. Thank you.--Mhorg (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that your time "spent here on Wikipedia is becoming hell"? What happened? Is someone forcing you to write requests on other users? Or is someone dissatisfied with you for not being able to destroy the enemy's insidious plans in their Operation Whitewash? Or are some administrators harassing you with threats?--Nicoljaus (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was forced to make an AE request because I am convinced that there is something wrong with the discussions we are having. And I'm just telling you to, please, not follow the edits I make and removing or editing them just to annoy me. Just this. Let's try to limit the conflict in a certain area. Don't you think?--Mhorg (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you accusing me of editing articles "just to annoy" you, and not because I see some problems in them? This is a serious accusation.--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction[edit]

The following sanction now applies to you:

You have been indefinitely topic-banned from any pages or discussions relating to the WP:ARBEE topic area (including the Balkans), broadly construed

When I warn you against engaging in ASPERSIONS, the correct response is not to double down on these simply by refactoring the same response, absent any real substance (diff). And, when a user claims that you are HOUNDING them, the correct response is: no, I am not HOUNDING you — not something to the effect of: I am HOUNDING you because of [blank]... (diff). Obviously, the AE sanctions I had imposed on you in the past did not produce the desired effect, so now, it's this.

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. El_C 22:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strange situation. I am accused of editing articles "just to annoy" [60], and I get an indefinite (no less!) topic ban.--Nicoljaus (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nicoljaus, I almost never set a second sanction to expire. And, again, the point is about HOUNDING (as in WP:FOLLOWING), not about whether this was done to "annoy" or for otherwise... reasons. El_C 00:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that I get attacked and get unfounded accusations, and I get sanctioned. I don't see any attempts to show that this "HOUNDING" really happened. I haven't undone any Mhorg's edits in the last days.--Nicoljaus (talk) 00:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, then say that. Don't sidestep the matter by leaving it open-ended like that. More poitnedly, I'm a bit puzzled at how miffed you're getting over the word "annoy" when you accuse that same user as being NOTHERE (a far more serious charge) in an extremely terse way, are warned by me not to engage in ASPERSIONS and to substantiate, only to then respond by refactoring that same terse response again (!). How did you really think that was gonna go? No, engaging in that kind conduct is not going to be allowed for such a fraught topic area, if I have anything to say about it. El_C 00:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to me that communication on WP:AE requires conciseness and I really do not know what else to add to what has already been said about the extremly strong intersection of topics [61]. If you think this is weak evidence - not a problem, and if you explain the "why", I'll keep it in mind for the future. But I believe that WP:AE is a place where other non-involved administrators may be interested in this issue.--Nicoljaus (talk) 00:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Nicoljaus, but that doesn't actually responds to anything I said. Like, when I told you earlier that The AE noticeboard isn't a free-for-all. Fact: you went on to refactor that same unsubstantiated, extremely terse ASPERSION, even after I had warned you against doing so, specifically. If you're not going to address my reasoning as stated, I'll simply withdraw from this talk page, and you'll be free to appeal the sanction as you see fit (which, if you do, will be par for the course for me — I think there were 5 such appeals in the last month, all declined). El_C 00:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote that you don't understand "What is that VoxKomm link even about?" I have given a more specific line from the rule I referred to earlier, to clarify my point of view: [62], that's all. I don't think that this can really be called you went on to refactor that same unsubstantiated, extremely terse ASPERSION.--Nicoljaus (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Nicoljaus, you are of course free to think as you wish but that nevertheless is my position. El_C 01:40, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nicoljaus. Apparently, you have a history of previous sanctions and blocks. I do not know anything about it and have no intention to check. I can only comment on two diffs provided by the admin as a reason for your topic ban. Diff 1. You did make a strong assertion in your AE comment. However, you provided two links (in your previous edit) in support of such assertion. But it is not clear what exactly your assertion was. Did you mean that someone linking BLP content to his own YouTube videos would be a reason for claiming WP:NOTHERE? Or maybe you mean something else? That needs to be clarified. But in any event, you did not make an unsupported accusation. Diff 2. In the diff you are saying that you are making changes on these pages to improve content, not to create a trouble for another contributor. Simply making such comment (the diff) can hardly be a reason for any sanctions, in my opinion. A sustained wikihounding of another user, specifically to create him a trouble, could be a reason, but I do not see evidence that you had such malicious intention. As about the reason for the warning above, well, I checked your comments on article talk page, and have an opinion, but rather not say it. Overall, I think you might have a good chance in appeal, but again, I do not know your previous history of sanctions. Without knowing them, I am really surprised that the administrator made the sanction on the basis of two such diffs. I might not be around though when you make an appeal. My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it's well-meaning, but that's poor advise. Still, it's all the same to me. But, I will point out that linking to a non-English external website so as to draw a parallel between it and an editor's editing focus, and doing so in an extremely terse way, is quite problematic. It becomes doubly-problematic when it is used to accuse said user of being NOTHERE (an ASPERSION). And it gets compounded even further when it is then refactored a second time with the same terse thing over again, without even an ounce of additional substance, despite having been expressly warned against doing so. That, in my humble opinion, is grounds for sanctions, especially when undertaken by a repeat offender. El_C 02:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I saw NOTHERE used very often on ANI, and not always with a lot of evidence. And I did not see it treated at ANI as Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. I guess what can count as a reason for sanctions is not entirely clear for a lot of users, me including. My very best wishes (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it has an evidentiary basis for it being invoked, then sure. But it's not something that one can accuse another of with flimsy evidence, not to mention repeating doing so after a clear and unambiguous warning. Not sure I'm able to explain this any more clearly. El_C 02:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure that Nicoljaus had no idea his comemnt would be regarded as such a serious violation (and with such consequences) when he came comment to AE as a 3rd party ... My very best wishes (talk) 02:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how many warnings you deem it necessary in order for something to resonate (especially after this earlier one), MVBW, but all I am able to do is use my own discretion in such matters. That is what WP:ACDS is about — the d stands for discretionary. El_C 02:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure, and if the user disagree, they can appeal. Next time (if there will be next time), when someone files a request about me on WP:AE, I will ask all potentially involved 3rd party contributors not to submit anything in my support. My very best wishes (talk) 02:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you do as you see fit, MVBW. But 3rd party not by choice, lest we forget (diff). El_C 03:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That makes me feel even worse. Heck, I should not edit these subjects. And I actually did not, I checked this article about Navalny only because of this posting. My very best wishes (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is an unfortunate outcome, to be sure. It really is too bad it has come to this. But it is what it is. Now, hopefully, Nicoljaus will be able to edit productively and without incident elsewhere, a feat which will surely increase the likelihood of an appeal succeeding after a considerable period of time has passed. El_C 03:22, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I should note that I still have no idea whether Mhorg is, to put it vulgarly, a legit editor. That is something which the AE report will hopefully reveal, one way or the other. Them being the author of said AE complaint puts no less scrutiny on them than the person against whom it was filed (you, MVBW), just so there's no confusion about that. El_C 03:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal[edit]

Nicoljaus, your arbitration enforcement action appeal has been declined at Special:Permalink/1009238783 § Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Nicoljaus. Please review the policy against harassment, the guideline on disruptive editing, and the guide to dispute resolution, which outline some of the expectations for editing Wikipedia articles in controversial topic areas. — Newslinger talk 14:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apology[edit]

My apology for getting you in trouble through my editing here, including incorrect advice just above (that was just a wishful thinking on my part). Please also realize that I do not need to be saved because I would be better off by not editing here. Actually, I do not like WP because: (a) it makes people worse than they were prior to editing here; (b) it is stressful and addictive, and (c) it works as a vacuum cleaner by collecting a lot of misinformation along with information, simply due to nature of the project. Good luck. My very best wishes (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, it's OK. I'm not going to humiliate myself and hypocrite myself for the sake of participating in a volunteer project. So I just said what I wanted to say and I knew what the outcome would be.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your AN message. Given that your appeal was declined, I think you have one potentially viable option if you wish to continue. You might ask El_C if he would be willing to allow you editing historical subjects prior to let's say year of 1900. I assume you did not have any trouble while editing such historical subjects? These newer 20-21 century stuff is a lot more contentious and edited by many more people. This is the reason to have time frame limitations for DS on US history subjects, for example. El_C is actually a nice guy, and there is nothing wrong to ask. My very best wishes (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern, I am very pleased to see a friendly person here. But I will refrain for now, the atmosphere here has become too toxic. I have a feeling that I am not writing an encyclopedia, but participating in some kind of prison experiment.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I know what you mean. But my analogy would be worse, a prison for your mind. Fortunately, no one forces you or me to stay here. Good luck in real life! My very best wishes (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Serpantinka for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Serpantinka, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serpantinka until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I cannot participate in this discussion, because Comandante Che forbade me.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you pinging me here, Nicoljaus? Why are you responding to a bot? Pretty weird. El_C 17:12, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you are sure that everything is fine, then everything is fine.--Nicoljaus (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I give bots treats ([63][64]). But to each their own, I guess... El_C 17:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Nicoljaus, indef topic ban declined[edit]

The amendment request which you filed, Amendment request: Nicoljaus, indef topic ban, has been declined by the Committee. Because of this further substantive review for your topic ban at any forum is barred. The exception is that you may request that your topic ban is removed or eased on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but only if such an appeal was 6 months since your last such appeal. For more information on this, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Standard provision: appeals and modifications (specifically important note 2 in that section). You can review the closed amendement request here. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 11:52, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Racist Skinhead Glossary | Southern Poverty Law Center". Southern Poverty Law Center. 2006. Retrieved 2013-12-06.

[2] Natsiviittaus Ariel-pesujauhepaketissa herättää pahennusta Saksassa, YLE Uutiset 9 May 2014. Accessed on 12 May 2014.

[3] [1]

[1]

[2]

[3]