User talk:Mzajac/2019


Incorrect reference?

Hello, Mzajac. I've noticed your reference in the article "Kerch Strait incident". After checking it, I can't figure out how a book about Jewish and Christian texts (Why Did Paul Go West? Jewish Historical Narrative and Thought) is relevant to the 2003 treaty between Russia and Ukraine.

Can you explain it, please?--Russian Rocky (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Oops. Probably copy-pasted from the wrong browser tab. Corrected now. Thanks, Russian Rocky. —Michael Z. 2019-01-19 23:24 z
Thanks for the clarification, Mzajac. Though, that source is almost identical to the previous source in the article's lead. I think using just one of them is enough, as they are duplicative (WP:DUPCITES).--Russian Rocky (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Добрий день! Помітив, що ви активно підтримуєте Україну і український англомовний контент у вікіпедії. So, here is an issue concerningn the speedy deletion of Ukrainian food company article Dmytruk_(company) and Ukrainian software company Agiliway. Could you please join the dispute and prove it has the right to be published in EN Wiki as many similar others. Hope you will help. Гарного дня! Crazyalien (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

Icon of a white exclamation mark within a black triangle
 Administrators must secure their accounts

The Arbitration Committee may require a new RfA if your account is compromised.

View additional information

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)

ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Аɪ (IPA) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Аɪ (IPA). Since you had some involvement with the Аɪ (IPA) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For your update of the 9M730 Burevestnik article to reflect the possible / likely accident involving the missile in the last 48 hours. Always Alert!! Buckshot06 (talk) 07:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

"Aboriginal languages" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Aboriginal languages. Since you had some involvement with the Aboriginal languages redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

"Aboriginal language" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Aboriginal language. Since you had some involvement with the Aboriginal language redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 21:50, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

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) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Mass changes to infoboxes

I noticed many changes to infoboxes you've been making, and not for the better. They are harder to read and don't have the English article title right up front. I'm not even sure as to why the changes are being made to highlight the Ukrainian spelling over the English/Article spelling. Please don't do this many changes without consensus as I see this causing problems down the line. All the variations should be in the article body, not the infobox. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Huh? Why does the infobox have those fields then, which are probably in use in tens of thousands of articles?
What’s harder to read? What do you mean don’t have the English article title right up front? Would you please walk me through one of my edits and let me know what you mean? —Michael Z. 2019-11-26 01:00 z
In Yany Kapu and Kadiivka these are the official names. They are both in Russian-occupied territories where the official name is not in use or not recognized. Furthermore, in Crimea there are three official languages. I am filling in the inbox info consistently. The article text in some of those is confusing and may need improvement. Please stop removing info that I’ve added. —Michael Z. 2019-11-26 01:05 z
Look at Krasnoperekopsk. That is the article title and English name for the city, and its name is prominant at the top of the infobox... everyone can see it plain as day. Then you change it to the mess that is this edit. If you don't see that it is harder to read and is overkill for the infobox then I don't knbow what to say. It looks terrible and does not have the article title front and center. When we create an article on Novak Djokovic we put that spelling right at the top of the infobox. Further down we note his native name and spelling. If he has 5 native names and spellings we wouldn't put that in the infobox because that's not what it's for! It's a super summary of prose and if the variations get extensive then it prose it should remain. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:13, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Yany Kapu is the official and internationally recognized name. Krasnoperekopsk is the old name, but is used by the Russian occupation. That needs to be explained in the text. Both names need to appear in all three languages, because all three are native, three are official in Russian-held Crimea, and two also have regional status under Ukrainian law. —Michael Z. 2019-11-26 01:19 z
You are recognizing the illegal Russian occupation when you remove the official Ukrainian name from the official_name field. I’m trying to provide balanced info while reflecting the de facto state. It’s complicated, but if you dumb it down because you don’t like complications, then it will just be dumb and not neutral POV. —Michael Z. 2019-11-26 01:22 z
The thing is YOU KNOW THIS IS CONTROVERSIAL. It is controversial on the Kiev page and others have told you so before I did. Yet you are forcing your way by edit warring and mass changes to your pov. That's not good, and doing it while wearing some sort of admin badge is even worse imho. Those infoboxes you are creating look a mess and messes with detailed explanations belong in prose, not an infobox. And now you are edit-warring to get your way and I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish with that tact. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Which “this”? Adding transcriptions to the infoboxes? No one mentioned that at all until you reverted it claiming in “know” it’s controversial. You are objecting to three or four different things, objecting none of them clearly, and discussing them in two different places. —Michael Z. 2019-11-26 03:10 z

November 2019

Stop icon

FOUR Reverts in 11 HOURS, and others over the last few days. Your recent editing history at Kiev 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:10, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Your first communication to my “bold” action of filling in the template fields was to call it “ridiculous” in an edit summary, followed by other disparaging comments in edit summaries and on two talk pages. This officious warning would carry more weight if it was delivered by an editor who is more detached. —Michael Z. 2019-11-26 16:47 z
Bold action is a first try... continued edit warring is an offense that is blockable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:24, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

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.

--Ymblanter (talk) 16:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)