This is an archive of past discussions with User:Mzajac. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Merchandise giveaway nomination
A token of thanks
Hi Mzajac! I've nominated you (along with all other active admins) to receive a solstice season gift from the WMF. Talk page stalkers are invited to comment at the nomination. Enjoy! Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk ~~~~~
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
Thank you for the great solution to the issue of strength in the infobox for Russo-Ukrainian War. I had been agonizing over how to treat it, but you handled it really well. Enjoy some tea! AlexEng(TALK)09:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I’m glad it worked out. I had just been looking at the source a few days ago, and it happened to provide a broad summary suitable for the infobox, if not perfect (it has a lot more detail, too). —MichaelZ.14:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I understand that you are trying to cite Putin's comments, but you really should not insert TASS citations into articles at all, as you did at Minsk agreements. Please try and find a reliable source for this statement. Furthermore, I think you might be aware that TASS itself says nothing about Putin's claims being 'false'... RGloucester — ☎20:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Your closure reason is invalid; not every Talk page discussion is a proposal for a specific fix to a specific article, some discussions are brainstorming among interested editors, in order to develop consensus about some one or another point which would improve an article, at which point a proposal might be made. A discussion that possibly affects many articles, is entirely appropriate for a WP:WikiProject, and WP:WikiProject Ukraine in particular is a highly appropriate venue to discuss the question. The discussion should not be unilaterally shut down, while there are still editors interested in responding to it.
You are WP:INVOLVED, and have no standing to close this, or to shut down active discussion on a topic that is apparently of interest to other editors. Furthermore, your comments in the discussion clearly show that you have a strong opinion about the point being discussed; all the more reason to be the very last person to unilaterally close it.
If you still believe closure of this discussion is warranted (and I'm not saying it isn't warranted), please make a request at Wikipedia:Closure requests, and allow a disinterested editor to be the one to perform the closure. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 03:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
I have opinions about a lot of things, but I didn’t see any points leading to any concrete changes. But okay, have it your way, if you see the value that I missed. —MichaelZ.03:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
FAR for National emblem of Belarus
I have nominated National emblem of Belarus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog FarmTalk17:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Chokha discussion
Hello,
A discussion page for chokha was started. I did make a reply to your comment. I was wondering how to make the discussion going so we can come to a conclusion on the page title. I did provide sources and everything is visible on the discussion page. Cherkezy (talk) 10:25, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Qwerfjkltalk20:52, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
Ideology
Hey, thank you for your contributions to the articles related with Russian invasion of Ukraine and WikiProject Ukraine in general. I would like to ask you to contribute to this page: Russian fascism (ideology) as it appears to be quite tough for many users to make it nice and neat. It has been also softly deleted (redirected) and I think it need more experienced users to be involded. Maybe you could find more English sources to make the article look more encyclopedic and neutral. Best --IgorTurzh (talk) 11:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as List-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hey! During your moving of Talk:Russian separatist forces in Donbas, you forgot to update the archive location. All you need to do is adjust the |archive= parameter in the {{User:MizaBot/Config}} template to the new page name. Don't worry, I've fixed this for you. Just keep this in mind if you move a page in the future. Thanks! Aidan9382(talk)16:43, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Doric Loon was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
This was declined a few days ago, and has been resubmitted without any attempt to solve the problem that was flagged. That is never going to fly.
Please understand, there is no question whatsoever that the bombing of Lviv is notable in itself. But we have other articles on the current war. The question here is whether it is useful or helpful to have this article in this form. If you can expand it with more detail and give more sources (English-language ones would help, though that is not a requirement), it could be that an article on "Lviv in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine" could become a valuable contribution.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2022 bombing of Lviv and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:2022 bombing of Lviv, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Mzajac!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Doric Loon (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atrocities in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
i found that zaloga writes differrent thjings in 2000-s book and in 2009-s book about T-80UM2. in 2000 he writes that T-80um2 have ERA Drozd-1 and have plane to upgrade this model by ERA Drozd-2, but in 2009 he writes that t-80um2 have drozd-2 since 1997. MankubusDoom (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi Mzajac. You've been active in this topic area for a while, I was wondering if you might have any knowledge you could share about any longer-term (or maybe just since Feb 24) Pro-Russian socks. I've started an investigation against one, but I'm sure that I haven't properly identified the master, if you have time I would very much appreciate your help.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
@Ermenrich, I’d love to help. Strongly non-NPOV anti-Ukrainian comments and edits are mostly drive-by anons and registered editors. I’ve been frustrated by multiple editors that push similar edits with a variety of different POVs in articles surrounding the Holodomor, but I have no evidence whether they’re in good faith or coordinated. I have no idea how to actually identify socks in any of these (none are blatantly obvious). —MichaelZ.18:47, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I've been amazed by the number of well-established editors (apparently resident in Western countries as well) who seem to be regurgitating Kremlin propaganda on this site... Anyway, the editor in question is 666hopedieslast. My initial SPI was unsuccessful and they sort of just dismissed out of hand the next one where I pointed out his use of an IP to make a #vote at AfD while he was being investigated for the first one. Anything about him look familiar to you? There's no way he's really a new editor.--Ermenrich (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
Article is over 420Kb again
My suggestion would be to split the full Reactions section out of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine article, into a split article called 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine reactions. If you agree and try to do it, then I'll support. The article is getting much too large. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
On Donetsk PR you made a source a failed source when the source is about the cities outside the Oblast that are controlled by the DPR, not the rest of the map. CubanoBoi (talk) 16:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
@CubanoBoi, I assume you mean the Kyiv Independent article[3] that says “Regional authorities relayed how some residents of the occupied district of Rozovka were forced to vote in a sham referendum to join the illegitimate occupation government in Donetsk Oblast last week.”
I don’t believe the in-passing mention of a report that such a sham meeting took place, with no mention of any resulting legal effects, recognition, or claim by any state or quasi-state entity, attests to what the map represents: either the original legend “occupied territories since 2022,” nor my updated version “Russian advances within Donetsk Oblast since February 24,” based on an actual map legend in the actual other source cited.
Furthermore, the map doesn’t show the defunct Rozivka raion nor the current Polohy Raion, only what looks like a tiny colouring error in a corner of it.
I am really tired of the maps with their legends and sources in the DLNR articles being repeatedly fudged to create the fake image of country. There are dozens of maps in the news every day, but people keep trying to make up some separatist fantasy and make it stick. Enough. —MichaelZ.17:53, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I see what looks like a glitch is actually a spot around the location of the village of Rozivka. Still doesn’t correspond to what an illegal assembly supposedly voted for, to what the map purports to show, nor what any reliable source has put on a map. —MichaelZ.18:03, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
Dispute between users Mzajac and Seryo93 (identified by user Jargo Nautilus)
Hi Michael Z (Mzajac). I would like to inform you that I have informally (or quasi-formally) initiated a conduct dispute between you and @Seryo93. It also involves me as well, because there is the possibility that Seryo93 might take actions against me directly. In any case, I've decided to strike-through the comment made by Seryo93 on Talk:Russia#Add Russian invasion of Ukraine, 2022, to the lead wherein he misquotes you as saying something that you didn't say, and ironically charges you with saying something that is untrue. Indeed, it is Seryo93's own comment that is objectively untrue, hence the need to strike-through Seryo93's comment. I have contacted Seryo93 about the matter so that he knows the exact reason for my actions. The talk discussion is here: User talk:Seryo93#I have struckthrough your comment on Talk:Russia because it is false beyond a reasonable doubt. The exact diff of my strike-through on Talk:Russia is here - 1. Thanks and regards, JN. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
Can you expain on what grounds you remove the information concerning the control of the city. Donetsk is currently controlled by Donetsk PR which is a hard fact. Why remove this reference? 62.122.109.139 (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Here Donetsk and probably some others like here Mariupol. Donetsk is currently not under Ukrainian jurisdiction. That was reflected in the infobox. Donetsk is now the capital of Donetsk PR which is a breakway state. 62.122.109.159 (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Oh, do you mean this change? Yes, I did that on a great number of articles. The previous infobox data was incorrect:
Regardless of the labels, entering that data set up an incorrect hierarchy, indicating that the “DNR” was a subdivision of Ukraine.
As a result, articles had automatically generated short descriptions like “City in Donetsk People's Republic, Ukraine.”
The infobox is meant to relate stable accepted information, like the internationally recognized country a place is in, and not show what military force occupies it as of yesterday and possibly no longer tomorrow.
Most of the affected places are referred to in WP:reliable sources as either in the state of being “Russian controlled,” if occupied since February 24, or “separatist controlled since 2014.” They do not refer to “Donetsk, DNR,” or “Donetsk, de facto in the DNR” or anything like that.
yes, but isn't that necessary for Wikipedia to reflect the changes that directly affect the national policies. Ukraine lost control over the certain areas, the DPR was recognized by Russia and two other counties I think.So regarding this city as part of Ukraine is misleading to say the least. Maybe it should follow the example of Simferopol so the country is shown as disputed. 62.122.109.135 (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Ah. Generally no. We use the Ukrainian National system – as outlined at WP:UKR and described in romanization of Ukrainian – which drops the soft sign ь.
(In articles about linguistics, the international scholarly system is sometimes used, but it is somewhat different with x, c, č, ju, ja, instead of kh, ts, ch, yu/iu, ia/ia, etc.) —MichaelZ.22:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I've added the labels and removed all parts of Mykolaiv Oblast. They had been put there because back in early September, the Kherson Administration absorbed the duties of the Mykolaiv Administration, which claimed control of the two raions added to the map. However, in this current moment, they do nothing but confuse. Physeters✉00:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Wow, thanks. This is good.
I think the labels should say Mykolaiv Oblast and Zaporizhzhia Oblast, and have a matching one for Kherson Oblast. On their own they are the proper names of cities. You could abbreviate “Obl.”
(Dnipropetrovsk is a special case, its main city was renamed Dnipro during decommunization, but the oblast can’t be renamed until the constitution is amended).
You are welcome. I put "Dnipro." because I couldn't get Dnipropetrovsk to look any good as the text had to be too small. I'll add the Oblast suffixes in the next update. Thanks for your interest in making the map better! Physeters✉00:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Russia has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Xx236 (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
"Largest seizure attempted since World War II"
Regarding this edit, where the largest seizure attempted since World War II was added, did you mean the largest in general or specifically in Europe? The Reuters source says "the biggest annexation in Europe since World War Two" though I haven't really looked into other annexations but noticed Annexation of Western Sahara if this counts. Regards. Mellk (talk) 21:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
@Mellk, my mistake. Yes, it was based on that source, and should reflect what it says. I’ll correct it if not done yet. Thanks. —MichaelZ.22:37, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
As the person who started the article, it would have been courteous to let me know that you started an WP:ANI topic. Please take this as a complaint that you did not extend that courtesy. CT55555(talk) 16:54, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello Mzajac! I noticed that you reverted my edit of reverting an IP user bolding "Konigsberg" (I can't easily type special characters) in the lead of Kaliningrad. I decided to read the relevant MOS and I'm not sure if the MOS supports the bolding of "Konigsberg" as MOS:BOLDALTNAMES says "Only the first occurrence of the title and significantalternative names (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold" (italics not mine). The main issue I have is that "Konigsberg" does not redirect to Kaliningrad, but instead has it's own article, and the MOS doesn't seem to say what to do in this case. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654515:43, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
@Blaze Wolf, I will self revert for now (also because the name is a link), but maybe there should be a discussion about this. In my view, these articles are about two (chronologically separated) aspects of one subject that has had two names. See, for example, Istanbul, but contrast with Constantinople and Byzantium. —MichaelZ.15:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Alright sounds good. I figured I would ask you first instead of just reverting since the MOS didn't exactly make it clear what to do in this case. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654515:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
This post is quite clearly a straw man argument. In responding, I did WP:AGF despite this. A strawman argument is a logical fallacy: A fallacy is reasoning that is logically invalid, or that undermines the logical validity of an argument.Your response (the first paragraph) not only represents a statement as a quote when no such statement was made but it is not even a reasonable paraphrase of what was actually said. It is another strawman argument. Given the first post referred to herein, I cannot see how this can be ascribed to a misunderstanding; however, if it is, I don't see that there would be a problem with redacting the first paragraph, notwithstanding that you might make a substitution. On the other hand, I would note that WP:STRAWMAN statements intentionally made are considered inherently against the civility policy. Either way, I would believe it appropriate to redact (strike through) the first para of your most recent post. I would also note that (per WP:P&G) it would be inappropriate to make edits to that paragraph at this time. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:34, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Michael, I believe you are doing this again - ie talking to only part of a statement (out of context) rather than the full statement in which I said: While Crimea is disputed territory in the greater scheme of things, it was nonetheless held by Russia preinvasion. [emphasis added] I did not sneak anything in nor did I imply that the Russian claim was legitimate or had been legitimised. I was simply pointing out that being in Crimea is not so clear cut and [i]t is certainly not a clear line that an Iranian presence in Crimea constitutes "boots on the ground" and an act of aggression.Cinderella157 (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
@Cinderella157, I replied to a statement that is absolutely wrong, in that context or out of it. Iranian illegal military presence within Ukraine’s borders is literally boots on the ground. Its participation in the invasion on the side of the aggressor state is clear involvement in the conflict and complicity in Russia’s crime of aggression (and may even constitute direct aggression according to the UN’s definition, para. 3[b]).[4] —MichaelZ.00:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
My statement that: While Crimea is disputed territory in the greater scheme of things, it was nonetheless held by Russia preinvasion. is factually correct in every respect. And it is not a a clear line that an Iranian presence in Crimea constitutes "boots on the ground" and an act of aggression. To argue that it is would be WP:OR - until we have authoritative sources (ie the UN) declaring that it is (as we have for Belarus?). Please dial back the WP:BATTLEGROUNDy rhetoric and refrain from WP:STRAWMAN type arguments that misrepresent the full context of what was said. One can have a robust discussion within the reasonable bounds of civility. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
In the most recent discussion on this subject, you make the statement: I think you are wikilawyering by creating your own non-consensus interpretation of the guideline that you foxiest mentioned here, to prevent perfectly normal and reasonable information from being placed in the infobox. Earlier, you stated: That a lot of dancing around the language. Dancing around language is pretty much pettifogging but it was not stated as a personalised direct allegation regarding conduct. You are now making a personalised direct allegation regarding conduct and bad faith (see WP:AOBF) that can be construed as a personal attack because it has been personalised. You should take the matter to a drama board and substantiate your allegation or redact the statement. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Pointing out your unsound argument is not a personal attack.
Pointing out an unsound argument is not a personal attack. Making a personalised (using you) direct allegation regarding conduct and bad faith is. Drama board = ANI. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I don’t think you are arguing in bad faith. I think your argument is unsound. I think you are applying an unreasonably strict and narrow interpretation of the advice in the guidelines on more than one count, and you don’t have consensus on your side. It is not a disciplinary matter, but it is needless obstruction of working on the article. —MichaelZ.22:24, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
I might make similar observations with respect to the arguments made to support inclusion. The distinction is that I address the argument not the person - ie the argument is unsound not your argument is unsound, which is personalised. One should avoid pejorative statements and definitely avoid personalising them (eg ... you are wikilawyering ...) unless you are actually making an allegation - because that is what it is. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
No, what I said was: such a case [the argument] would appear to fall to WP:PETTIFOGGING. This was after you having stated: That a lot of dancing around the language and such a statement would pretty much be a definition of pettifogging. The distinction is when one ceases to address the argument and starts to address the person. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Michael, one of us is a fenagling, pettifogging, wikilawyering bastard and the RfC will reveal which. If it is me, and you undertake to reciprocate, I will stand butt naked at my front gate and send you a photo (back view and without mooning) as proof and offer an apology here explicitly stating that I am the person so described. In the chance that the RfC has "no consensus" (versus a decision one way or the other) I undertake to offer an apology here "for any angst caused" (again, reciprocated). Should you decline this challenge, the honourable thing is to reddact the offending sentence in full (I think you are wikilawyering by creating your own non-consensus interpretation ...) with a hyperlink to this section of your talk page. Cinderella157 (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
