Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:31, 14 July 2022

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		"happy that we finally got a 'self-described neutral observer'" - that made me laugh. That was a positive add. Rockypedia (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

I was wondering why I saw you clearing your talk page. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Gandy orders a second round. Cheers to one of our best! Gandydancer (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

*hic* here's another :) sláinte! ——SerialNumber54129 15:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

	A Resilient Barnstar
	I’m very sorry to see the harassment you have faced. Stay strong Volunteer Marek! starship.paint (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

A kitten in the hopes that it improves you evening.

HighInBC 12:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

File:Regular.JPG listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Regular.JPG, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

FYI

Please note that I (favorably) mentioned one of your contributions here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Man, all those old school people of days long past. Volunteer Marek 19:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

AllatRa

I know you're busy with the whole ArbCom kerfuffle, but I was wondering if you had a few moments to give me some assistance with an article. I'm assuming, based on all the Eastern European stuff going on that you're Eastern European, or at least familiar with the languages and culture. I've been trying to clean up AllatRa, but I'm having to rely on machine translations, and there are several PDFs/papers that I can't read. I asked User:Ymblanter, who seems to think the sourcing is pretty bad, but I'd like another opinion before I bring it to AfD. Because of my lack of familiarity in the area, it could be that the movement or religion, or whatever it is, could be notable on it's face and I'm just unaware. Any assistance you can offer here would be appreciated, and if you're unable to help, thanks for your time none the less. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I've never heard of this thing and looking at User:Ymblanter's comments, I agree with their assessment of the sources. If this was at AfD i'd vote to delete. Volunteer Marek 18:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:A nice cup of tea and a sit down

I suggest you take a long sip of a nice cup of tea and don't let trolls and derivatives, including well minded people who don't know much but have "good intentions", get under your skin. I have an idea of the harassments you received and the resulting stress, but obviously a lot of people do not, and blaming the victim is clearly common ("How dare you act all hurt! It makes me uneasy to be around you, hence clearly you are causing trouble!"). Diffless accusations are painful, but reflect badly only on the editor(s) who make them, and in large enough volume, are sanctionable. I suggest that it is more productive to compile evidence of such behavior than engage in it. Or even healthier, just try to forget about all wiki things, this tiny s-t storm will pass like all the others. Happy XMAS and New Year and don't let the Icebugs bite. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 17:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Typo?

Not sure what happened here, but pretty sure it wasn't what you intended. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

FEE

Hi Marek, best wishes for the new year. I was thinking you may have a better understanding of whether this RSN discussion is fair appraisal in respect to the Foundation for Economic Education? (The article says it is a "think tank", is that right?) --Nug (talk) 06:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the gist of that discussion. It’s not reliable. Maaayybbbeee like in 1950s it would’ve been reliable for some things. Volunteer Marek 06:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the insight, am not that familiar with some of these US based foundations and it saved me from looking like bit of a goose in this RFC related discussion I'm involved in. Cheers. --Nug (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

In case you didn’t know...

The US Holocaust Museum has made the PDFs of their ‘’Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos’’ available for free at here. Ealdgyth (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I have them already, but thank you. Volunteer Marek 02:26, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk page edit revert

Hey there. I hope you're well. Can you explain your talk page revert of my edit here ? I was trying to get community consensus on what is felt about the PopCulture website as a source because I would like to use it in an article, but there is no mention on Misplaced Pages whether the community finds it reliable or not. Thank you! JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

User:JudgeJudyCourthouse25 - my apologies, I must've hit rollback accidentally while scrolling through my watchlist. Volunteer Marek 05:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Haha! That's funny because I could see myself doing that by accident to. Lol! No worries! Thanks for your response and happy editing. :) JudgeJudyCourthouse25 (talk) 05:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Page move

Since you performed the page move of Attack on Snake Island, could you move the archives and close discussion, too? Kingsif (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Expanding bareurls to avoid linkrot

Hello, and thank you for your efforts to improve Misplaced Pages, and in particular for adding references, as you did to War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine! However, you should know that adding a bare url is not ideal, and exposes the reference to linkrot. It is preferable to use proper citation templates when citing sources. A bare URL is a URL cited as a reference for some information in an article without any accompanying information about the linked page. In other words, it is just URL copied and pasted into the Wiki text, inserted between <ref>...</ref> tags, without title, author, date, or any of the usual information necessary for a bibliographic citation. Here's an example of a full citation using the {{cite web}} template to cite a web page:

Lorem ipsum<ref>{{cite web |title=Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac |publisher=Canon Inc |work=Ask a Question |date=2022 |url=https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART174839 |access-date=2022-04-02}}</ref> dolor sit amet.

which displays inline in the running text of the article as:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.

and displays under References as:

1. ^ Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac". Ask a Question. Canon Inc. 2022. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

If you've already entered one or more bare urls to an article, there are tools available to expand them into full citations; try the reFill tool, which can resolve some bare references semi-automatically. Once again, thanks for adding references to articles, and to avoid future link rot, please consider supplementing your bare URLs—creating full, inline citations with title, author, date, publisher, etc. More information can be found at Misplaced Pages:Inline citations. As for the Russian invasion article, I've gone ahead and fixed the bare urls using reFill, so you don't have to. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Attack on Snake Island

On 13 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Attack on Snake Island, which you recently nominated. The fact was ... that when a Russian warship asked the Ukrainian defenders of Snake Island to surrender, their response was "Russian warship, go fuck yourself"? You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Attack on Snake Island), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 11,191 views (932.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of April 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:00, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Institute for the Study of War

You removed a section stating that the Institute for the Study of War has been linked to neoconservative advocacy circles - with the reason "not RS"

Which of the sources specifically are not reliable?

1) Article by Harvard political scientist Stephen Walt, published in Foreign Policy 2) Article by Philip Garaldi in the American Conservative (agreed that this one could be problematic, will remove) 3) Two sources from the Militarist Monitor (haven't seen anyone else on Misplaced Pages have a problem with this source - let's ask others for comment) Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The last two are def not RS. The first one, maybe, but then the question is whether it’s due. Volunteer Marek 02:32, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Can you point me to where it's been established that militarist monitor is not a reliable source?

As for WP:DUE, I think it's very relevant to include the partisan bias of a think tank somewhere prominently in the lede, especially if the think tank claims to be non-partisan while having been founded by, and staffed with, prominent neoconservatives with funding from defense contractors.

Let me remind you that there is a whole section of the article talking about the political stance and influence of the group, which can be neatly summarized as "neoconservative" in the lede.

Here are some additional sources, some of which I had previously included until a previous editor removed them for "excessive sourcing." Now I have someone removing that sentence because it isn't sourced well enough.

Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/civilian-analysts-gained-petraeuss-ear-while-he-was-commander-in-afghanistan/2012/12/18/290c0b50-446a-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_print.html

The Intercept: https://theintercept.com/2018/03/17/new-york-times-iran-israel-washington-think-tanks/

Asia Times: https://asiatimes.com/2021/12/neocons-bent-on-starting-another-disaster-in-ukraine/

The Nation: https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/whos-paying-pro-war-pundits/ Chrisanthusjohn (talk) 18:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

This is a discussion for the article's talk page. Volunteer Marek 18:54, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

if you don't know what 1939 has to do with 1945

Perhaps you should read up a bit. I say this as nicely as I can, having been accused of POV pushing all weekend. I have zero, nada coat to hang on any coatrack, also. I have agreed with you in the past, and would welcome some constructive help, emphasis on constructive. There is a long history both to the article and the topic, and I am exhausted from dealing with editors who won't read sources. Can we do this tomorrow maybe? Speaking of, what's up with the RS tag? GizzyCatBella is complaining about the Kyiv Post, which is ridiculous, but I expected better of you. What exactly are you taking issue with? I might even agree with you, as I have some queries in to the article author. BUT. There is a lot of work in the article that may not be immediately apparent. I seem to recall that you speak a language that I don't. It wouldn't be Czech or Polish would it? If so I have some suggestions.

Meanwhile, I said "be serious" because the very next sentence gives details of the Polish pogrom, with a wikilink and a reference. Start by telling me why you would delete the lead-in. Tomorrow, please. Elinruby (talk) 04:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah and that next sentence I also removed because it was also off topic (and incorrect). I don't know what RS tag you're talking about. Volunteer Marek 04:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

BTW, what is this source: Кентій А. В. — 5. Боротьба ОУН і УПА на протибільшовицькому фронті // Розділ 4. «Двофронтова» боротьба УПА (1943 — перша половина 1944 рр. — cт. 2 (Kentiy AV - 5. The struggle of the OUN and the UPA on the anti-Bolshevik front // Chapter 4. "Two-front" struggle of the UPA (1943 - first half of 1944 - p. 2 ? Volunteer Marek 04:27, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

what's the topic, according to you? It changes daily. Piotrus tracked down the author and he is a respectable archivist. But it looks like some of the sources were machine translated from Polish to Ukrainian to English so at the moment we aren't sure if the title is a mangled version of one of his books or a journal article yet. I haven't had time to look into it yet. Also, some of the references are in Czech for some reason. That was the suggestion Elinruby (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation presumably, which is why the stuff that got removed was removed, since it didn't have anything to do with it. As far as the author, yeah I can find him, but what was the year of publication? The place? The publishing house? Volunteer Marek 04:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

That's at his talk page if you are interested. Seriously, I can't do this right now. You do realize I didn't write this article and am trying to fix it, right? If you speak Polish, I went over most of those last night, except for something about an archive that baffled me last night and that I need to get back to. Elinruby (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes I realize it but I haven't said anything about it. Volunteer Marek 04:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

er. the unfinished thought above is that I am careful but don't speak Polish, and Piotrus wants to do them all at once, which I can respect, but this is still a work in progress and if you want to check translations, that would be helpful. Where no language is specified I believe that at least part of the references is in Ukrainian, and text in parens is what Google translate makes of the reference text, which is helpful for month and sometimes for publisher but can definitely be wrong when it comes to trans-title. Also sometimes the the title and the name of the journal are in different languages Elinruby (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Probably should continue on talk. Volunteer Marek 04:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I am about half asleep but there are a couple of other people that have answered questions there and I will be happy to answer anything if I am still awake, or tomorrow if not. Consider what I just said a brain dump of what I know about the references. 05:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014)

Hello, Volunteer Marek. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Russian invasion of Ukraine (2014), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Misplaced Pages. FireflyBot (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Russian invasion of Ukraine 2014

Hello, Volunteer Marek. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Russian invasion of Ukraine 2014, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Misplaced Pages. FireflyBot (talk) 15:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Regarding pro-belligerent sources...

In the Rules for editing the map at Talk:Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War, 1.b. says that "A well-known source that does not have a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) only for edits that are unfavorable to the side it prefers (favorable to the side it opposes)." Therefore, a pro-Ukrainian source can be used to document Ukraine's setbacks, but not their successes.

Previously, we have added "Control claimed by " to the More information column to include this information while adhering to the rules for editing the map. (In fact, I was about to do so.) Moreover, when there is no existing source for a settlement, we have used claims by belligerents where no better source was available, followed by {{needs independent confirmation}}.

Finally, note that the source does not claim Ukrainian control of Cherkasi Tyshky, but that it is contested. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 23:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Where does this rule even come from? Was there a discussion or did someone just unilaterally make it up? Was there consensus for it? And if you're really gonna go by that then almost ANY source can be classified as pro-this side or pro-that side. Volunteer Marek 23:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The rules were, I believe, directly copied from Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war – so that's where to look if you want to research how that consensus was reached (perhaps over as long as a decade). To your next question, while one can argue that any source is biased, it should also be uncontroversial to class sources such as the BBC or the ISW differently to a belligerent government in this regard.

I appreciate how you resolved our conflict today by citing the ISW's statement on the settlements in question, so thank you for that. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

That was unilaterally added here without any discussion of what the rules should be and no consensus regarding these rules. Also, Ukraine isn't Syria so it's also not obvious why the same rules would apply (in case of the Syria page, the problem there was people citing twitter best I can tell). And Interfax isn't a "belligerent government" source. AFAIK, they're considered RS. Volunteer Marek 05:37, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

While unilaterally added, the fact that it has been part of the talk page for almost seven years, and through thousands of talk-page edits, without major change shows that there is consensus behind this rule. To your second point, the Control of cities page, the detailed map, the Scribunto module behind the detailed map, and the SVG used on the page for the invasion all have their equivalents for the Syrian civil war, while all these pages and resources can be classed as part of Misplaced Pages's documentation of territorial control during an ongoing war. Therefore, copying procedures which were found to work for Syria makes more sense than reinventing the wheel.

While Interfax may be reliable, the particular article which you cited in turn cites the Ukrainian General Staff (i.e. part of a belligerent government) as its source. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 12:23, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

All reliable sources are pretty much quoting government sources (or local witnesses). ISW is too and you had no objection to that. This is not a legitimate objection. Volunteer Marek 17:09, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, where ISW has merely quoted belligerents, I have objected to taking the relayed statements at face value. (In fact, I did so only today.) As I recall, the ISW, BBC and CNN have all discussed "independently confirm" this sort of claim. Through methods such as geolocating footage, comparing landmarks in footage to landmarks in or near settlements, or sending journalists to near the front lines, reliable sources do much more than merely quoting belligerents. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Alright, well, you know, it doesn't really matter. Sooner or later it comes out in other sources - worst case is we'll be behind a few days. Volunteer Marek 02:50, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Happy WikiBirthday!

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Volunteer Marek! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! 𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

𝕸𝖗 𝕽𝖊𝖆𝖉𝖎𝖓𝖌 𝕿𝖚𝖗𝖙𝖑𝖊 🇺🇦🇺🇦🇺🇦 (talk) 13:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please noet that Edit warring to restore your POV won't help you on Sparta Battalion. Please Use talk page and gain consensus as per WP:TALK and WP:RS. Thanks Jhy.rjwk (talk) 03:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

You’re the one repeatedly reverting multiple users. Volunteer Marek 03:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

For standing strong for truth and honesty on Misplaced Pages in an article about human rights

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For standing strong for truth and honesty on Misplaced Pages in an article about human rights. And for courage and tenacity in line with the foundational principles of Misplaced Pages on War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine Chesapeake77 (talk) 02:36, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Excellent work. Wikidgood (talk) 00:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

MAy 22

Your recent editing history 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Slatersteven (talk) 17:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Discussion invitation: Anti-Russian sentiment

PaulT2022 (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

May 22

Your recent editing history 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly..Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Reminder: Discussion invitation (Anti-Russian sentiment)

PaulT2022 (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Your presence has been requested on Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army's fight against Nazi Germany

Please address the two comments directed toward you Thanks 206.45.2.52 (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Here: Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine casualty figures

Regarding your recent edits at the casualties article... First, the section is updated almost daily (I see to it). Second, please read the two sources again , Meduza source may have been accessed for the first time on Misplaced Pages on May 20, but it is updated once every 2 weeks (last update being June 17 for figures as of June 16). As per citations, BBC News Russia cooperates with Meduza to update the figures as well every 2 weeks (those weeks when Meduza does not, so they cycle) and last update by BBC News Russia was June 24 (for figures as of June 23). Also, earlier discussions at main invasion article were to use the "+" as indicator that figures are not final and only confirmed so far. Thus we have been using the + indicator for UN, BBC/Meduza and IStories figures. Hope this clears it all up. EkoGraf (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I see that, but if you "update it almost daily" then you should also update the "last accessed" part to avoid this sort of confusion. Volunteer Marek 21:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I just did . EkoGraf (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but that's after the fact (and it should be "27" not "17") Volunteer Marek 21:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Fine, will change to 27. But I wanted to note another thing about your repeated and new edit . If you are insistent to add more text to the table instead of the "+" indicator (which was used up until now), then it should be in shorter form so not to unnecessarily elongate and inflate the table (or maybe add a note instead where a longer textual explanation can be added). As for your new edit, as per earlier editor agreement when the article was created back in 2014 with the War in Donbass, self-admitted casualty figures (by Russia and Ukraine) and those provided by 3rd parties (UN, US, etc) are included within the tables, while belligerent claims of their enemies losses are included outside the tables in text form due to the high possibility of propaganda inflation. This agreement was once again re-confirmed a few times during recent discussions at the start of the 2022 invasion at that articles' talk page, but with a compromise, where we continue to stick to the 2014 agreement for the casualties article, but include the possibly propaganda inflated figures by both Russia and Ukraine of their enemies losses within the table of the main invasion article since all casualty figures have been moved from the infobox to the casualties section due to bloating. Finally, as per another editor agreement reached at the 2022 invasion article, in regards to Ukrainian claims of Russian figures, its been agreed that a neutral term that is to be used is "losses" (which is also used by a number of Ukrainian sources) due to the fact that some news sources state the figure refers to those killed, while others say it refers to both killed and wounded. As per a compromise reached, a note in this regard was added to the Ukrainian claim in the main articles' table. EkoGraf (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Currently working on a note that will encompass explaining both UN, BBC/Meduza and IStory figures are only confirmed and that final estimates are much higher. Will take me a few minutes. EkoGraf (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Done . You can expand/change the sentence if you want, but please try to make it universal since its used for both figures confirmed by the UN (for civilians), BBC/Meduza and IStory (for Russian forces), which all note higher ultimate figures. EkoGraf (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Between, when I think about it now, I might be inclined to move the Ukrainian/Russian claims of their enemies' losses from text form into the table and not argue over it further (so both the table of the invasion article and the casualties article are the same), but only if you could first start a proper general discussion on the issue in a new section of the talk page and enough editors agree so the old consensus could be properly replaced with a new one. I would take a neutral stance on the issue. I would recommend to use the invasion article's talk page since there is more editor traffic there. The mood of the editors as it is right now, I think you would find enough editors to agree for the text-to-table move. EkoGraf (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

VM, your edit here reverted a lot more than just your issue regarding the note. You also canceled out my update regarding Russian claimed casualties per Ukraine (from today), the change to the access date (as per your request), and also BrownHairedGirl's edits. As I stated above, the note and wording "sources" is a universal one to be used to refer to both the UN source (for confirmed civilian deaths) and those by BBC News Russian/Meduza/IStories (for confirmed Russian military deaths). Just doing a blanket cancelation of all edits including unrelated ones isn't helpfull. Like I commented above, you can change the wording of the note however you wish for it to be worded. As for the Ukrainian claim being moved to the table, like I said above, I won't object if we procedurally first establish a new consensus to which I will not object to. EkoGraf (talk) 00:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Going to make a further attempt at compromise. I wanted for the note to contain universal text for both confirmed figures by the UN and others so we could cut down on the number of notes. But if you insist for the confirmed Russian military deaths to have more explanations, than I will separate the notes. Give me a few minutes. EkoGraf (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Separated and expanded the notes to include more information and wording that you have specifically requested (the name thing). Want to expand them further? EkoGraf (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Also started the discussion to solidify the movement of the belligerent's claims from text to table to speed things along. See here . Despite saying I would take a neutral stance, I have softly given my approval to the move, suggesting at least one benefit from it. EkoGraf (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

So you wouldn't doubt my sincerity over this issue (as you have shown) I have moved the belligerent's claims of enemy casualties from text/prose form into the table as per your request temporarily until the move is further solidified in case of agreement at the Invasion article and the move becomes permanent. EkoGraf (talk) 01:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

You know there's a talk page for this, right? Volunteer Marek 01:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, been responding there as well, wasn't sure which one you were checking. Anyway, made lots of changes towards the table. Hope its closer to us finding middle ground at least. EkoGraf (talk) 01:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions

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 the Balkans or Eastern Europe. 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 Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

TFD (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I could not find that you had received this notice in the last year. If you have, my apologies. TFD (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean... LOL? Volunteer Marek 23:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I’m watching your talk page @Volunteer Marek 😀. That was funny 😂@The Four Deuces - GizzyCatBella🍁 23:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Apparently the notices expire after 12 months, otherwise I would not have reminded you. Mhawk10 provided me with the template on June 10th 2022 and previously on 12 June 2021‎. Mhawk10 and Gizzy have both been templated in the past 12 months, so I left them alone. TFD (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces I understand, but anyone who recalls the history would know that VM is one of the most aware ever.

Anyway, it was funny that you thought he might benefit from the notice, but nothing wrong with adding one more to the collection. Just in case he forgets.😂 - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: As I noted on my talk page, I don't think that I have ever given you a {{DS/Alert}} for Eastern Europe. I gave you a {{GS/Alert}} for WP:UYGHUR, but I'm kinda confused since they're not even the same template. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Anyway, the templates for some reason expire after 12 months. TFD (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

No need to be sorry 🙂, you did nothing wrong. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Fair, though for future reference the notices are generally unnecessary if a user meets any other part of WP:AWARE. And, seeing as the editor was sanctioned in 2012, there's not really a reason to give them the awareness notice for this topic area. With respect to WP:APL, which is related and might be related to the reason that this notice appeared on the page, awareness is met by being named in the relevant final decision. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 03:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

"Please WP:AGF"

Regarding edits to Module:Russo-Ukrainian War detailed map, you were asked by Firestar464 to "please WP:AGF", to which you asked why this was relevant. I hope to provide an answer.

While Sievierodonetsk was contested, you undid edits by me and Firestar464 which separated Azot from the rest of the city. In edit summaries, you suggested that my edit was "just cope" (a weird choice of words, since Russia was winning that particular battle) and that Firestar464's "appear to be so that it can be claimed Russia captured the city", i.e. you made accusations of bias. I accept that in order to follow WP:NEUTRAL, one should be able to point out bias. However, WP:AGF suggests that we should not immediately conclude that a biased edit is the result of a deliberately biased editor; similarly, we should not assume that our own interpretation of what is biased is always entirely correct.

Certainly in my case (and I imagine in Firestar464's as well), my separation of Azot from the rest of Sievierodonetsk on the map was simply following the precedent set by the map's coverage of the Battle of Mariupol, during which an editor decided to make Azovstal a separate entity on the map, after which Mariupol was coloured red while the facility was coloured blue, then contested, then red. Furthermore, if you want some evidence that I am not attempting to give the war pro-Russian coverage on Misplaced Pages, you can see that among my earliest contributions to Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War was my contesting pro-Russian claims which cited the Russian MoD or the official DPR website, or which even had no citation.

At any rate, thank you for your contributions. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC Notice

War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has an RFC

War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Donetsk People's Republic–Russia relations

Hi! You may be interested in this article: it looks rather pro-Russian than neutral. Wikisaurus (talk) 11:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

BLP 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 articles about 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 Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.

Special:Diff/1078173609, Special:Diff/1096635419, Special:Diff/1096644265, Special:Diff/1097473634, Special:Diff/1097663738, WP: ONUS, OK? Levivich 00:31, 14 July 2022 (UTC)