User talk:Adûnâi

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Adûnâi! Thank you for your contributions. I am Anupam and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Anupam^Talk 02:36, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Guilty Gear Xrd Revelator discussion

Hello! You're invited to express your opinion in the following discussion from an article you've recently edited: Talk:Guilty Gear Xrd#New Article for Revelator? Jotamide (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Captions

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia! There are many style guidelines and rules here which may not be obvious to new editors (some certainly weren't to me!). See MOS:CAPTION: captions that aren't full sentences don't have a period/full stop. Peter coxhead (talk) 05:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Adûnâi. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salamanca

I saw your comment on the talk page as I went there to explain my bold edit. I see you are a wiki gnome but in such cases of POV pushing like that sentence, we can be bold to rectify it Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your question on the missing comma

Regarding your question on the missing comma, Wouldn't it be a comma between a subject and a verb?, I'm not sure what you mean, but have you read WP:Copyedit#Punctuation?

It you take the sentence "The British North America Act of July 1, 1867, united the colonies of ... " (with commas per above), there is only place to insert the parenthetical expression "(now celebrated as Canada Day)", and that is between "1867" and the comma.

HandsomeFella (talk) 06:46, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The example in the rules has an adverbial at the start of a sentence (On September 15, 1947, she began her first year at Harvard.), whereas your example puts two commas between a subject and a verb. I'm sure one of them is correct (July 1, 1867), but I'm not really familiar with the second one. Would you like to point out any rules about it?--Adûnâi (talk) 14:57, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see MOS:COMMA, the "Burke and Wills" example. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a completely unrelated example. If in your sentence, it was the Act that united the colonies, I don't see how you could put the second comma between them. And I can't see why it wouldn't be the Act. It would be exactly like in your example if it looked like this, "The Act of July 1, 1867, today called the Constitution Act, united..."--Adûnâi (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan Desert

Hello
I noticed your edits on this page, which I've just had occasion to go back to. Your edits were reasonable enough, but the text you found was the result of a bad change (here) which was imperfectly corrected (here). I've put it right, but have had to undo some of your changes in the process. I trust you are OK with that. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 22:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Adûnâi. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kaiserthum, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kaiserreich (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) 09:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Adûnâi. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Adûnâi. 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]

April 2019

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Katie_Bouman, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 10:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the trolling that was on display at Talk:Katie Bouman recurs, you will be blocked. Consider yourself warned for this response [1] too. Acroterion (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion How does this constitute trolling? Am I trying to catch "lulz" (the definition of trolling) out of a suggestion to research the matter in question? As far as I can see, people are asking for different kinds of details about the person (e.g., her father), and they're fine?

Again, I want to say that it seems incredible to me that asking whether a person is a Jew is inflammatory! Honestly, this is the greatest irony! Also, Bourman does seem like a Jewish surname, I'm Western Ukrainian and this kind of names is common here.

Also, it's incredible that you are threatening me with an account block after only a single comment on the talk page! Is this legitimate? Aren't talk pages a place for discussion? In my 5 years on this website, I have never vandalized any page! Before the smallest of contributions (well, bigger than commas), I usually ask for advice! It's incomprehensible to me to be taken for a vandal.--Adûnâi (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you think so or not, it is most definitely inflammatory to speculate in that manner. It's a violation of the biographies of living persons policy and is commonly referred to on Wikipedia as Jew-tagging, resulting in sanctions for the editors who do that. Now that you know that it's not acceptable behavior, I expect it to stop. Your comment was deleted by another administrator as grossly offensive. Acroterion (talk) 15:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a written policy on this thing called "Jew-tagging"? If it's offensive, and Editors are getting sanctions, I would think someone would have made some kind or written policy about it, rather than waiting for unsuspecting Editors to stumble into the trap.Tym Whittier (talk) 16:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the discussion at Talk:Katie Bouman - Wikipedia isn't an a megaphone for the chan boards, and talkpages aren't for guessing or speculation about living people. Acroterion (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not understand why my comment was deleted if it was on the talk page (for which the talk page exists), used no slurs, and at the same time was about a possible feature of a person in question (as you may see, there is literally another comment posted on the said talk page about this very question). I fail to see how this is inflammatory or damaging - I could see it if I had asked if she's a child molester. I fail to see how this is trolling or an edit war - I posted it on the talk page. I used no slurs - my language is clean of it, albeit I've never been used to proper Wikipedia style (but then again, that's why I write on talk pages). A mere question about the person's identity is not inflammatory.

Have you honestly taken me for someone from 4chan, and that's the rationale for this whole thing? I don't get it. I do visit that website, but pretty rarely and inconsequentially.--Adûnâi (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was an exact mirror for trolling behavior in content and tone, which is why Oshwah deleted it and why we're having this conversation. Please take the BLP policy seriously. Now that you know that, there shouldn't be any other trouble. Acroterion (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, trolling is an inflammatory remark. Mine was not. Not to any sensible people, that is. But maybe I did disturb some holy cows, and if that is the case, I do indeed humbly ask for forgiveness and reconciliation.--Adûnâi (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asking if someone is a Jew "because they look like one" is patently offensive. Don't ever do that again. Acroterion (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Asking if someone has African-American ancestry because they look like it is completely fine, in my opinion. Genetic biodiversity is a thing in humans. Cheers.--Adûnâi (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

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.

Acroterion (talk) 15:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Civil War

Hi. Please revert yourself, or find some other solution. The single word "The" is not an acceptable lead for any article. There should at least be a sentence, preferably a paragraph in the lead. With your edit, there's the word "The", then a huge info box, then the rest of the intro. It looks like garbage. — kwami (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Kwamikagami On my screen at that time, your edit looked like a downgrade - the infobox to the right with the text starting after it ends far at the bottom. Now even my edit looks like that. How could it change?--Adûnâi (talk) 01:48, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added a 'clear' tag to the info box itself, so that the text isn't distorted on the left side of the box.

Depending on the width of your screen and the font size you have, crushing the box and the text together makes it look really bad. Like a gallery, an extra-wide info box like this should be set apart. Personally, I think there should be a paragraph or two of text before the box, so that the reader sees something that introduces the article. I don't like it that all you see now is the info box, but that's better than the text being illegible. Of course, if the box were of normal width, we could have the text on the left and the box on the right, as they are in most articles. Or perhaps we could collapse the info box, so it doesn't interfere and the reader can open it up when they're ready to see it?

The way it was before, the article began with "The", then the info box, then the lead paragraph but missing its first word. Currently, the article begins with the info box and then the complete first paragraph. So the only difference in the way I see it is that the word "The" is moved into the lead paragraph where it belongs. If I mess with font size etc., sometimes I'll get a string of single letters down the left size of the screen, but nothing legible. — kwami (talk) 04:39, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most passive-aggressive notice I have ever seen in my life. On the topic, a) I have not been showing any interest in the accursed Gamergate; b) "genders" do not exist.

P.S. I guess, I'm no longer an incel after this intimate power exchange, my identity is in crisis.--Adûnâi (talk) 01:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, you may be blocked from editing. — Smjg (talk) 17:44, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Desktop improvements prototype

Hello, Adûnâi!

Thanks for taking the time to participate in the user feedback round for our desktop improvements prototype. This feedback is super valuable to us and is currently being used to determine our next steps. We have published a report gathering the main takeaways from the feedback and highlighting the changes we’ll make based on this feedback. Please take a look and give us your thoughts on the talk page of the report. To learn more about the project overall and the other features we’re planning on building in the future, check out the main project page.

SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 12:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A clear case of Russophilic political correctness and whining

Your attempts at insulting actual Ukrainian historians and paying tribute to Russophilic pseudohistorians are laughable, and fall on deaf ears when the purpose of Wikipedia is to maintain neutrality, and capitulate to Russian political correctness. Rus' is Ruthenia, the old name for Ukraine, and the word "Russia" did not even appear until after the Time of Troubles in a vain, fruitless attempt at Moscow's residents to steal Ukraine's history and delude themselves into thinking their significance did not start and end with the then-destroyed Golden Horde.

What's further laughable is Russophiles blindly following easily-offended Russian pseudohistorians who cannot even decide whether or not to claim Kyivan Ruthenia is part of their history upon reading actual historical records, with indisputable evidence showing clear regional differences ethnicity-wise even before then.

The biggest joke by far is that there are sycophants that will mindlessly lap up the flip-flopping stances of said Russian historians. But hey, if the blind lead each other long enough, they'll eventually fall off a cliff anyway. Complaining about actual historical accuracy because it doesn't appease Russophilic yes-men - what a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UkrainianPatriot1 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ponyo, but I'd like to unearth this specimen. @UkrainianPatriot1: It would have been helpful if you had mentioned which of my contributions exactly had rustled your jimmies, but I'll work with this. (Hit me up on Unz Review if you would like a conversation, let's not turn Wikipedia into a battleground). Still, I would like to respond in a limited fashion to a number of your points.

1. "Russophilic pseudohistorians" > You have no sensible right to use this word when Ukrainians peddle Ilko Borshchak's historical myths as reality: 1) that the Reims Gospel is derived from Anne of Kiev; 2) that Paris Orly Airport is derived from Pilip Orlik.

2. ""Russia" did not even appear until after the Time of Troubles" > Ruthenia, Rus, Rosia - these are all the same word in different tongues. The same way Tyskland, Alamannia and Dutchland are all the same. Will you thus forgive me if I call a nation "Kieval Russia"? Oh the horror!

3. "Kyivan Ruthenia" > Do you know why the Great Russian historians of the 19th ct. made up this term in the first place? The answer is "hidden" in school textbooks of the independent Ukraine - because the first Russian state was founded in 862 in Ladoga. The official Ukrainian historiography does not, cannot dispute this fact.--Adûnâi (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. "Russophilic political correctness" > I will not deny that Russia is inherently the same as America (Communism is Western, Russia is a melting pot like the US), but I will contend that asserting Little Russian nationalism has the highest priority on the PC ladder, the same way how it is en vogue to deny the status of the Dutch language as a German dialect. It is the Ukrainian separatism that is PC, not pan-Slavic sentiment.--Adûnâi (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, yet another case of Russophilic pseudohistorians having their propaganda beaten with facts.

No wonder the guy before me made the comments he did. Let's break down your tepid, delusional response. At least then, you can serve as some kind of useful organism instead of getting your panties in a twist because you cannot push propaganda for your Kremlin masters:

" 1. You have no sensible right to use this word when Ukrainians peddle Ilko Borshchak's historical myths as reality: 1) that the Reims Gospel is derived from Anne of Kiev; 2) that Paris Orly Airport is derived from Pilip Orlik."

We have every right to state the indisputable fact that sad creatures like yourself barely qualify as literate, much less historically knowledgeable, when any and all claims ilk such as yourself make are not only not backed by actual historical records, but are made in the name of suppressing Ukrainian history to appease the Russians. This is why you pathetic excuses are never taken seriously in the historical community, something accentuated further by the fact that not only can you not properly spell Kyiv or Pylyp Orlyk, you are outright mentally incapable of separating fact from fiction, such as the fact that Borshchak's findings are based on actual history, the Reims Gospel is derived from Anna of Kyiv and Kyivan Ruthenia overall, and that nobody ever claimed the Airport was named after the great Orlyk himself - nothing more than Moskal propaganda once more, like the Russian myth that circulated a few years back that claimed Ukraine was suing Mongolia for historical damages.

   "2. Ruthenia, Rus, Rosia - these are all the same word in different tongues. The same way Tyskland, Alamannia and Dutchland are all the same. Will you thus forgive me if I call a nation 'Kieval Russia'? Oh the horror!"

They are not, as Ruthenia, Rus, Rosia, all refer to something other than the conjured land of The Russia. Even historically, the word "Russia" appeared far later than Ukraine, and referred to a completely different entity than that of Kyivan Ruthenia, which actually existed, unlike the fictional "Kieval Russia". This is confirmed through marked differences in language, culture, behavior, and especially collective mentality, something proven with actual literacy and research rather than blindly lapping up the falsified history pushed by the Tsar's historical lapdogs. You are not forgiven.

   3. "Do you know why the Great Russian historians of the 19th ct. made up this term in the first place? The answer is 'hidden' in school textbooks of the independent Ukraine - because the first Russian state was founded in 862 in Ladoga. The official Ukrainian historiography does not, cannot dispute this fact."

There is nothing to dispute because it's a work of fiction, not a fact. The term has roots that predate any impotent Russian claims of Ukrainian ancestry, and is only necessary due to Russian stooges like yourself diluting Ukrainian history due to lacking your own. Kyivan Ruthenia was a term that existed during its own time, and as actual Ukrainian textbooks and other factually correct, authentic historical documents will demonstrate, it's a fitting name for Ukraine's ancestral Homeland due to Prince Oleh himself officially proclaiming Kyiv as the Mother of all Rus', a.k.a. Ruthenian, cities, not a glorified summer cabin in Finno-Ugric lands - there was no Ruthenia in 753 because there were no Slavs in what would (barely) be the (somewhat independent) Russia - Kyivan Ruthenia was founded in 882 as an, and is defined as, an East Slavic, ultimately Orthodox kingdom, with the appropriately named Old East Slavic serving as the language of Ukraine's ancestors, who were already residing in Ukraine (Especially Middle and West Ukraine), Belarus, Hungary, Romania, and even a little bit of Poland after the Hunnic Empire's collapse, and long before the Vikings ever arrived, and certainly long before the false claims found in textbooks of The Russia could ever falsely claim the existence of "Ilmen Slavs". Only the blind and the illiterate fail to see this, and you've thoroughly demonstrated that not even braille taught by the world's greatest teachers can help shake you of your delusion and ignorance.

   4. "I will not deny that Russia is inherently the same as America (Communism is Western, Russia is a melting pot like the US), but I will contend that asserting Little Russian nationalism has the highest priority on the PC ladder, the same way how it is en vogue to deny the status of the Dutch language as a German dialect. It is the Ukrainian separatism that is PC, not pan-Slavic sentiment."

You contend nothing because you don't even know what you're railing against, much less what you support. If "Little Russian nationalism" was the highest priority on the PC ladder, you'd get your way and every article related to actual Ukrainian history would be muddled with weak connections to the terrorist states of the DPR and LPR. Fortunately, and as expected, your pitiful cries fall on deaf ears - there's no such thing as Ukrainian separatism. Pan-Slavic sentiment was never in vogue, as it was nothing more than an imperialist tool used by occupying powers to rationalize their theft of foreign land, e.g. Ukrainian land being stolen by The Russia.

You're not fooling anyone, and with the latest initiative to clean up Ukrainian articles on Wikipedia, your days are numbered. So much for your propaganda commission from Lavrov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TarasTkachuk (talk • contribs) 02:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not serve the Kremlin. I despise all White people, preferring the DPR of Korea. Here I am merely arguing for the sake of truth and against pseudohistory.

> "...can you not properly spell Kyiv or Pylyp Orlyk..."

1. Kiev is the only English spelling.

2. I detest the current English spelling of East Slavic words. I will not use y to denote the ы sound. "y" is й. The same way as I see h as a sufficient representation of х.

> "...the fact that Borshchak's findings are based on actual history, the Reims Gospel is derived from Anna of Kyiv and Kyivan Ruthenia overall..."

LoL.

> "...and that nobody ever claimed the Airport was named after the great Orlyk himself - nothing more than Moskal propaganda once more..."

Ridiculous. I read about this fact a decade ago, in a book “Наполеоніда” на Сході Європи by Вадим Ададуров, issued by the Ukrainian Catholic University. Try again. And recently, I have heard this exact rubbish from a Ukrainian historian. Totally Great Russian propaganda...

> "...like the Russian myth that circulated a few years back that claimed Ukraine was suing Mongolia for historical damages."

I unironically believe Slavs would have the right to do that. I am a staunch believer in avenging one's ancestors. Jews taking revenge on Germany for the Holocaust? Hungarians taking reparations from Mongolia? Count me in!

> "They are not, as Ruthenia, Rus, Rosia, all refer to something other than the conjured land of The Russia."

1. They are. They are the same. Burgundy has encompassed quite a number of areas over the past 1.5 millennia, and yet it is indisputably derived from that one kingdom established in the 5th ct. CE.

2. These terms are merely translations. That your mind brings up the modern Russian Empire or Federation does not take away from the fact that Ciscarpathia (I prefer the Eurocentric term as respects the Kingdom of Hungary) is part of Russia and those people still called themselves Russians in 1939.

> "...Even historically, the word "Russia" appeared far later than Ukraine..."

No.

> "...not a glorified summer cabin in Finno-Ugric lands - there was no Ruthenia in 753 because there were no Slavs in what would (barely) be the (somewhat independent) Russia - Kyivan Ruthenia was founded in 882..."

The Novgorod Slavs, Slovenes or Ilmen Slavs (Russian: Ильменские слове́не, Il'menskiye slovene) were the northernmost tribe of the Early East Slavs, which inhabited the shores of Lake Ilmen and the basin of the rivers of Volkhov, Lovat, Msta, and the upper stream of the Mologa River in the 8th to 10th centuries. The Slovenes were native to the region around Novgorod.

> "...and long before the Vikings ever arrived, and certainly long before the false claims found in textbooks of The Russia could ever falsely claim the existence of "Ilmen Slavs"."

See, I have no interest in rejecting conventional school textbooks. Otherwise, we are going to reach the depth of Fomenko's madness, and will argue whether it was Poland that attacked Germany in 1939 (as Carolyn Yeager posits on Unz Review).

> "...If "Little Russian nationalism" was the highest priority on the PC ladder, you'd get your way and every article related to actual Ukrainian history would be muddled with weak connections to the terrorist states of the DPR and LPR."

I'm not getting this part at all. Isn't it a given that Anglos refer to Peking as Beijing? To Dutch as a separate language? To Little Russia as [the] Ukraine? That is political correctness at work. You are pro-PC. You are only against PC if you are considering yourself speaking from the Russian PoV. Hilarious!

> "...and is defined as, an East Slavic, ultimately Orthodox kingdom..."

Christianity is a malicious desert religion which has no place in Slavic lands. Either Paganism or atheism.

> "You're not fooling anyone, and with the latest initiative to clean up Ukrainian articles on Wikipedia, your days are numbered. So much for your propaganda commission from Lavrov."

The Ukrainian Wikipedia is a joke. If it becomes even funnier, I will only support such a course of events.

> "We have every right to state the indisputable fact that sad creatures like yourself barely qualify as literate, much less historically knowledgeable..."

Why are you calling me sad? Have you lived in the West? I haven't. But I despise this incredible penchant of Western neo-Christian liberals for calling incels and any other disagreeable people "sad". Sadness is the noblest of emotions.

And stop calling me a Russian propagandist. The only Russian-language website I read is censor.net. To laugh at the Ukrainian commenters.

Still, it is weird to see a Ukrainian talking in English without outright mistakes. You have even toned down on ad hominem and are actually constructing arguments! Fascinating.

(Still quite a lot of rubbish, but a typical Ukrainian cannot debate at all. And I don't necessarily oppose it, as then you are prepared to murder me in cold blood as your enemy (in the manner akin those Little Russians who burned people alive in Odessa in 2014), and I'm not a pacifist. But then stop pretending you are trying to reason!--Adûnâi (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Country names are inconsequential. The Byzantines (a politically incorrect term nowadays) talked about Moesians and Sarmatians when referring to Bulgarians and Russians - they did not care to update their geography. At the same time, nobody was talking about Albanians at all. The origin of Romanians is shrouded in mystery, and yet it is certain they were mostly known as Vlachs. Take that, muh' 1187 Ukraine.--Adûnâi (talk) 12:41, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLP

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.

A recent edit of yours regarding a living person and your claim of "homosexual propaganda" was removed under the WP:BLP policy.[2] A Google search for the phrase "homosexual propaganda" ties its meaning to a Russian criminal law [3]. Moreover, you should not introduce your own controversial allegations of "homosexual propaganda" by a living person on any page, under the BLP policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker: Do you Americans not know the meaning behind the word "propaganda"? "...propaganda historically is a neutral descriptive term." What you are doing here is siding an Americano-centric approach. Outside of America, it is common to say "anti-smoking propaganda". What you are doing here is being homophobic. I implore you to restore my edit asking fellow editors to advance the article from this angle - I even found a reference that might be included.--Adûnâi (talk) 19:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. No reference or source says "homosexual propaganda" in relation to that living person, and you provided none, breaching BLP policy. Oxford[4], Merriam Webster[5], and Cambridge [6] note that "propaganda" is a word of disapproval. Also, best for you to not try to berate another editor as "you Americans" (your attempted national origin discrimination is not appropriate under the the civility, nor the non-discrimination policy). Nothing I have said nor done, here, is "homophobic" - that's not only preposterous, it is disgraceful that you would try to make that attack. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker: I have no idea why you think I suggested using the word propaganda in the text of the article. If I could write it myself, I would not have suggested it on the talk page. I have no idea how "you Americans" is discriminatory - I am Russian, and I do see an unsubstantiated cultural difference in the use of the word (a bit like "he" is no longer a nominative form in the modern American language). Still, I do consider you homophobic for not allowing my suggestion about the addition of the author's homosexual contribution in her life to be published.--Adûnâi (talk) 20:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies to talk pages not just articles. You accused a living person of "homosexual propaganda" without reliable sources that directly say she writes "homosexual propaganda" breaching the BLP policy. . That you say you are Russian is irrelevant. Unless you are revealing that your own edits are homophobic, there is no basis for your tendentious claims. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker:I'm confused. Why do you think I am "accusing" the subject in homosexual propaganda? Don't you love gays yourself? Why not commending? If I wrote "Person X is spreading anti-tobacco propaganda", would you call upon BLP nonetheless?--Adûnâi (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're confused, than don't write about living people. If you don't understand that you need reliable sources that directly say that about a living person, don't write -- "homosexual propaganda", you, and only you, invented in relation to this person. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alanscottwalker: No, I did not invent anything, it is a combination of two legitimate words. If you are throwing a hissy fit over it, then I don't know. I will not press the matter.--Adûnâi (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect.

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.

Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Consider this sodomite baited, scum. If the admins here enforce their anti-discrimination policies, you might regret your rank hate speech. Archon 2488 (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User box

Given the edit-summary you used to add the marriage userbox to your page, I have removed and revision deleted it. A discussion is continuing at WP:AN. Black Kite (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for homophobic hate speech.

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 14:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: if you are ready to categorically retract your egregious violation (see WP:GAB), your chances of being unblocked will dramatically increase. El_C 14:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. I have submitted an appeal to the utrs-beta.wmflabs.org website. Should I duplicate it here?

2. My knowledge of English was not perfect years ago when I used the archaic word "sodomite" - in the edit description on my page. I did not know that it was offensive, or would be offensive in 2020.

3. I do not understand what exactly constitutes hates speech here - my use of the word "sodomite" or the infobox itself? Because the infobox, from what I remember (I can't even check because it's erased!), only states that marriage is "between one man and one woman". Is that hate speech? If yes, than I repent.

4. How can you defend the indefinite block of such a diligent Wiki-Gnome as myself? I never even touched LGBT topics. Is my crusade of adding commas and reordering references over?--Adûnâi (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot remain an editor in good standing on this project with that A sodomite bait added statement on your record, unless you categorically retract it — I don't care what else you do around here. El_C 14:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then I do retract my statement categorically. I understand the failure of my ways - now, if not in the past. The flow of time makes people better, not worse. Believe me.

How many gays and other queer people have left Wikipedia in disgust when this terrible infobox (or is it the edit summary?) fell in their view? My heart is in pain over this loss. My actions have always been guided by striving to better Wikipedia and the environment for its editors, no matter their political or sexual orientation, or gender.

I promise that I will use my newly-corrected persona for furthering the LGBT agenda of acceptance and non-discrimination in the field of editing to make this space safe for editors both old and new. Although, as Frodo said, "I do not know the way" (what offends and what doesn't), so I would try not to speak on these topics at all. I'm Russian, and translating from across the Iron Curtain is not an easy task, but easily misunderstood.

(Again, if any of this offends you, I am sorry. I'm half-autistic Russian, and I do not know the mores of America precisely. This is why I relegate my editing to fixing punctuation and references.)--Adûnâi (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is UTRS your first venue of appeal when you still have talk page access? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because I don't know how Wikipedia works? I just clicked on what I saw on the screen. Then came this message, and thus I am writing here.--Adûnâi (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the first three sentences of WP:UTRS OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Should I now defend myself from the new accusations by @Moneytrees:? Or ignore them? If I must...
1. I see absolutely nothing wrong with my use of the word "anti-racist". I call it what it is. I'm against any bias.
2. Asking whether a person is a Jew is forbidden? This is literally what Nazis indeed tried to do - to erase all Jews from history. And no, I'm not a Groyper - I'm an atheist.
Addressing the accusations by @Girth Summit:
3. I have no idea what this is about. On my very talk page, I am defending my use of the word propaganda in its original - neutral - meaning. Anti-smoking propaganda, homosexual propaganda. In that talk page edit, I was trying to stir attention towards a possible edit on the page itself. Should I write like a robot, using only pre-approved by the American hivemind words?
4. The word "gender" seemed to me as redundant and imprecise in the context of the coronavirus pandemic in Spain - I saw little use in a word that emphasises sexual expression when the topic is literal sex difference in the statistics as to the virus.
5. Do you even read the diffs you reference? I suggested to add Negro Africa to the list of the historical names of the subject! And supported it with a Google Books / NGrams graph! A "rather odd" suggestion?
@Archon 2488: If you are implying that I am sock-puppeting you, my response is no. I deny that Sparta supported LGBT, and if it did, I would not use it in my arguments.
Would anyone mind my pinging the relevant parties? I cannot defend myself in the discussion at hand. @Ed6767:, @Nosebagbear:, @TimothyBlue:, @Guy Macon:, @Ivanvector:
@Only in death: @François Robere: Just wanted to commend your efforts. Thank you!
@Pudeo: I myself defend Lenin often, afaik, Lenin never supported homosexual marriage.--Adûnâi (talk) 18:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Bear in mind that was not an endorsement of your infobox nor of your other comments, which I personally find questionable, and at times repulsive. However, these weren't on the table when the block was enacted, and weren't part of the decision when it was laid, hence the discrepancy to which I pointed and my resulting annoyance. Now that they are on the table, don't expect any defence; I am too busy buggering. Cheers. François Robere (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: I invite you to take a look at how I am defending myself here. I vehemently oppose equating my 3-year-old use of the S-word to these cases which are nothing like that.--Adûnâi (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adûnâi, you've pinged a lot of editors here. I can't speak for them, but some of them may be choosing not to respond to you because of the guidance at WP:DENY. Since, aside from the issues outlined at the AN thread, you have a long history of constructive gnoming, I'm going to offer you some advice. If you want to be unblocked, read the instructions given in your block notice, and make an unblock request. What you put in that is up to you, but I'd strongly advise you to avoid any use of sarcasm or humour, and make the request in plain, simple language. I'd advise you to address the concerns fully, which you do not do above. You weren't blocked for using the "S-word" - you were blocked for saying "A sodomite bait added" - it's not just the word, but also the intent of baiting gay contributors, which is so offensive. Above in your response to me you ask what's wrong with the word 'propaganda', when what you actually said was "flagrant homosexual propaganda" - that's a problematic noun phrase, it's not just about the noun. And, if I were you, I would drop the pretence that this is just about "American hivemind words". I'm a Brit, with a Glaswegian attitude to rude words and robust discourse, and I find a lot of your comments egregiously offensive. With that, I'm out - please don't ping me again. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Girth Summit: Thanks for your advice! Much appreciated. Would it make a better impression if I try it in a week? Suffering for gay rights, so to speak.--Adûnâi (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The apology above about not knowing that Sodomite would be acceptable in 2020 seems to be disingenuous to me, given it wasn't acceptable in 1980, let alone 2017. Language differences aside, how is admitting one is an anti-gay bigot acceptable - ever? I believe any user who implies that there is anything wrong with gay marriage should be be given a long time out, until such time that they are willing to state categorically that they have no issues with gay marriage. If one wants to hold anti-social bigoted views, one shouldn't ever start speaking about them. Nfitz (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: "anti-social bigoted views" - I would like to remark on this word choice, as in the vast majority of the world, being pro-gay is exactly anti-social. For many in the world, LGBT rights are considered part and parcel of American imperialism. Forgetting it is pure colonialist hubris. Cheers!--Adûnâi (talk) 22:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. Talk page access revoked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, neither I, nor User:Archon 2488 who raised the initial complaint about clearly unacceptable bigotry are American, or have ever lived there. Also, I can't see any mention of the USA in the Not surprising I suppose, that a bigot also appears to be ethnically prejudiced. Can I ask that their racism also be addressed before the user is allowed to participate again? Nfitz (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From my cursory glance at the above links, it seems this editor has a serious problem with anti-Semitism and anti-Black racism, to say nothing of anything else. When it rains, it pours. I'm kinda darkly amused that anyone at ANI could seriously entertain the idea that someone with an infobox that loudly proclaims they don't think that a minority deserves access to basic human rights could have turned out differently, to be honest. Not to mention that it took six years to get this guy indeffed, when it seems that his behaviour has been "problematic" for quite a while. At the end of the day, the question needs to be whether the people targeted by these repulsive attitudes feel safe and comfortable editing WP knowing that people like this are around; given that his block was followed by a sockpuppet account repeatedly calling me homophobic slurs and describing in twisted detail how I deserved to be brutally murdered with a metal baseball bat because I am a gay man, and how a right-wing revolution would facilitate the mass-murder of people like me, I would suggest not. Please believe me when I say, we know how to spot them, and they rarely genuinely recant their evil bigotry. Archon 2488 (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief User:Archon 2488, I'm sorry you had to be subjected to that - I hadn't seen that. Please note, if they go after me, I'd prefer that it not be revdeled - I prefer a full record of such abuse, removing it only protects the abuser. I'd much prefer it to be preserved for posterity, for their grandchildren to read. Nfitz (talk) 00:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Archon 2488: Because it wasn't "raining" just yet. A lot of prejudiced people can be quite nice in person, and would even align themselves with your cause if they only knew you. Indeed - familiarity is one of the reasons that have been frequently cited to explain the speed by which LGBTx were accepted by (Western) society vs. other minorities.[7] The fact that a person has that infobox on their profile doesn't mean they're beyond "redemption"; in some ways it's better that they "wear their beliefs on their sleeves" than hide or mask them. What I find really disturbing here is how long it took to block him - after all, he's been writing this kind of crap for years about Jews, POCs and gays - what difference did that particular edit summary make? The answer, I believe, is that other Wikipedians simply don't know what to look for (or as you stated - we do), so they accept a range of expressions that, to a member of a minority, are crystal-clear. I've tried to convey that in a short essay last year, but the responses were scathing, to the point of threatening. François Robere (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with this, but I don't think the priority of WP (consistent with its major goals as a project) should be to "redeem" such a person; it's not really our responsibility to fix other people's bigotry, but it is our responsibility to maintain an environment in which people are not subject to harassment (which includes seeing hate speech anywhere on the platform). Not should the priority be on allowing "free speech" at the expense of other people's dignity and the goals of WP.

If such an individual can be persuaded to act civilly and become a productive editor without dragging their problematic behaviour into the project, that is one thing. But that is often not a realistic prospect, as in this case – his responses to being called out were uniformly rude, sarcastic, dismissive, and typical DARVO behaviour, and as soon as he had nothing to lose, the mask promptly fell off. I suspect that a lot of people want to avoid a conflict, and if the issue doesn't personally affect them, they are unlikely to appreciate the severity of it.

I was a bit disappointed that I couldn't find a meaningful anti-discrimination policy; as others pointed out (and I did not realise in my haste), the document I linked to was only a proposal. I would note that many social media platforms, aware of the damage that repeated hate speech, targeted harassment, and other hateful conduct does to their reputations (if nothing else), have enacted more robust content policies (see e.g. the new Reddit one, in particular their clarification of Rule 1, While the rule on hate protects such groups, it does not protect those who promote attacks of hate or who try to hide their hate in bad faith claims of discrimination). I do think this should be a priority for WP (and looking into how it took so long to spot this guy); without identifying and blocking these people promptly, they are almost certain to create an atmosphere of intimidation and baiting that makes WP a much less welcoming place for members of minority groups. Archon 2488 (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I think that's only part of the problem. We need educated admins who recognize prejudice when they see it; and a platform that nurtures cooperation, lowers friction and makes bad behavior easy to identify. We've got neither. François Robere (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably correct about the Zhaporizhan Cossacks

Hello Adonai,

I doubt you will have an opportunity to read this, but just in case... I think you might be right. I replied to you, that the Zaporizhian Cossacks never made it all the way to Constantinople, please see here: Proof of a Cossack raid on Constantinople?. The sources are not the greatest for their naval conquests of Constantinople in 1615, 1620, and 1624. (Why did they need to keep returning so often?!)

I am conflicted on the matter of Cossacks in general. On one level, I love their bravado. On another level, I do not love the fact that they or their Ukrainian descendents (of the Stepan Bandera-loving variety) slaughtered some of my recent ancestors at Babyn Yar.

I am sad that you were banned forever from Wikipedia. I like your user name. It reminds me of the Tetragrammaton. I really dislike how Wikipedia editors insist on defiling the touchstones of my faith. They want to categorize Abraham as an in-world character like some LARPer. Your mastery of the English language and your subtle humor are non-pareil, in case you were unaware.-- FeralOink (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]