User talk:Axxxion

Lugansk move

Hello user:Axxxion. Firstly, thanks for your commitment to the Luhansk/Lugansk People's Republic article. As your editing got your account blocked before, please accept a piece of advice from an editor who've been on this Wikipedia since 2005. Wikipedia is, very essentially, a collaborative project. It involves people from all over the globe, with different opinions and different ways of thinking. Most of us have that in common that we want to make a better world by making knowledge easier available. Even more so than in real life, on Wikipedia it is important to maintain a civil conduct and, for as long as possible, assume that people who disagree with you do so in good faith and maybe even for good reasons. As such, when you meet with opposing views on the articles you edit, instead of bluntly pushing controversial changes that you know will get undone, it is far better if you can bring arguments to the discussion. You will not always succeed in making Wikipedia say what you consider is right. That's how things are. You are not the most important person on the planet to determine right from wrong for all of us; nor is it realistic to hope that Wikipedia will become objectively right in our lifetime. I think that you do have the right skills to make Wikipedia better in areas where improvements are very much needed. So please, I hope you can work together with people and make a better Wikipedia. Best wishes, Heptor (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

First, I do NOT have any views: I just follow relevant sources and the Wiki′s Guidelines. You have reverted my edit that was supported thus. Yours was not. That is all that matters here. If you have SOURCES (and relevant arguments) to support your edit, show them.Axxxion (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, you just completely ignored consensus, apparently not for the first time.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:31, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Axxxion, since you do not seem getting it.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter: May I ask you why exactly you are so anxious about my "not getting it"? And what exactly am I supposed to be getting? I got so much in my life (all very negative stuff, most of which ordinary peeps in any country do not even know of, i.e. that such nasty things exist at all, such as installing devices subcutaneously in your crotch, whereafter your pubic area and genitals fester (literally) for years) that your post really makes me wonder: What the fck else I should be getting to "get it"? Just a joke....Axxxion (talk) 00:16, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The move of the page you performed is clearly controversial, since in the past the page was move to this title and indeed was moved back. In this case, instead of starting a move-warring, you should have opened a RM and see whether there is consensus for this move.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ymblanter: Thanks for your post right above: now I do get what you were getting at. Unfortunately, most of us (humans) begin to talk only after they were told to do so by those who can easily kill them. Naturally, just joking again... (life is but one big joke, you know).Axxxion (talk) 12:33, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Eastern Europe DS alert

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

TonyBallioni (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Axxxion. 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)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Syrian Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turkish military intervention in Syria (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) 09:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

William Chomsky

You seem to be annoying people without accomplishing anything. Maybe you should try a different strategy. AnonMoos (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

How is this article inaccurate?

I guesse you were refering to this article. Do you mind explaining what is the problem in it? Veverve (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Veverve: Nothing political: I normally do not mind their publications; but this particular piece was obviously written hastily and in a sloppy way, without even properly reading the decision of the ROC Synod. First, the article contains some factual errors: "Exarchate of the Moscow Patriarchate in Alexandria into a Russian church" -- even the Synod′s decision itself clearly says the ROC representation is in Cairo (see http://www.rusmissionafrica.com/basic-page/raspolozhenie-hrama.html ) and of course it is already a church, now to be also a parish. Secondly, "to make them stauropegic monasteries" is also wrong, which is probably due to the fact that the authors do not know that the ROC has such thing as stauropegic parishes (патриаршие подворья), bizarrely, a lot of them in Moscow itself. In fact, the synodal decision does not change anything much of substance as all the parishes (churches) in question (a handful in fact, mostly in Morocco) had always been in effect directly under Moscow run as they were by the Directorate for overseas establishments ( http://www.patriarchia.ru/uzu/ ). The name of the Patriarch of Alexandria had been commemorated, just out of courtesy. Besides, the article oddly refers to Legoida a multiple times without any good reason. We now have a formal decision by the Holy Synod, which is, in and of itself, quite clear and specific; why quote Legoida from a month ago? The article also contains a highly confused and confusing sentence: "He [Legoida] added that the Moscow Patriarchate had not severed full communion with the Archbishop of Athens and the Metropolitans of the Church of Greece either".Axxxion (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! It would be useful to write what you just wrote on Talk:Orthodox_Church_of_Ukraine. The mention of Legoida is because the first report of the decision of the Holy Synod came from his Telegram account; see for example the source for this article. Veverve (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

MOS:SURNAME and WP:QUOTEFARM

Hi, a couple of days ago, you made an edit to 2020 United States federal government data breach. It violated MOS:SURNAME and WP:QUOTEFARM (and, incidentally, replaced one WP:RS with another without explanation), so I reverted it.

Today, without explanation or discussion, you made a very similar edit to your original one, that suffers from the same problems. That is not a collegial move.

I expect you have good intentions here, but your approach rather tarnishes them. Please could you address the MOS:SURNAME and WP:QUOTEFARM aspects of your edit? Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 11:41, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I explained all in my edit comment. What is actually your problem? What you wrote here makes no sense whatsoever. Learn some basic English grammar and try to explain your objections in a comprehensible manner if you have any.Axxxion (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

What is actually your problem? As I explained, my objection is the violation of MOS:SURNAME and WP:QUOTEFARM in your edit. Neither your edit summary, nor your reply above, gave a reason why either of those concerns should somehow not apply to that article. So, those concerns are outstanding.

As for your tone here, and the rest of your reply, be WP:CIVIL. Zazpot (talk) 12:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

What exactly do you object to in the text as it now stands? All I see so far is your intention to waste my time.Axxxion (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Croatia–Russia relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bloomberg.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Patriarchate of Karlovci, you may be blocked from editing. Theonewithreason (talk) 26 April 2021 (UTC)

First, stop throwing arbitrary accusations at me! As for the subject, I suspect the problem is that you have no idea of the topic, i.e. Eastern Orthodox Church. The Church is not organised on the basis of ethnic affiliation, at least that is the official teaching of the Church, in accordance with "There is neither Jew nor Greek, ... for you are all one in Christ Jesus." Please educate yourself on the subject.Axxxion (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

notice

i'm not fully sure how wiki works, but hell, there must be moderators present here who can check your stubborn point of view pushing and take action accordingly. such edits will not go under their radar. adding statement by djukanovic and NOT krivokapic or other high-ranking officials is an example of creating a false narrative, which is something you are currently actively pursuing

Apparently, the problem lies with your one-sided vision: plenty of Krivokapic in the article, as well as Russia′s MFA, Moscow patriarchate, etc.

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help

Greetings,

Requesting your visit to Draft:Intellectual discourse over re-mosqueing of Hagia Sophia and article expansion help if you find your interest in the topic.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis

Hi, Axxxion. In the future, please avoid closely paraphrasing a source as you did at 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis. What you added was, at times, essentially verbatim what was said by The Guardian. Please see WP:COPYVIO for more. Thank you for your contributions, but I had to undo one of them for that reason. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Axxxion: Sorry about that; I totally misread it, and I'm a bit sleep-deprived. That doesn't excuse my carelessness, though. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok. No worry!Axxxion (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

Hi Axxxion! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. tw^sabin 22:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis 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. tw^sabin 22:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

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

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

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

tw^sabin 22:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Garry Kasparov

Do you have a post-2020 source for the claim that Kasparov has lived in Podstrana since 2020? The sources the article is citing are not recent enough to support this claim. The source from late 2020, Nacional, says " Although he usually lives in New York, he did not return from Croatia to his American home this summer due to the coronavirus pandemic, but stayed with his family in Podstrana near Split." This sounds like he intended ultimately to return to New York. Whatever. If we are going to talk about where he has lived since 2020, we should cite a source more recent than 2020. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Bruce leverett: Well, it is assumed in Croatia (which is evidenced by the recent interview i also mentioned) that he keeps living in Croatia. His residence issue is not a completely elucidated subject. Do we have any "post-2020 source" saying he resides in the U.S.?Axxxion (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't know of any, though it's not hard to find pre-2020 sources. I don't see how to get at Saturday's issue of Jutarni list online, so I'll have to take your word for it. But if it's "not completely elucidated", Wiki should not be stepping in to elucidate it. Bruce leverett (talk) 23:16, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Bruce leverett:The interview is available online: https://www.jutarnji.hr/vijesti/svijet/ako-bi-se-ukrajina-prepustila-putinu-ne-bi-stalo-na-tome-znam-na-koje-zemlje-bi-tada-bacio-oko-15154286 , but it requires payment (subscription). When i said "not completely elucidated", i mostly meant the issue of his status in its entirety: not actually clear why at all he sought the citizenship of Croatia (of all countries!) in 2014. He could easily have applied for one in the U.S. Or he actually did? And was denied? Am just asking questions. I have pretty good first-hand understanding of how the Milanovic gov was handling such matters back in the early 2010s. They would never have dared to grant him citizenship without a go-ahead from the Kremlin. Which, given the subject′s reputation as a political dissident, so to speak, raises obvious questions. I say this just to explain what i meant and why i think it is potentially relevant and important.Axxxion (talk) 23:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Reading this may help overall understanding the situation in the country where lives.Axxxion (talk) 23:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The article about Croatian-Russian relations is very interesting, but not directly relevant to the question of where he lives.

Evidently he was spending part of the year in Croatia and part of the year in New York, not an uncommon situation for people who are near retirement or who have retired. The Croatian press seems eager to conclude that he has settled in Podstrana, but I am skeptical, especially since he still has his work address in NYC. Perhaps the most prudent thing for us is to avoid saying that he lives in one of those places, but to indicate somehow that he uses both. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:50, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Bruce leverett: You obviously know where to dig on the U.S. side. Go ahead, i have no strong feelings on the matter. My point above was to explain why i cited the latest interview he gave, as i find this detail (him thanking president Milanovich, who has lately shown himself to be an ardent advocate of Putin to the degree of repeating verbatim all major points of standard kremlin propaganda vis-à-vis Ukraine and Nato) quite telling and even intriguing. But as smb who has been in similar shoes as Kasparov regarding residence status outside Russia, my general point is that things are never as straightforward and simple as they might appear (made out) to be. You are probably interested in him as a chess player whereas i look at him principally as an ex-Soviet citizen. Unlike many other prominent ex-Soviets, he did not emigrate to the West, or to Israel for that matter, although such options were obviously open to him (and still are, apparently). His opposition stances may have been strident and not disingenuous, but politically he is perfectly harmless to the regime in Russia. So, objectively, he is the perfect material for the kremlin to use, be it beknownst or unbeknownst to him, as he still maintains strong ties to people in Russia, who in turn, inevitably, are run by Russia′s espionage agencies. This is simply a fact of life in Russia. Croatia is definitely the last bastion in Nato where the kremlin virtually enjoys free rein, on operational level, as any politician there knows he will not get ahead or survive politically without tacit support from Moscow. Thus, his choosing that country as a haven is quite interesting in itself.Axxxion (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. tw^sabin 22:57, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Axxxion. You've been warned for edit warring at 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, per this closure. You my be blocked if you revert the article again without first getting a consensus in your favor on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Re

[1] - yes, he does look like someone who is ready for retirement. Regardless to this circus (I laughed too), some commenters claimed earlier on YuTube there was a rift between Putin (with Shoigu) and FSB/intelligence bosses.My very best wishes (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes:. I watched Shvets on the subject (if you and I mean the same video). He was commenting on the arrest of Solovey in that video. A very special case, and very recondite too. I never had any doubts that Solovey (just like a number of other talkers of this ilk, such as Belkovsky) was an FSB stooge, and given the level of the dirt they have been airing, it was obvious that their protection emanated personally from Patrushev, as no one else could be krysha for such "whistle-blowers". I do not believe in the "rift" though. Relationship between Pu and Patrushev is a mystery that awaits deciphering in some distant future. That said, the SVR, bizarre as it may sound, does not belong to the Chekist clan. This is a very peculiar agency that on the one hand reports directly to the president, but on the other hand is operationally (оперативно) completely subjugated to the FSB to the extent of personnel management and suchlike. I had an opportunity to watch some career SVR officers and was struck that quite a few of them are psychologically similar to Naryshkin, i.e. rather inadequate in plain psychiatric sense. This is also a bit of a mystery for which i have a hypothesis on which I shan′t dwell. Listening to Pu now

-- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9JfI50Q5G0 From 14:00 -- a staggering and very emphatic threat to Kiev, in fact implying that today′s recognition is de facto annexation.Axxxion (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

So you know it. OK. His speech might not be so informative as a piece of disinformation prepared in advance. But why does he really want Ukraine? Contrary to some of the commentaries, neither NATO nor free Ukraine is a threat to his personal power. I am sure he knows it. This is either an ideological madness and vanity (about restoration of Russian "Third Rome"), or something very much personal (not a business), probably a hatred. The latter is very much possible. He hated Saakashvilli personally for calling him a "lilliputian", hence the attack on Georgia. And he obviously hates the guys who spoiled his "triumph" at the Olympiad in Sochi by dislodging his stooge Yanukovich. My very best wishes (talk) 21:07, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes:. I should think there is an element of all these you have mentioned. Very telling is that he spoke at times (when explaining that Ukraine is actually the heart of Russia) in a manner in which speaks when he is genuinely convinced whereof he speaks. I think he truly believes in what he said in this speech and i must say it was a good speech generally. But also telling was the talk Patrushev delivered at the SecCouncil session. He is reputed to be the most meshuggah of the lot, but no doubt this reflects Putin′s thinking as well. And I would agree with his reasoning: the Ukraine as a state that is de facto a US′ protectorate is an untenable "neighbour" for the Kremlin in security terms. That much is pretty obvious. And the leadership in the U.S. fully understand this. What i am afraid they fail to understand is the lengths to which the Putin clique are ready to go. When he had said that "We will go to paradise and they shall go to hell", he was actually saying that he is ready for nuclear blackmail, not bluff. Anyway, this one is but a beginning. We shall see. Thnx for your attn.Axxxion (talk) 00:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

You are possibly right: these guys really believe in nonsense they are saying (honestly, I can not tell because almost every word by Pu is constructed as intentional disinformation). By the same token, why did Hitler attack Europe? Probably for the same reason: Nazi believed in their nonsense. The speech by Pu was covered [2], and it does look like nonsense to me. Even if Russian and Ukrainians were the same people (they are not), why on the Earth they would have to be united in the same state? They can leave separately just fine. By this "logic" Turkey would have to conquer Azerbaijan (same people, same language). He said: "These are our comrades, those dearest to us – not only colleagues, friends and people..." This is great, but then what a hell you attack your "dearest friends"? Same with a "protectorate" as a threat to Russia. Yes, that could be a threat, but only if Russia will attack its neighbors. Indeed, that is what they are going to do, and therefore perceive it as a threat. The lengths to which the Putin clique are ready to go? Well, this is hard to say, but even a possibility that they can go that far (I agree, it is possible they can drop a couple on nuclear bombs somewhere) makes them as dangerous as would be Hitler with nuclear weapons. That is assuming they do believe in what they say. My very best wishes (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes:. Well, philosophically, i am afraid you and I are far apart: you operate (reason) within the paradigm of good vs evil whereas I view this paradigm (dichotomy) as one of many fictions (see Yuval Noah Harari) we humans invented to serve our evolutionary purposes as the most successful species on the planet. Every one has his own "good" and one′s own "evil", the latter being a handy justification for murder and plunder of one′s neighbour. In that sense, figuratively (and with tongue in cheek), it is fair to say that "good" is the bigger and more successful "evil". Thus, i definitely do not view any one as good or bad in any situation. In this light, all we humans say is "disinformation" as we always say things that we think will serve our purpose, i.e. we constantly seek to deceive in order to win, creating our own picture of any situation and imposing it on others. Putin′s picture may be contrived, but views in Kiev are likewise. Usually, in human history the most successful viewpoint is the one most detached from objective reality as it is more appealing. Any modern (and past) state is based on a myth, i.e. a shared fantasy, as well as on a successfully executed genocide of those tribes who pre-existed on a given territory. Strategically, Putin is banking on the American myth having run its course and i think he believes that he is the one who is in a position to demonstrate that the king is naked. Frankly, what is much more interesting to me is what Biden really thinks. I hope that being as he is a Catholic, he is mendacious enough to seek war rather than peace in the current situation. For, if the U.S. clings to peace for a few more years, it will come to its end. And this is almost as certain as two plus two equals four. Methinks, the miscalculation may lie (speaking of Ukraine) in their assessment that the Ukrainians will fight tooth and nail. Am almost certain that once the chips are down they will not. Re Patrushev, the other day Illarionov pointed out the fact that he has very good working relationship with Sullivan and Burns, a point that struck me as pertinent as well as largely overlooked.Axxxion (talk) 04:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the "plunder of one′s neighbour" had happen thousands times in human history, but it does not mean that plundering your neighbour is OK. Plundering of your neighbour. That is what the Lunyanka gang does, and that is what Putin tried to justify in his speech. So, yes, I think it is pretty much good vs. evil, regardless to any politics, but the politics is a part of it. Nowhere I saw it more clearly than in King Lear (1971 USSR film), one of the best Soviet movies. Evil wins because it lies. Saying there is no good and evil means subjugation to evil. It does not mean denying any science. "if the U.S. clings to peace for a few more years, it will come to its end". Well, it will be better if it comes to the end than to start a nuclear war. Not staring a war would be right decision per the Sermon on the Mount. Yes, I think that Putin and his "corporation" are pure evil, and they are going to "win" in the common meaning of the word (such as taking parts from other countries and making people lives miserable) because evil always wins on this Earth. I am not saying that USA or any other country represents the "good". Goodness is something entirely different. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@My very best wishes:. By way of concluding our exchange of ideas, i will content myself to addressing the last point you made (now i see you have elevated the bit to the top of your post). I agree that the Chekists are a gang of brigands who kill, torture and plunder under the secure protection of state (and i had personally been a subject of this activity of theirs for decades, since at least the mid-1980s), but, without going into details on what i have been subjected to since i left Russia more than 10 years ago and have lived in a NATO country that is supposed to be a U.S. ally/puppet, i will recommend that you analyse what is the modern global financial system that is run by the U.S., a system that has supplanted good old slavery (Africans kidnapped and imported in chains for hard labour in the United States of America, or even whites ferried across the ocean in squalor for indentured labour) and good old colonialism (white Etonian men in pith helmets giving terse commands in cut-glass accents to their indigenous serfs). The centres of old slavery and colonialism do not need slaves, nor traditional colonies any more. For they now have entire huge nations who are essentially collective slaves, such as China, who produces virtually everything that people in America consume, with the majority of workers in China surviving on subsistence wages, or sources of enormous wealth that has already been plundered by indigenous mega-thieves who need legalisation thereof and protection for themselves from prosecution. The latter describes in a nutshell the relationship between the Rf an Uk in the past 30-odd years. Johnson′s yesterday′s "first tranche" of sanctions was most telltale in that respect, i.e. classical English geopolitical fandango: harsh thunderous rhetoric followed by "peashooter" action (to borrow a trope from Tom Keatinge). And indeed: Why would they deprive themselves of billions of pounds′ worth of loot that is being brought from the Rf to that Sceptred Isle by abramoviches and usmanovs? Johnson personally had been propelled first to mayorship and then to premiership directly by millions from a Chekist slush fund run by the Lebedev clan, or should i say Lord Lebedev? Oh, the place is so-o-o disgusting that it defies characterisation! Thnx again.Axxxion (talk) 17:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you are resorting to Whataboutism. I totally agree about the corruption and other big problems in Western countries, but that is not comparable with things in Russia. For example, there are corrupted policemen in the USA, and I saw them exercising a disproportional response. But in Russia the entire police force is Mafia; one must run away of them. "torture and plunder under the secure protection of state"? No, they are State. This is a completely different situation. And so it goes with regard to law, government, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Back to the King Lear though, the ending is not really that evil wins, but that everyone dies. Which brings to me by association this Varlam Shalamov's story [3] starting from "Все умерли... ". Ultimately, the Putin's henchmen in the military uniforms are doing very same thing in Ukraine right now as their ancestors from NKVD did in Kolyma. So, yes, I do believe that Partushev and others from the same gang are pretty much pure Evil, just as the leaders of Nazi were pure Evil. My very best wishes (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Awarded for efforts in expanding multiple articles to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Partial block from Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine

You have been blocked from editing certain areas of the encyclopedia for a period of 2 weeks for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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

El_C 01:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Muscovite99~enwiki per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Muscovite99~enwiki. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.  -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 18 § Category:Russian Orthodox churches by country

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 January 18 § Category:Russian Orthodox churches by country on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)