User talk:Disconnected Phrases

Advice on talk page interaction

Welcome to Wikipedia! Have been following the Azov talk and wanted to give you the friendly advice that allegations about other editors & their intentions, and overfilling talk pages are often counterproductive in winning consensus to your position. There are a number of editors who have clearly stated that there are problems with the current state of the article, but Wikipedia can only fix those problems by following its consensus-based procedures. I recommend reading WP:AGF and WP:BLUDGEON and bearing them in mind while interacting with other editors. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:49, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I will check them out. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 17:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobfrombrockley: I am not convinced that we *need* to have an RFC, can you tell me where you see that? I am pretty sure it isn’t a good idea. An RfC lumbered us with this ridiculous lede in the first place, because people keep pointing at it and saying there is consensus. But didn’t I see you say that it actually closed *against* neo-Nazi in wikivoice? Not that I am questioning your advice here, but if you go back in the history of the article there is some really breathtakingly biased stuff in the history. I am not sure we should be voting on what is the truth in a complicated question, because it is a sad truth that the people who vote in these things don’t read any of the materials. Just some food for thought. Elinruby (talk)

Dude, how is this relevant to the subject at hand? --Firestar464 (talk) 13:01, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this conversation is from the 7th of April. I don't know if those people will see this question here. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Saw your question about this on another page. The conventional wisdom that most people will tell you is that you were bold, you were reverted, now discuss. I am pretty sure they are going to try to shut you down on the talk page though though, although Bob manages to survive. One other way to is to attract some fresh editors. There are currently two sources from this article being questioned by moi at the WP:RS noticeboard. Take one of the other ones over there. Read the other questions on the board and comment, maybe, but you do seem to have a really good grasp of the policy, so I am not telling you to educate yourself. I am saying that it helps *me* to be able to say well you know what, I have taken four of these sources over to the RS noticeboard, and you for a while I couldn’t get them to stop laughing and give me an answer. (Posts are US Congressman as an authority on neo-Nazis, and Policeman in Belarus as an authority on Ukrainian military). Warning, some of the people on the talk page really won’t want to hear it, but that is one suggestion). Hope that helps. Elinruby (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've never been on Wikipedia before and I don't know what I'm doing. I have written research papers before in the pursuit of my degrees, but I have not participated much in internet communities before. I am trying to hold the articles to the standards that I would hold a research paper. I am definitely still figuring out the paths to follow and standards of behavior on this site. I don't usually use Wikipedia because I don't consider it a reliable source. On that talk page, I am trying to help show what a reliable source is, and that a source should support the article's assertion in the body of the source. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those points are good instincts, that will serve you well on Wikipedia. A couple of key principles at Wikipedia are collaboration and consensus, and civility while communicating with other editors. These are unproblematic when things go well, but if you are editing in a contentious area where there are people who are more interested in pushing their point of view or righting great wrongs rather than dispassionately improving the article based on what the secondary sources say, then you can run into difficulties. You *still* have to remain civil with people, even if you suspect the worst (but please start out by assuming that everyone else is here on good faith to improve the encyclopedia, just like you are). If you hit a wall, and it seems like other editors are somehow impeding progress, or even adding blatantly biased or uncorroborated information to articles, rather than getting into an edit war, ask for help from someone more experienced. Mathglot (talk) 07:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mathglot, I don't think I've been in an edit war yet. I haven't made any edits to that article yet. I have been striving to only make noncontroversial edits to articles, such as fixing verb tenses and adding short, cited, factual statements. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am participating in that discussion and trying to reach consensus, but I do not see consensus coming. I understand we will have an RfC in a few days. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 07:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Glass of Kvass for you!

	An ice-cold Glass of Slavic Class
	In thanks, to cool you down for your efforts in the heated East Slavic topic area! EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The struggle for Ukrainian Mariupol continues. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 10:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 22

Please read WP:NOTDUMB, its does not matter how many times you ask the same question. Only one answer counts. Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What question have I asked more than once? Disconnected Phrases (talk) 10:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important alert

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

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

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

Segaton (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable self-published blogs

You must refrain from using such poor WP:SPS (self-published sources) like you are doing at Russian separatist forces in Donbas. Segaton (talk) 10:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for using a potentially unreliable source, he is not frequently mentioned in reliable sources. Many articles about him in Russian publications have disappeared from the internet. I thought that the photographs of him and the interview with him in the potentially unreliable source were a useful addition, but perhaps not. Disconnected Phrases (talk) 20:51, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you!

hi

Elinruby (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]