User talk:Kobzar1917

January 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Mongol invasion of Kievan Rus', without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox is not part of the article body. You say that it is listed as a combatant, either way, how does this this support your change that it escaped destruction? Earlier, you said this was "heavily discussed - and sourced - in the article body", so please show where exactly it says this. If you cannot, then this means that your edit summary was deceptive. Mellk (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Mellk (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RUSUKR. Editors who are not extended confirmed are not permitted to make edits about Russia–Ukraine war, broadly construed. Mellk (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is not to change Kiev to Kyiv in historical contexts. Hence the article is Kievan Rus'. If you continue to make edits that do not follow this consensus, such as this, then that will likely lead to a block for disruptive editing. See WP:CONSENSUS. Mellk (talk) 16:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance. Mellk (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ostrog Bible. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are continuing to make disruptive edits without starting any discussion or providing an explanation, as well as now making revenge reverts, the next step will be a request for an indefinite WP:NOTHERE block. Mellk (talk) 23:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Your recent editing history at Ostrog Bible 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; read about 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. Mellk (talk) 02:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Yoshi24517. I noticed that in this edit to John Mearsheimer, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 22:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Kobzar1917 and WP:RUSUKR. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently disruptively ignoring community concerns including those about WP:GS/RUSUKR extended-confirmed restriction violations, voiced here on this page.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Kobzar1917 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My mistake, I simply decided months ago to ignore the user Mellk as I regarded his hounding and instant reverting of my edits (across articles that he had never edited before) as non-constructive. And I admit I responded with "retaliatory" edits, which I regarded as a defensive tactic, and merely responding in kind. Now I see that he was operating according to his interpretation of WP policy, and I should've responded to his concerns in Good Faith. All I wanted to do was improve the quality of articles - as you can see from my efforts at Ostrog Bible (where my many hours of work, including the addition of the highest quality sources has now been removed). I will endeavor to improve my conduct and pay more attention to WP policy and community concerns. In all humility, I don't believe my wrongheaded early approach is worthy of a lifetime (!) ban. Sincerely, Kobzar1917 (talk) 06:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Looking at the discussion below, I think an unblock can be tried. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comparatively open to this argument because "community concerns" in this specific case here do practically boil down to "Mellk's concerns" which were, at least in the article about the Ostrog Bible, voiced in the form of edit warring.

Kobzar1917, can you take a moment to describe, simply in response to this message here, how you intend to deal with the following two situations in the future?

Someone reverts your edit saying it wasn't an improvement.
There's a Russo-Ukrainian-War-related edit you would like to make.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:34, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to respond (talk).

*Take it to the Talk page.

*Wait until I have made the required number of edits.

Kobzar1917 (talk) 21:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taking it to the talk page is almost always a good idea, and I see you did do so a few times in the past ([1]).

It is fine (and perhaps even recommendable) to wait and collect more experience before doing anything related to the Russo-Ukrainian War on Wikipedia, but please keep in mind that making an edit request on the talk page is also allowed. In case it is declined, repeatedly requesting similar changes or having a lengthy discussion insisting on your position would quickly be disruptive, must be avoided and could lead to blocks. But if you see something (especially something really uncontroversial like a typo) that should be changed, making an edit request and accepting any response to it is a good path to take.

Regarding Mellk, I understand the hounding impression. If the warnings weren't about problematic behavior that actually needed to stop, I'd go as far as agreeing these are too many from one sender to one recipient. I'm also not sure about Special:Diff/1241627918, which is acceptable but does take advantage of your situation.

How do you intend to deal with Mellk, their concerns and messages to you, and perhaps similar interactions in the future? Please assume that, if you are unblocked, these would continue pretty much in the way they did before. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for taking the time. I didn't think of adding an edit request to the talk page of anything related to the Russo-Ukrainian War on Wikipedia, thanks for the tip.

I would do my upmost to refrain from engaging with Mellk directly, and in the case of the article in question, seek input from a 3rd party. Kobzar1917 (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good. I can't block for ignoring concerns if I ignore yours in response. Thanks for your replies, and sorry for being so insistent, but could you describe how exactly you would seek such input? Would you be able to attempt discussing the matter on the article's talk page, even if this means doing so with Mellk, focusing on content rather than their actions, and then requesting third-party input only if the discussion comes to a standstill? This would be the requirement for formally requesting a third opinion at WP:3O, for example. And while the dispute resolution policy does offer much more advice than just this, it all usually boils down to "try to resolve it with the other user first, seek input if you actually failed". Avoiding a user completely is also an option, but would require you to completely disengage from any conflicts you're currently in with them. This would include leaving the article about the Ostrog Bible unmodified and undiscussed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the tardy response. WP:3O sounds like a plan, I didn't know it existed until now. Kobzar1917 (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted their previous changes to Ostrog Bible because (in addition to restoring their disputed change) they made far too many unexplained and POV changes; they more or less rewrote most of the article. For example, why did they remove the Russian translation here, change instances of "Ostrog" to "Ostroh" here, introduce confusing piped links such as Ukrainians displaying "Ruthenian" here and Tsardom of Russia displaying "the" here? It also did not help that they made over 50 edits to the article in one morning, nearly all of them unexplained.

I would have no problem discussing their changes on the talk page, only if they are willing to discuss. I agree that the warnings were probably excessive and I should have tried a different approach, so I will refrain from giving any more warnings if they are unblocked. Mellk (talk) 06:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) "Ostroh" is the more common spelling (and accurate, given that it's a Ukrainian proper name);

2) Why would the Russian language version of the name be included? What's the relevance? Why not German or Romanian?

3) An obvious typo. You could've just undid that error, instead of reverting hours of work and removing several high-quality scholarly sources, quotes, etc.

Kobzar1917 (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article is "Ostrog Bible", not "Ostroh Bible". The subject is a Bible translation from the 1500s, not the modern Ukrainian city. Also, WP:BRD says to revert "an edit if you disagree with it and cannot immediately refine it". Yes, you almost completely rewrote the article, therefore I reverted your changes. Since you are comparing Russian to German or Romanian here, I do not expect you will be able to edit in this area neutrally so I would expect at minimum a topic ban from Russia/Ukraine. Mellk (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Ostroh Bible" is more common than "Ostrog Bible". Ostroh at the time was not a part of Russia, not until centuries later (nor indeed was Russian a standard written language then). Parts of what are now Western Ukraine were never a part of Russia, only the Soviet Union from 1945-1991. Some of those parts, were part of Austria (or Austria-Hungary) for centuries, other parts Romania before the USSR. I can see why Polish (and perhaps Yiddish) translations might be included, but not Russian. Kobzar1917 (talk) 22:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kobzar1917, if the article title is under dispute, Wikipedia:Requested moves § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves contains instructions for how to proceed. Changing the spelling of the article subject in the article itself should only be done after having found a consensus for a move, and when the article has actually been moved.

It should be possible to explain misunderstandings or make clarifications about content without accusing others of needing a topic ban or lacking basic knowledge. I obviously can't unblock if even the unblock discussion is uncivil. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I didn't know how to change the name of the article - however I did open the talk page discussion on the issue, as you can see.

I was only responding to the irony inherent in Mellk's ad hominem. I will strike it out. As I say, I would be more than happy to leave this article and any interaction with Mellk alone entirely, and just continue on my merry way, plugging away at various articles and periods of history in CEE (and some Western European and even some New World) on which I happen to possess expertise, at my very glacial, inconsistent pace. Kobzar1917 (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for [2]. While changing comments that have been replied to is usually not done without modification markers, this message here with the diff link provides all the needed information and I'd say it's fine (or even the best choice) in this specific, rare situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to remove these (or any) messages (cf. WP:UP#CMT). They were meant for your information and are not meant to be a wall of shame. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was not even a Ukrainian language or state, so your argument does not make sense (although I did not propose to remove this because there is also importance to this in Ukraine). The connection to Russian Christianity is clear, as mentioned in The New Cambridge History of the Bible: Volume 4, From 1750 to the Present (p. 529). [3] The only reason why I mentioned a topic ban is because this POV editing affected several other articles and you did not indicate any understanding of this. Mellk (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

Hello, Kobzar1917, and welcome back to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Fyodorov (printer)

You were told by User:ToBeFree about the instructions at Wikipedia:Requested moves § Requesting controversial and potentially controversial moves if you disagree with the title of an article, in this case Ostrog Bible, but in this edit you are still not following this and creating inconsistencies in the article. You are also making the same disputed changes. Mellk (talk) 09:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:ToBeFree I am humbly asking for your assistance. At this point, Mellk is making it impossible for me to edit any article without reverts, threats, etc. Kobzar1917 (talk) 09:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not revert your edit, I improved upon it. I also did not threaten you. Do you expect me to avoid editing articles that are on my watchlist that you have edited just to please you? Therefore, kindly strike your false accusations. Mellk (talk) 09:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But now you decided to make the same POV changes as you did before the block. Sorry, but I do not think you have changed your behavior whatsoever since the block was imposed. Mellk (talk) 09:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, which was the subject of a previous dispute. But here we here again. Mellk (talk) 10:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the exchange above with ToBeFree, you said you would avoid Ostrog Bible completely, yet you still decided to make a new topic at Talk:Ostrog Bible today about the significance section that you tried to make changes to earlier (before the block). Mellk (talk) 09:45, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I'd be happier if it wasn't Mellk alone who voiced these concerns, the only way to report behavior at WP:ANI and to have a possibly-much-needed community discussion is to explain the problem to the user (you, Kobzar1917) at least once, and to create a discussion at WP:ANI only if talking didn't help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Is it possible to just reinstate the block? They still show no interest in discussing their edits. Now they make false accusations of "hounding" on articles that I have edited for a long time in order to force their POV changes through, so this is just a textbook case of WP:NOTHERE. Mellk (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I trust @ToBeFree will see by the content and sources I have added, who is "not here". Kobzar1917 (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You added a CN tag in the lead here when such tags do not belong in the lead. Your response is to restore this edit using a deceptive edit summary that falsely claims "hounding". Perhaps you should spent more time familiarizing yourself with the policies/MOS instead. Mellk (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My edits speak for themselves. Kobzar1917 (talk) 08:15, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example here they decide to use this as an opportunity to restore a change they have been edit warring for months over with the edit summary simply saying "WP:HOUNDING", even though I have edited this article recently and long before they ever made edits to the article in the first place. Mellk (talk) 08:09, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please explain that edit. How is that not WP:HOUNDING? Kobzar1917 (talk) 08:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose this is also a WP:CIR issue as well. Mellk (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, how is it that you seem unable to grasp the fact that the Ukrainian-language spelling of a Ukrainian place name is preferred over the Russian-language spelling? Seems pretty elementary to me, yet you chose to revert without justification... Kobzar1917 (talk) 08:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is to use the historical spelling for such periods. We have Principality of Chernigov. Ukraine did not exist then so we are not using the modern spelling. If you disagree with this, you are supposed to start a discussion instead of continually edit warring. You do not have consensus for your change. Therefore, your edit warring is purely disruptive. Mellk (talk) 08:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It didn't link to the Principality of Chernigov though, did it? It linked to the city. "Ukraine did not exist then" - neither did Russia. I've noticed many of your edits feature anachronisms concerning this point. Kobzar1917 (talk) 08:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And all mentions of the city do not use the modern spelling. Either way, this is not a valid excuse for disruption. Mellk (talk) 08:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"disruptive", "POV", "NOTHERE", "CIR", "edit-warring"... and yet I'm the one introducing eminent, unimpeachable sources to improve the articles, and you're the one reverting virtually all of my contributions on sight. Kobzar1917 (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can now include WP:IDHT to the mix. Mellk (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll self-revert all the contributions I made, that you deleted, if you will engage on the Talk page, instead of reverting on sight, and explain specifically why you object to them. Kobzar1917 (talk) 09:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why you get this impression, but please understand that those edits you made recently all appeared on my watchlist and I disagreed with those changes. I would be happy to discuss them, but please also understand that reverting a bold edit is a normal part of the process (see WP:BRD). If you find that you cannot get consensus for your changes, please see WP:DR for additional options rather than simply restoring your edit. There are options like WP:3O. Mellk (talk) 09:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the key part of WP:BRD is the discuss. On the Ostrog Bible, you wholesale reverted massive amounts of content and sources, without discussing why on the Talk page. Kobzar1917 (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained this on User talk:Kobzar1917#August 2024 2. You need to start a talk page discussion about this. Mellk (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But previously you lambasted me for going to the Talk page on Ostrog Bible! Nevertheless, I will take your [new] advice. Kobzar1917 (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, you said you would leave that article in order to avoid interacting with me. Previously you said you would follow the advice that was given to you but there was no indication of this. Mellk (talk) 09:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I said I would be willing to leave that article be, if you would stop hounding me. However ToBeFree encouraged me to use the talk page or WP:3O. What do you want me to do? Leave it, or discuss further on the Talk page? Kobzar1917 (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never hounded you, this is projection. You were encouraged to discuss your edits in general. ToBeFree told you about WP:DISENGAGE and said: This would include leaving the article about the Ostrog Bible unmodified and undiscussed. I do not understand, you said you would follow this then started a new topic on that article's talk page after you were unblocked, but you also expected me to avoid interacting with you whatsoever? Mellk (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He encouraged me to use the WP:3O option. However, when I read that page, it says all other options should first be exhausted on the Talk page. So, I ask you again, should I engage on the Talk page? Or should I open a WP:3O without further talk page discussion, as you have not engaged in any? Or maybe, should I just concede to you that you own that particular article and move on? Kobzar1917 (talk) 09:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you continued with restoring disputed changes you made before the block and today made edits that you restored again without starting a talk page discussion. It did not seem like you were considering 3O here either. Mellk (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are continuing to make edits, you can either fully self-revert and we can discuss on the talk page or we can discuss this on ANI instead. Mellk (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but in no universe does it make sense that I should run every edit I want to make via you first, given that you are failing to engage meaningfully on the Talk page yourself. If you have objections, state them. Kobzar1917 (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say every edit you make should be checked with me. I am asking you to self-revert where I have already reverted you and disputed your edit, so that a discussion on the talk page can begin. You did not get consensus for those changes, therefore you need to initiate the talk page discussion. I have explained my objection in the edit summary. Mellk (talk) 11:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"POV edits" is not a meaningful objection, there is nothing to engage with there. Whenever you have raised a substantive objection, I have addressed it on the Talk page. Kobzar1917 (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you are not listening. Even if you think your edits are 'right' or that the revert is 'wrong', that is not a valid excuse to edit war. You need to start a talk page discussion and get consensus for the changes. There, the objection can be explained in more detail. If that fails, go to dispute resolution. Mellk (talk) 11:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How does this edit [4] not constitute edit-warring? Again, in your wholesale revert, you're deleting RS. Kobzar1917 (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your change that does not have consensus so that this can be discussed on the talk page. I started a talk page discussion (as you were not willing to) that explains in detail why I do not think these changes are an improvement. I am using policy-based arguments here. Once again, WP:ONUS applies. Simply saying that it is cited to a reliable source is not a valid argument (even though it is not a good summary and has original research). Mellk (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this to ANI if administrative intervention is needed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Kobzar1917. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 18:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You made several agreements when you were unblocked, and your edits in recent discussions show no indication you're going to abide by them. As a result, you have lost access to edit. Star Mississippi 18:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]