User talk:Nznk

March 2016

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Autonomous Republic of Crimea. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article. Also WP:3RR EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir:Where do you see personal analysis?

Meant to use the NPOV template, not NOR. Your edit warring based on a personal point of view. You are not adhering to WP:BRD either. Not to mention your newness but familiarity with wikipedia syntax and singular focus is suspicious. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@EvergreenFir:What do you mean suspicious? The other guy is deleting stuff. Like why delete "In the March referendum, 97% of voters favored unification with Russia, with 83% of eligible citizens in Crimea and Sevastopol participating, according to official results" in the annexation article?

You've started edit wars on FOUR different articles now. You're not User:Solntsa90 by any chance are you? He had a tendency to do that. Even if not, it's really not a good idea to show up out of nowhere on Wikipedia and immediately start four different wars.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were deleting things for no reason before I came. So you should stop. Why did you delete the sentence above? Don't want to accept facts?

What sentence are you talking about? And I asked you a question - can you answer it please? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What question? I am not that guy. This sentence: "In the March referendum, 97% of voters favored unification with Russia, with 83% of eligible citizens in Crimea and Sevastopol participating, according to official results."

Presumably because it duplicates existing information that's already there which states the overwhelming support in that referendum. It was also part of a much larger change that was non-neutral. ~ Rob^Talk 05:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides what is neutral? That specific information is not there so why delete?

This is duplicated but is apparently ok with you: "Ukrainian court declared the referendum to be illegal", "the Crimean status referendum was deemed unconstitutional by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine".

When you say "for no reason before I came", what are you referring to?

Removing stuff like the sentence above. You were doing such things before me coming here.

What? Examples please? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:02, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go look at your history before today.

I'm sorry I'm not seeing anything that looks like what you are talking about. Can you be more specific? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:18, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Discretionary Sanctions

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 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.

~ Rob^Talk 05:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. ~ Rob^Talk 05:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crimea annexation RfC

I've opened an RfC on Talk: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation on the question

"Should the information about opinion polls, currently in the subsection Crimean public opinion be moved into the subsection Crimean status referendum?"

As you recently edited this article, I thought you might like to share your views. Kalidasa 777 (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]