User talk:Stanislawskachko

February 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. 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. Oqwert (talk) 12:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. @Oqwert

Will read policies and guidelines, and try to adapt Unbiased Scribe (talk) 16:02, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Hello, I'm Mellk. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of Russian monarchs have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Mellk @Teahouse

Kindly ask you to study history and revert back my changes which are historically correct.

There is no such thing as "Russian monarchs" - it is just long-term propaganda of Peter I.

The initial state was Rus' (with Kyiv as capital). So Tsars of Rus

Then there have been Tsardom of Moscovia - so Tsars of Moscovia

Thena there have been Rosiia Empire - so ‎Emperors of Rosija

https://www.istpravda.com.ua/articles/4e38887e7c05d/

https://universum.lviv.ua/journal/2011/6/dashk.htm

https://www.radiosvoboda.org/a/ukrayina-rus-i-moskoviya/31521000.html

https://www.quora.com/When-was-Moscovia-renamed-to-Russia

https://www.swaen.com/listing/moscovia-or-russia/23222 stanislawskachko (talk) 16:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are not the titles on English Wikipedia. "Rosija" is not even English. Mellk (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The whole page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_Russian_monarchs is just a biased Kremlin propaganda

Rus' is not Moscovia. Russia is not Rus'.

Princes of Novgorod - Those are not "Russian monarch" but "Novgorod semi-legendary Varangian chieftains"

Grand Prince of Kyiv - Those are not "Russian monarch" but "Rus' monarchs"

Feudal period - Those are not "Russian monarch" but "Rus' monarchs"

Grand Duchy of Vladimir - Those are not "Russian monarch" but "Rus' monarchs"

Grand Princes of Moscow - Those are not "Russian monarch" but "Moscow monarchs"

Tsars of Russia - Those are not "Russian monarch" but "Moscow Tsars"

Time of Troubles - Those are not "Russian monarch" but clearly "Moscow Tsars"

Emperors of Russia - here is interesting fact. even Peter І renamed empire still in many Western sources this country was named as Moscovian Empire till approx 1700 Unbiased Scribe (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2023 (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) 20:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that as you are not extended confirmed, you are unable to make edits about Russia–Ukraine war due to WP:RUSUKR, broadly construed. Mellk (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Mellk how is it possible to be a extended confirmed ? stanislawskachko (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kievan Rus', you may be blocked from editing. Mellk (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Mellk

as per Encyclopedia Britannica proper spelling is Kyiv?

https://www.britannica.com/place/Kyiv/History stanislawskachko (talk) 12:47, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Free Nations of Post-Russia Forum, you may be blocked from editing. // Timothy :: talk 14:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @TimothyBlue

Most of the sources have been mentioned

so deletion of all content violates of

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Editing_policy#Talking_and_editing

If some information specifically to your mind violates "poorly sourced content" - kindly ask to proofread and verify, otherwise it lloks ike a vandalizm from your side stanislawskachko (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. // Timothy :: talk 15:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. User:Ymblanter (talk) 13:59, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Dear colleagues I am writing to appeal the block on my account . I understand and respect your decision to block my account and take full responsibility for my actions that led to it. As a relatively new editor, I admit that I was still unfamiliar with many of the wiki's policies and guidelines, particularly around neutrality and sourcing. While I've been registered for some time, I haven't been actively contributing and I recognize that relying solely on typical common-sense Facebook guidelines, which differ significantly from Wikipedia's, was some mistake on my side. My recent edits were motivated by a strong desire to contribute to the English Wikipedia by providing neutral, fact-based, and comprehensive information regarding Eastern Europe. I recognize that my frustration may have led to edits that lacked some objectivity and proper sourcing. But moving forward, I assure you that I will be far more attentive to details, follow the established policies and guidelines rigorously, and prioritize neutrality and verifiable sources in my edits. I understand that contributing constructively requires respect and civility, and I am committed to avoiding any form of harassment or disruption. To further improve my skills and ensure valuable contributions, I would be truly grateful if you could share any resources or tutorials specifically on making edits that align with the wiki's standards. This knowledge will enable me to learn from my mistakes and become a more valuable member of the Wikipedia community. Thank you for considering my appeal. I genuinely regret any inconvenience caused and remain committed to becoming a positive and responsible contributor to Wikipedia. Areas where I can contribute have a wide variety - Technology, Arts, History Kindly ask to unblock my account Sincerely, Best regards

Decline reason:

Decline duplicate see decline below -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here stanislawskachko (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Kindly ask to unblock me stanislawskachko (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Dear colleagues. I'm a fresh wiki editor and lot of policies and guidelines are sincerely are not so clear for me. I've registred a long time ago but was not using my account in Wiki. Most of the time I'm using Facebook so it is much more simpler over there to follow policies. As I recently have some time and saw a lot of information in English wiki regarding East Europe, Moscovia, Ukraine has some bias towards Kremlin, which frustrates. So my intention was to give more NPOV based on facts, history, logic, actual situation what is happening. In future I promise to be more attentive to details. Sorry if I hurt anyone feeling, I'll try to be more polite in going forward. No harrasment, no disruptivness. Kindly ask to unblcok me. And would be great to send a links how to make useful and valuable edits so they will be approved by editors. Kindly ask to unlock me. Best regards stanislawskachko (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

" If I hurt anyone's fellings," shows does not recognize hurtful edits when they make them. In fact, that response is hurtful ad insensitive. Needs a total grasp on WP:DISPUTERESOLUTION. Will be WP:TOPICBANned from Eastern Europe, so will need to describe what constructive edits would be made. Thanks, -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I don't think we can unblock you to edit about Eastern Europe topics, especially as you have a WP:conflict of interest. Please describe what constructive edits you would make out side of this topic area.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Deepfriedokra

Big thanks that you replied because it is already almost a month since I've been blocked.

I can write/edit on multiple topics since I have a very wide professional interests based on my education, travels in US/Canada/EU/Asia/Africa/Latin America and very wide community of friends from countries around the globe. Some topics may include: Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Energy, Cars, IT, History, Personalities, Geography, Global and Regional politics.

Big thanks for providing link for WP:conflict of interest - read that very carefully. As open-minded person I will double check to be objective an unbiased. Thanks Unbiased Scribe (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What will you do instead of harassment, WP:INCIVILITY or WP:edit warring when in a Wp:content dispute? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly will do my best to find a consensus based on facts, possibly involve other people to take unbiased judgment. Can use talk page discussions, focus on content, request other editors' help for content disputes. And believe that Wiki can be a collaborative effort of free-mided people Unbiased Scribe (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

big thanks for links WP:edit warring and Wp:content dispute

great advices to focus on articles where constructive edits can be made in calm and constructive manner

Thanks Unbiased Scribe (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter:. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:00, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the user who in their unblock request calls Russia "Moscovia" should have an indefinite ban on anything related to Russia and Ukraine. For the rest, I would be fine with an unblock. They are under scrutiny, and it would be not difficult to reblock if they misbehave. Ymblanter (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Ymblanter historically names of any space, country, nation can be subject of deep research. "Name Russia/Moscovia matter" can be discussed possibly in this page https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Moscovia_(region)

But as I know - modern widely known names of countries for now are Russia and Ukraine, so those can be certainly used. Once again - lets be polite, collaborative and open-minded. Thanks Unbiased Scribe (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q. E. D. I think you just showed the need for the topic ban. I'll circle back -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, those are not the only resources available for WP:CONTENTDISPUTE's -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone else wants this, Ima ramble on -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Deepfriedokra I certainly believe that Wiki as encyclopedia should be written from a neutral point of view, with free content. And any editor who treat each others with respect and civility can use, edit, and distribute knowledge. Including research, discussions and finding consensus based on facts. Regards Unbiased Scribe (talk) 11:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that while that sounds high-minded, it does not answer the question. thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing WP:CONTENTDISPUTE WP:conflict of interest WP:INCIVILITY WP:edit warring. As well I've read WP:5P and clearly do not see any valid reason why should I still be blocked from editing any of the page. As I recognized initial mistake, explained intention to provide NPOV and valuable contribution to wiki in various areas and agreed to follow good practices of editing and interacting with other editors. So can you help, which questions do you exactly mean? Unbiased Scribe (talk) 13:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm afraid this shows you just don't know what to do. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that such answers are deeply demoralizing. I believe that as per WP:ADMINCOND admins should have a good faith and help users? Unbiased Scribe (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter ? Unbiased Scribe (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

Dear colleagues. I've read a lot of policies and guidelines. Certainly believe that indefinite block for me is very deeply biased. So my intention in wiki is to give more NPOV based on facts, history, logic, actual situation what is happening. No harrasment, no disruptivness. Kindly ask to unblock me. Best regards

Accept reason:

Per discussion on the talk page and agreement to WP:TOPICBAN on Russia and Ukraine, broadly construed, including Russo-Ukrainian War.( Any admin should feel free to reblock if the TBAN is violated. No need to notify me.) Welcome back-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And kindly

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers Unbiased Scribe (talk) 11:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What demoralizes me is seeing two unblock requests at the same time, neither of which address the reasons for your block, and both of which attack admins for blocking you/not unblocking you. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Deepfriedokra

Sorry - two unblock requests possibly by mistake :) kindly please consider as one.

As it was stated

"I certainly will do my best to find a consensus based on facts, possibly involve other people to take unbiased judgment. Can use talk page discussions, focus on content, request other editors' help for content disputes. And believe that Wiki can be a collaborative effort of free-mided people.

Moving forward, I assure you that I will be far more attentive to details, follow the established policies and guidelines rigorously, and prioritize neutrality and verifiable sources in my edits. I understand that contributing constructively requires respect and civility, and I am committed to avoiding any form of harassment or disruption"

11 January 2023

"I'll try to be more polite in going forward. No harrasment, no disruptivness. Kindly ask to unblock me."

9 December 2023

"my intention in wiki is to give more NPOV based on facts, history, logic, actual situation what is happening. No harrasment, no disruptivness"

4 March 2023

On top of that I can assure that going forward I will try not to use "Moscovia" term. Though it is purely \ historical term widely used in historical books and archives.

As per blocking admin comment @Ymblanter "For the rest, I would be fine with an unblock. They are under scrutiny, and it would be not difficult to reblock if they misbehave"

This addresses the reasons for unblock reasoning and a way to go forward with unblocking.

Thank you for your help and best regards

Lets build a NPOV Wiki Unbiased Scribe (talk) 15:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make it clear I oppose an unblock unless there is an indefinite topic ban to everything related to Russia and Ukraine, broadly construed. Ymblanter (talk) 16:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature is misleading. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin should feel free to action this as I'm not around much. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter @Deepfriedokra If this helps for unblocking in English wikipedia, I can stop my edits that directly relate to Russo-Ukrainian War. There are a lot of other topics for writing articles Unbiased Scribe (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid you have difficulties understanding plain English text. I did not write Russo-Ukrainian War (which you may not edit anyway because of WP:RUSUKR), I wrote Russia and Ukraine, broadly construed. There is a big difference between these two. I start doubting that you are actually capable of constructively contributing to Wikipedia. Ymblanter (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Lets agree on "Russia and Ukraine, broadly construed". Deal? Unbiased Scribe (talk) 19:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not my call. You would need to convince an uninvolved administrator. Ymblanter (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. Would be great to get any uninvolved administrator to unblock me and make constructive NPOV edits. Unbiased Scribe (talk) 21:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding of the unblock conditions, this editor is topic banned from both Russia and Ukraine, broadly construed. I would imagine that this edit on Dissolution of the Russian Empire is a violation of the topic ban. Mellk (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]