Hello, I'm Discospinster. I noticed that you recently removed content from Maxim Berezovsky without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ... discospinster talk 00:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Maxim Berezovsky, you may be blocked from editing. ... discospinster talk 00:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Do not remove other cited information from the articles. There are plenty of sources that refer to him as Russian and you may not remove them just because you disagree. ... discospinster talk 00:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Just because you don't like Russia, it is not a reason to remove every Russian-related bit of information from Ukraine-related articles. Whether you like it or not, the two countries have a history together so sometimes Russia will be mentioned. If you continue to remove reliably-sourced content due to nationalism, you will be blocked from editing. ... discospinster talk 00:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Dearest Dmytro91, for the past few days you've been constantly editing a set of articles about composers and musicians, and a number of places associated with them. These edits have often been contrary to established Wikipedia policy, based on sources you don't seem to understand (if based on any sources at all), conducted aggressively and arrogantly, and fundamentally, disrespecting other editors by accusing them of a) being ignorant, b) being Russian, and/or c) being paid by Russia. Please allow me to clarify a few points to you, which I would like you to address before you carry on your editing spree (and force me to react in kind). Warning: it's a long post.
1) Use of sources: First of all, you claim the Grove Music Dictionary as the ultimate, absolute authority on everything and anything, and Oxford Music Online as its prophet. Articles on the Grove, as well as articles you'll find on Oxford Music Online (often one and the same!), are of course of high quality, but are also written by different authors, with different perspectives. The entries on Berezovsky and Bortniansky to which I assume you're referring (you're pasting a doi) were written by Ukrainian-American Marika Kuzma in 2001 and refer to them as Ukrainian. You'll also find there, however, a 2013 article written by American David Drillock which refers to both Berezovsky and Bortniansky as Russian composers. Two articles from the same "source" giving theoretically contradictory (in practice, not so much) information. We can simply avoid wading into this potential controversy while keeping Wikipedia useful by not stressing either composer's nationality unnecessarily, particularly when it's dealt with in a more nuanced fashion further on. It is Wikipedia policy not to stress someone's nationality in the opening unless it's absolutely crucial. Another point is your claim of JStor as a source. JStor is an online repository of academic journals and books, not a source of anything. Claiming JStor as a source is akin to walking into the Library of Congress, grabbing a book, and editing an article with info from that book while claiming "the Library of Congress states that...". Finally, it would be nice if you could at least provide more than a mere doi when citing an article, because not everyone has access to it through that sort of link. Try to provide name of the article and author, too, if possible. I can't really criticise you too much for this since I'm quite lazy and usually finish an article, or my edits on an article, in haphazard fashion and only try to correct or at least polish the references much later. 2) "The West": You attack other editors by claiming they're not doing things "the Western way", saying "we in the West do things/do not do things like this", "we in the West don't tolerate Russian propaganda" (and by Russian propaganda you mean a dissenting opinion), etc. I don't know when you joined "the West", who admitted you into "the West", or who anointed you gatekeeper of "the West". Frankly, I do not care, either, and would very much prefer not even having to write this at all, but your incessant repeating of this formula like it were some sort of incantation forces my hand. Some of us, dare I say most of us, editing this Wikipedia were born, raised and educated in "the West". We have led entirely "Western" lives, have "Western" passports, and work or worked for "Western" institutions. More than a few of us have also conducted research in "the West", and published in "Western" journals. A few of us have done so in more than one "Western" language! What we do not do, or at the very least try not to do, is tell random strangers that "we in the West" do this or that. You see, "the West" has often been guilty of what you seem to accuse Russia of: military interventions, colonialism, imperialism, arrogance, murder, plunder, etc. You name it, we've done it! But in order to remedy those past evils, and to try and prevent them from happening again, "the West" has attempted, with varying degrees of success, to embrace the values of tolerance, pluralism, respect, etc. You have shown very little of those in your exchanges with fellow Wikipedians.
As for specific articles, allow me to point out my main objections: 1) Regarding Simferopol: you're consistently adding something that is quite literally already there because you would like it to be present twice - where it is now and in the sentence immediately preceding it as well. This is redundant and silly, and serves no purpose. 2) Regarding Hlukhiv: Normally this isn't a hill I would die on, but you've crossed all the lines of civility with your edit warring and went out of your way to edit stuff because you seem to have an axe to grind. Glukhov is maintained as an alternative spelling because it's been used in English-language academic literature as well as in other Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, Wikipedia practice for similar situations also supports maintaining the older official name in bold (see Kiev for Kyiv and Kharkov for Kharkiv). Perhaps in a decade or two it won't be necessary, but right now it is helpful, and as I stated, the presence of an alternative spelling in English does not impinge on Ukraine's sovereignty in any way, just like Rijeka having Fiume as an alternative name doesn't take the city away from Croatia, or mentioning Königsberg in the opening line of the article about Kaliningrad doesn't affect Russia's ownership of the city (you see? the Russians are also getting some!). 3) Regarding Bortniansky: On top of what I mentioned regarding sources, his name in Ukrainian, in both the Cyrillic and Latin scripts, as well as his name in Russian cyrillic and alternative transliterations of his name to English are already available as a footnote next to his name, and are readily visibly by simply hovering the cursor over "n1". The fact that you persistently attempt to edit this in despite being told about it is completely puzzling. 4) Regarding Berezovsky: Re-read what I mentioned about use of sources, and Wikipedia policy regarding nationality, please.
A final comment: I believe I'm entitled to assume you're Ukrainian. If you scroll through my contributions you'll find that I've also added/restored Ukrainian nationality and Ukrainian-language names to a number of historical and cultural figures of Ukrainian nationality or ancestry, or relevant to Ukraine's (and other countries') history. Outside of Wikipedia, my heart bleeds for your country and I'm deeply saddened by this senseless war, but the fact that your country is being destroyed does not give you the right to edit whatever you want to suit your agenda, and it definitely doesn't mean you can go around throwing heinous accusations at people who are by and large following Wikipedia policy, and whose positions might have some merit as well. Ostalgia ( talk) 07:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
Mellk ( talk) 17:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I see that you have now decided to start mindless edit-warring at Kazimir Malevich. Given that you have been warned sufficiently enough and that none of your last Wikipedia edits are good (all of them are POV), and, in particular, that you have been warned about the discretionary sanctions, blocks or topic bans would come next. Ymblanter ( talk) 12:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
-- Deepfriedokra (
talk)
14:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)Hello, I'm Discospinster. I noticed that you recently removed content from Maxim Berezovsky without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ... discospinster talk 00:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Maxim Berezovsky, you may be blocked from editing. ... discospinster talk 00:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Do not remove other cited information from the articles. There are plenty of sources that refer to him as Russian and you may not remove them just because you disagree. ... discospinster talk 00:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Just because you don't like Russia, it is not a reason to remove every Russian-related bit of information from Ukraine-related articles. Whether you like it or not, the two countries have a history together so sometimes Russia will be mentioned. If you continue to remove reliably-sourced content due to nationalism, you will be blocked from editing. ... discospinster talk 00:51, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Dearest Dmytro91, for the past few days you've been constantly editing a set of articles about composers and musicians, and a number of places associated with them. These edits have often been contrary to established Wikipedia policy, based on sources you don't seem to understand (if based on any sources at all), conducted aggressively and arrogantly, and fundamentally, disrespecting other editors by accusing them of a) being ignorant, b) being Russian, and/or c) being paid by Russia. Please allow me to clarify a few points to you, which I would like you to address before you carry on your editing spree (and force me to react in kind). Warning: it's a long post.
1) Use of sources: First of all, you claim the Grove Music Dictionary as the ultimate, absolute authority on everything and anything, and Oxford Music Online as its prophet. Articles on the Grove, as well as articles you'll find on Oxford Music Online (often one and the same!), are of course of high quality, but are also written by different authors, with different perspectives. The entries on Berezovsky and Bortniansky to which I assume you're referring (you're pasting a doi) were written by Ukrainian-American Marika Kuzma in 2001 and refer to them as Ukrainian. You'll also find there, however, a 2013 article written by American David Drillock which refers to both Berezovsky and Bortniansky as Russian composers. Two articles from the same "source" giving theoretically contradictory (in practice, not so much) information. We can simply avoid wading into this potential controversy while keeping Wikipedia useful by not stressing either composer's nationality unnecessarily, particularly when it's dealt with in a more nuanced fashion further on. It is Wikipedia policy not to stress someone's nationality in the opening unless it's absolutely crucial. Another point is your claim of JStor as a source. JStor is an online repository of academic journals and books, not a source of anything. Claiming JStor as a source is akin to walking into the Library of Congress, grabbing a book, and editing an article with info from that book while claiming "the Library of Congress states that...". Finally, it would be nice if you could at least provide more than a mere doi when citing an article, because not everyone has access to it through that sort of link. Try to provide name of the article and author, too, if possible. I can't really criticise you too much for this since I'm quite lazy and usually finish an article, or my edits on an article, in haphazard fashion and only try to correct or at least polish the references much later. 2) "The West": You attack other editors by claiming they're not doing things "the Western way", saying "we in the West do things/do not do things like this", "we in the West don't tolerate Russian propaganda" (and by Russian propaganda you mean a dissenting opinion), etc. I don't know when you joined "the West", who admitted you into "the West", or who anointed you gatekeeper of "the West". Frankly, I do not care, either, and would very much prefer not even having to write this at all, but your incessant repeating of this formula like it were some sort of incantation forces my hand. Some of us, dare I say most of us, editing this Wikipedia were born, raised and educated in "the West". We have led entirely "Western" lives, have "Western" passports, and work or worked for "Western" institutions. More than a few of us have also conducted research in "the West", and published in "Western" journals. A few of us have done so in more than one "Western" language! What we do not do, or at the very least try not to do, is tell random strangers that "we in the West" do this or that. You see, "the West" has often been guilty of what you seem to accuse Russia of: military interventions, colonialism, imperialism, arrogance, murder, plunder, etc. You name it, we've done it! But in order to remedy those past evils, and to try and prevent them from happening again, "the West" has attempted, with varying degrees of success, to embrace the values of tolerance, pluralism, respect, etc. You have shown very little of those in your exchanges with fellow Wikipedians.
As for specific articles, allow me to point out my main objections: 1) Regarding Simferopol: you're consistently adding something that is quite literally already there because you would like it to be present twice - where it is now and in the sentence immediately preceding it as well. This is redundant and silly, and serves no purpose. 2) Regarding Hlukhiv: Normally this isn't a hill I would die on, but you've crossed all the lines of civility with your edit warring and went out of your way to edit stuff because you seem to have an axe to grind. Glukhov is maintained as an alternative spelling because it's been used in English-language academic literature as well as in other Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, Wikipedia practice for similar situations also supports maintaining the older official name in bold (see Kiev for Kyiv and Kharkov for Kharkiv). Perhaps in a decade or two it won't be necessary, but right now it is helpful, and as I stated, the presence of an alternative spelling in English does not impinge on Ukraine's sovereignty in any way, just like Rijeka having Fiume as an alternative name doesn't take the city away from Croatia, or mentioning Königsberg in the opening line of the article about Kaliningrad doesn't affect Russia's ownership of the city (you see? the Russians are also getting some!). 3) Regarding Bortniansky: On top of what I mentioned regarding sources, his name in Ukrainian, in both the Cyrillic and Latin scripts, as well as his name in Russian cyrillic and alternative transliterations of his name to English are already available as a footnote next to his name, and are readily visibly by simply hovering the cursor over "n1". The fact that you persistently attempt to edit this in despite being told about it is completely puzzling. 4) Regarding Berezovsky: Re-read what I mentioned about use of sources, and Wikipedia policy regarding nationality, please.
A final comment: I believe I'm entitled to assume you're Ukrainian. If you scroll through my contributions you'll find that I've also added/restored Ukrainian nationality and Ukrainian-language names to a number of historical and cultural figures of Ukrainian nationality or ancestry, or relevant to Ukraine's (and other countries') history. Outside of Wikipedia, my heart bleeds for your country and I'm deeply saddened by this senseless war, but the fact that your country is being destroyed does not give you the right to edit whatever you want to suit your agenda, and it definitely doesn't mean you can go around throwing heinous accusations at people who are by and large following Wikipedia policy, and whose positions might have some merit as well. Ostalgia ( talk) 07:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
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.
To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{
Ds/aware}}
on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. 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.
Mellk ( talk) 17:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
I see that you have now decided to start mindless edit-warring at Kazimir Malevich. Given that you have been warned sufficiently enough and that none of your last Wikipedia edits are good (all of them are POV), and, in particular, that you have been warned about the discretionary sanctions, blocks or topic bans would come next. Ymblanter ( talk) 12:57, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
-- Deepfriedokra (
talk)
14:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)