User talk:Kovanja
Welcome
|
Periods
I am not sure why you are restoring two isolated periods after a template. @Iryna Harpy: put them there only to make a null edit. They are breaking the format of the page. Elizium23 (talk) 12:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
December 2019
Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edita to All-Russian nation and Russkaya Pravda seemed less than neutral and have been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at All-Russian nation and Russkaya Pravda 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:53, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Edit-warring and modification of direct quotes
Please read core policies like
Please take this as a caution. Thanks. Neutralitytalk 16:18, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Important notice regarding edits to articles relating to Eastern Europe or the Balkans
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
For additional information, please see the
Neutralitytalk 16:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Agenda-driven editing
You are
- According to The New York Times, SME is a "leading Slovak daily" and "Slovakia's most respected daily newspaper". Why do you demand academic sources for information you do not like, yet continue pushing thoroughly unreliable sources yourself? Here you duplicate one source and add four new ones; a Communist Party organ, a wartime propaganda bulletin, a military hobbyist and a user-generated content site. If you are studying Russian history, why have you been blocked twice for adding Russia-related disinformation to the Czech Wikipedia? Prolog (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)]
When I have been blocked for Russia-related disinformation to Czech Wikipedia? You are talking like real lunatic. Military hobbyist content seems to be more reliable than tabloid like SME without any citation of references within the original article. Entire Finnish WW2 history relies on your WW2 propaganda, meanwile all Soviet archvies were declasified and critically evalueted. It seems you are pushing tabloid because you like it's content.A news paper that writes about homeopathy and horoscopes has zero credibility. Kovanja (talk) 15:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- This log says that two of your blocks were for "inserting deceptive information". You are entitled to your personal views about sources but article content here is governed by English Wikipedia's policies. Military hobbyists are self-published non-professionals (see WP:SPS), and no one is going to agree with you that a source is unreliable if the NYT says the opposite. Many sources that might be accepted on other projects have been disallowed or restricted here. Prolog (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)]
SME is controversial since it was bought by a corrupt group of oligarchs Penta Investmens, also some serious and recognized journalists left SME. With all do respect, NYT hardly even knows other Slovak media than SME. SME News Paper is most read but it hardly can be used as reliable source when even it's article about snipers is unsourced within the article. It's against academic principles to cite from this article. "inserting deceptive information" author himself cited newspaper article which cited absolutely the same wikipadia article. It was sort of autoplagiarism. --Kovanja (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Even if you were right about Penta Investments, the SME article in question was written and printed 20 months before the purchase so there is no relevance to the matter at hand. The NYT articles I cited were written by Dan Bilefsky who was based in Prague at the time and covered Central and Eastern Europe. Newspaper articles rarely include reference lists, so I don't know why you expect SME to be any different. Prolog (talk) 09:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Reinserting poorly sourced content and refusing to address policy-based concerns is a from of disruptive editing. Such behaviour will get you blocked from editing or banned from the topic area. Prolog (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)]
Finnish nationalist biased POV. Slovak source is nor reliable it's not even historical journal. --Kovanja (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
- Resorting to personal attacks is as unhelpful as continuing to dodge the issue and rehash refuted arguments. Well-established newspapers are considered reliable sources. Propaganda outlets, self-published websites and user-generated content sites are considered unreliable. If you can't accept that, you need to find another wiki to edit. Prolog (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)]
Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
October 2020
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Wug·a·po·des 19:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)