User talk:Shervinsky

Hello Shervinsky! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Teahouse Help Desk Reference Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump On a final note, you may want to consider joining a WikiProject of interest to you. WikiProjects gather editors interested in certain topic areas, providing them with information, tools and a place to discuss the topic in question.I think you may be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history. For a list of all WikiProjects, see here. Joining a WikiProject makes the Wikipedia experience much richer! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop blanking referenced material from articles, accompanied by hostile edit summaries. This is an easy way to get blocked and eventually chased away from the project. Your current approach is not welcome here. I've been here for 8 years and seen dozens of newcomers with such an approach. Guess where are they and their uncivilly-pushed edits now. Ukrained2012 (talk) 09:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have noted that Piotrus has already welcomed you and provided you with ample information regarding policies surrounding Wikipedia policy and etiquette for you to become familiar with before embarking on editing.

Since his warm welcome, it seems that you've overlooked policy (as per the message above). Such behaviour could be deemed as being good faith errors of judgement however, blatantly biased POV, disruptive editing, lack of courtesy are not going to stand you in good stead with the community. Your additions have invoked highly questionable value judgements. Rather than gaming the system when contributing to controversial subjects, please engage with others editors working on the article on the relevant talk page.

Thank you for your attention. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Please note that protest against any content out of ideological reasons is not acceptable. Just as removing reliable sources and corrections of factual inaccuracies. Also trying to scary me with all possible Wikipedia rules is not productive. Other users already dismissed your exaggerations. --Shervinsky (talk) 07:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions have NOT been removed. I made certain that all of them are still available so that relevant information can be sorted through and presented in a neutral way and in coherent English! Please point out where "Other users already dismissed your exaggerations" (Sic)? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the answer of Alex Bakharev to your REVDEL idea. --Shervinsky (talk) 07:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent articles, including Siege of Belaya, which I read with interest. When you create a new article, can you add the WikiProject assessment templates to the talk of that article? See the talk page of the article I mentioned for an example of what I mean. Usually it is very simple, you just add something like {{WikiProject Keyword}} to the article's talk, with keyword replaced by the associated WikiProject (ex. if it's a biography article, you would use WikiProject Biography; if it's a United States article, you would use WikiProject United States, and so on). You do not have to rate the article if you do not want to, others will do it eventually. Those templates are very useful, as they bring the articles to a WikiProject attention, and allow them to start tracking the articles through Wikipedia:Article alerts and other tools. This can help you too, as the WikiProject members will often defend your work from deletion and try to improve it further. Feel free to ask me any questions if you'd like more information. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:14, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep it in mind, thank you. --Shervinsky (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Battle of Lesnaya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Advance, Lesnaya, Defeat and Lewenhaupt

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had you and this little situation we're having notified here. I think your way of approaching things here on wikipedia is not acceptable (ignoring discussion before removal of sourced material, undoing of 6,000+ kb text etc, repeating old "unreliable" sources, even though I have clearly showed you why they're inappropriate). Please, fell free to defend your claim over there. Imonoz (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your edit comment can be considered as a personal attack. Please stop such behavior and instead, use the talk page to explain your position and sources on which you base your conclusions. --Sander Säde 06:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Shervinsky, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. Please read the information on sockpuppetry at WP:SOCK as it seems there are similar edits being carried out by IP addresses and your account. In case this is not you, I have given you the benefit of the doubt (you may simply have forgotten to log in, or be using from a location other than home). Chaosdruid (talk) 22:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Andrux (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Holodomor. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Shervinsky reported by User:Andrux (Result: Two editors blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:39, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

I'm logging this notice in the arbitration case. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Andrux (talk) 12:42, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for resumption of edit warring (WP:ARBEE) per report at WP:AN3 on the page Holodomor,

you have been blocked from editing for one week. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Bbb23 (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Triune Russian people, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. You don't WP:OWN the article, do not revert good edits under the auspice of them needing your approval on the talk page, when they were already discussed on the talk page. You even undo grammar edits as "destruction" of the article, which is way out of line. Львівське (говорити) 14:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't blame me of your own practice. It's you who was first to remove large text sections, including lot of serious sources. If you want to add something , do it in a correct way, combining the content. --Shervinsky (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please stop making these fantasies up... --Львівське (говорити) 16:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Little Russian identity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Triune Russian people. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 02:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Little Russian identity may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• и украинцев в свете новейших исследований // Вопросы истории, № 8. 2002. — С. 154—159]]</ref>]]The '''Little Russian identity''' was a cultural, political, and ethnic self-identification<ref

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Little Russian identity, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Explain and justify them on the discussion page or I have all rights to remove them. --Shervinsky (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They have been explained and justified on the talk page. Please address your concerns there before removing any maintenance templates. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issues of original research and questionable sources have been discussed in detail on both of these Little Russian related articles. You do not have "all rights to remove them" just because you don't like them. It seems policy is continuing to be an issue...--Львівське (говорити) 01:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Little Russian identity may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• исследований // Вопросы истории, № 8. 2002. — С. 154—159]]</ref>{{Source needs translation}}]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Little Russian identity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Galicia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Andrux (talk) 11:57, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for edit warring on Little Russian identity,

you have been blocked from editing for 1 month. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

The following sanction now applies to you:

You must only make one revert per twenty-four period on any single page related to Eastern Europe subject to the usual exemptions. You may appeal this restriction to me (on my talk page) after 3 months of constructive editing.

You have been sanctioned due to continued edit warring on pages relating to Eastern Europe.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard.  Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:37, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]