User talk:2601:98A:4002:DAC0:1807:C253:31B7:EB1A

April 2023
Hello, I'm Mellk. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Shchi have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * It was constructive enough: in modern world especially in the light of modern events, hostorical facts like correct spelling and namings cannot be ignored...the article written was to a degree a literal translation of Russian futhermore complicated with shady websites in Russian language.
 * On my part: there is no reference to Russia (even as a name) until at least 15th century, and even then the term Muscovy was widely used by the international community until 17th century. For a reference I advise to look even Wikipedia's history on terms like Kievan/Kyivan Rus (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kievan_Rus%27) and Moscovy (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muscovy), as well as additional sources:
 * 1)http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CK%5CY%5CKyivanRushDA.htm
 * 2)https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/modern-europe/russian-soviet-and-cis-history/muscovy
 * http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CM%5CU%5CMuscovy.htm
 * Also, I haven't known you, thus I assumed you were just a regular user with propagandistic views from the Russian side or a bot, which you don't seem to be. Hence I would love to continue the discussion if my answer doesn't satisfy you here. 2601:98A:4002:DAC0:1807:C253:31B7:EB1A (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks like original research. Mellk (talk) 13:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I advice you to look into the matter more deeply. "Original Research" cannot be simply based on Harvard Ukrainian Studies (where the majority of original articles in Encyclopedia of Ukraine were made before digitization). It is like saying that Hrushevsky History of Ukraine-Rus was an "original research" and doesn't deserve to be referenced. 2601:98A:4002:DAC0:1807:C253:31B7:EB1A (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is about a dish, though. Mellk (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And it has a "History" part of it, doesn't it? 2601:98A:4002:DAC0:1807:C253:31B7:EB1A (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the history of the dish, rather than the general history of Muscovy. Mellk (talk) 13:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Then what's the issue of putting correct naming and adding a reference to Wikipedia's article to the Muscovy ("The Grand Dutch of Moscow") if necessary? I do not intend to put any historical facts that are unnecessary to the dish history, however correct naming and spelling must stay if we value our integrity. Especially since it literally hurts no one as the part "territories of modern Russia" and "modern Russia" clearly establish to whom the dish belongs to, only fixing the historical inaccuracy as people can assume that Russia existed in medieval times which it didn't, at least as independent entity first and then in a form that would resemble modern country of Russia.
 * For example, when we speak of Spanish dish originated in Roman Empire we may refer to it as Spanish but we don't refer to Rome as Spain when explaining the history of the dish (heck we even don't refer to Rome as Itally when explaining history of Itallian dishes). 2601:98A:4002:DAC0:1807:C253:31B7:EB1A (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The issue here is WP:V. But then by this logic we cannot refer to a Ukraine until the 20th century if such a country did not exist before this period of time. Do you think that is a good idea then? Mellk (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) it existed much longer before as first mention of Ukraine comes in the 11th century, and further backed off by Cossack Hetmanate and Ruthenia (modern Ukraine) in general.
 * 2) Furthermore even then when speaking of history often the same rules apply where Ukraine is either reffered by its old name and/or mentioned as a territory while under occupation (Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and Russian Empire).
 * - So your attempts to discourage my historically valid argument through downplaying the role of my home country have failed.
 * 3) I still don't get it - what's the issue with WP:V ? - explain your argument 2601:98A:4002:DAC0:1807:C253:31B7:EB1A (talk) 14:04, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * And Russia for this time period is used to refer to geography or the feudal principalities etc. So your claim that we cannot use ever Russia for this time period contradicts what reliable sources say. You wrote: downplaying the role of my home country. No, it just shows why your logic is not sound. Mellk (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Naming "Rssia" is not used that way by mainstream historians. It is like specifically picking an outdated and outright wrong terminology in otherwise correct source that provides other - more historically supported terminology. The one who still may use that terminology are only "historians" that literally translate modern Russian and some of the Soviet Sources. "Russia" is a Greek naming that fell out of use in support of "Ruthenia" or just Americanised "Rus," since historians understood how little connection modern definition of "Russia" has to country of "Rus."
 * What is even the point behind your so protective desires to keep the used terminology? Why putting that name "Russia" in a wrong timeline so important to you?
 * My logic is founded on historical research. You on the other hand seem to either support status quo, be afraid "hurt thd feeling" of the "someone" (you don't even provide explanation on that part: to whom my edits may appear "disruptive?") or, maybe I should say hence, outright support Russian Imperialism through spread of untrustworthy at best historical arguments.
 * And you still don't explain any issues with WP:V - maybe because there are actually none? Just tell me you're a supporter of the specifically Russian propagandistic view on history, if you cannot provide reliable answers based on Wikipedia's guidelines. Or maybe it is just how laziness work - much easier to translate garbage and take shady sources then to do an actual good job on the article, right? 2601:98A:4002:DAC0:1807:C253:31B7:EB1A (talk) 14:42, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Russia is from Latin, from the 10th/11th centuries. But we are not here to WP:RGW, though it sounds like you are. Please refer to WP:NPA also. You are the one making unsourced changes and making personal attacks, so you are the one being disruptive at the moment. Mellk (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If you are making unsourced changes, then you are not following WP:V. Mellk (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My changes were sourced through the fact the terminology I provided is used within Wikipedia iself. However if you're so keen to keep the sourcees, which contradicts to your desire of not pushing history of country to the history of the dish, then I'll edit it in the order that is reflecting of my sources and/or provide direct linking of such terms to their corresponding articles on Wikipedia (which may end up actually intresting the reader in additional history of the region).
 * The name "Russia" is not Latin. Ruscia, Ruzzia, etc doesn't equal to modern term "Russia" which: "The term Россия (Rossija), comes from the Byzantine Greek designation of the Rusʹ, Ρωσσία Rossía—related to both Modern Greek: Ρως, romanized: Ros, lit. 'Rusʹ', and Ρωσία (Rosía, "Russia", pronounced [roˈsia])." Also "Ruthenia" came directly from Latin Church which arguably had much more developed idea of Latin language than any other European copycats.
 * Also, so far the only and actual personal attacks that were present in our conversation was you leveraging and to a degree falsifying history of my homeland Ukraine in your try to redirect the discussion, user Mellk. 2601:98A:4002:DAC0:1807:C253:31B7:EB1A (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No, you did not cite any sources nor did you make changes in line with the current sourcing. Wikipedia cannot be used as a source. What you are doing is a prime example of what not to do.
 * Sorry we are not speaking Russian, so Russia and Russian does not mean the same thing as in Russian which has different words.
 * No you are just making nonsensical accusations and if you take things so personally, probably you should not be editing here. Though it seems ironic for you to complain about this when you are trying to downplay the existence of another country. Mellk (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between downplaying the existence of another country, having historical facts and saying that the country with a 1000 years old history didn't exist until 20th century. I don't delete Russian history, I am very simply stating that Russia is not, was not Rus, and it should be reflected correctly in the language used when speaking of the time of Rus. Yes, some proto-nation probably started to form back then, but there were no "Russia" and "Russians" as related to modern terminology back in medieval times, and usage of such incorrect terminology only confuses users and spreads modern Russian narratives of "being successor to Rus" - one of the narratives modern Russia justifies nonexistence of Ukraine and claims on its territories which started this invasion if I must remind you.
 * The term "Russian" is a derivative of the that term "Russia" that originated through Greece and Byzantine. It's like saying Spanish and Spain mean two entirely different things: which is somewhat correct, but one is a derivative of another and implies the existence of other to a degree. If focusing on the term "Russian" only, then things become even less complicated as such term was not used in the Medieval times to refer to thd people of Rus in modern understanding of it.
 * I will edit the article in a way that reflects sources I provided with additional ones if needed. The article will reflect more real historical evidence, and not mere personal, propagandistic words of editors with unknown motivation before me. 2601:98A:4002:DAC0:1807:C253:31B7:EB1A (talk) 15:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you know what country means? Ukraine as a country did not exist until the 20th century. I did not say Ukraine should only be used when talking about the 20th century onwards. Instead I asked if you thought this, to apply your logic onto something else. Since Kievan Rus' is already mentioned in the article, Russia is not referring to a state. And you know this. Mellk (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Also I am not interested anymore in this discussion, I am not obliged to listen to you, especially since you prefer ad hominem. If you want to start a discussion on the article talk page, go ahead. If you make more bad edits then I will revert those and you will be closer to receiving a block for continued disruption. Mellk (talk) 16:00, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. Ukraine existed as a country in a form of Cossack Hetmanate (Ruthenia) and Ruthenian Kingdom, yes it had a different name just like Russia existed in a form of the Grand Dutchy of Moscow (Moscovy). You still try to downplay my motherland, either directly or because you're were never intrested in history in general to begin with.
 * 2. There were similar talks that started in that page and they went nowhere, silent - people were ghosted.
 * 3. You may not be obligated to listen to me, but I am not obligated to listen to you as well, user Mellk, just a user Mellk. The disruptions can go both ways. And there are leveraging available at Wikipedia to resolve it.
 * The edits will be made in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, and inclusion of more sources. 2601:98A:4002:DAC0:1807:C253:31B7:EB1A (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In your own words: ...fixing the historical inaccuracy as people can assume that Russia existed in medieval times which it didn't. But then if I say Ukraine did not exist as a country back then you throw a fit. It's just something else isn't it? And since you keep reiterating about how your motherland was supposedly disrespected it shows you are not fit to edit these topics. Mellk (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Cossack Hetmanate existed in 17th century, while Ruthenian kingdom due to title, territorial and ancestral historical facts existed as the first proto-Ukrainian state in 13th and 14th centuries, which is why technically Ruthenia was a more widespread name for Ukraine, its territories and people until the end of 17th century - untill the gradual loss of autonomy and henceforth occupation by then Russian Empire (which before that was primarily known abroad as the Grand Dutchy of Moscow or simply Muscovy) of Cossack Hetmanate.
 * History does not equalize things, or finds a "agree to disagree" point. There are facts and research that cannot be ignored especially when tendencies of the "historical winners" to suit history for their interests is a known behavior of the state (yes, Russian was that "winner" for more than 300 years).
 * I am more than fit to edit the article as at the very least I know some reliable historical sources rather than literal translation of shady Russian websites present in the text you're so keen to protect from any change.
 * Again, the article will be edited in accordance with Wikipedia rules after which you may check things yourself. However I will dislike just brushing of the resources I present. If you will have an issue with any of them I am more than intrested to discuss them further and determine their reliability in a true Wikipedia fashion. 2601:98A:4002:DAC0:1807:C253:31B7:EB1A (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Best to use the article talk page for this. Mellk (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Shchi. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. 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. Mellk (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 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.


 * I made them without first seeing your commentary, hence I am willing to have a discussion. But you do realize that without protection (lock) the edits can be put down and reversed endlessly, right? 2601:98A:4002:DAC0:1807:C253:31B7:EB1A (talk) 13:20, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hence we have WP:CON. Mellk (talk) 13:22, 11 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hence why we are having a civil discussion as long as you're willing to look into resources provided by both me and Wikipedia itself in corresponding articles without brushing them off with a comment written in a less than 3 minutes. 2601:98A:4002:DAC0:1807:C253:31B7:EB1A (talk) 13:27, 11 April 2023 (UTC)