User talk:Elinruby/Archives/2022/June

Thanks for your help on 2022 in Ukraine!
Thanks for your help on changing the article 2022 in Ukraine from is to was type wording! At the time I added many of the events in the article, I was really new to Wikipedia and quite inconsistent with wording like that. I probably would have gotten to the issue eventually, but doing it now is an enormous help, and I am very grateful. If there is anyway I can help with the beast of the april section please let me know. I would like to ask why you are taking away the titles of the officials in the article though (i.e. President Zelenskyy to Zelenskyy). The reason I put in the names like that to being with is because the chances are that people coming to the article are not going to read the whole thing, and will only be looking for a section, so I introduced everybody with their title to try to clarify things, but I am so sorry if that is incorrect formatting as well. A million thanks! --Johnson524 (talk) 03:37, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, what you are saying is a good reason, but the rule of thumb is that that first time you mention someone they get their full title and name and assuming there is an article you wikilink the name. So... I think several things about this. One, it’s is standard journalistic practice and a good rule. On the other hand, in a long article like this when people are jumping around, you are right that this may not work as well. What I have actually been trying to do is to eliminate full title and wikilink for Putin and Zelenskyy on the logic that anyone who has listened to the news, at all, knows who they are. Other names — governors of oblasts, mayors, etc — I have only been doing this when that name was introduced and wikilinked pretty close by. I think. That was the goal anyway. I believe the Manual of Style disagrees but... I think this may be an exception. May have decided that the Russian Minister of Defense is also that notable. I consider all this discussable, but let me also mention another reason. I am here because 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine was getting too long, so we started moving detail to other articles and I noticed that Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is also tagged as too long, then I noticed your article. So it may not seem like much, but eliminating all the extra wiki links is an easy place to cut without changing meaning. That article isn’t too long yet but a lot is happening.If you want to ask someone else about this, I think they will tell you once only, but I could be wrong, do feel free. Meanwhile I need to do something that accomplishes something but doesn’t require a lot of thought, so I am going to keep going with verbs. I don’t think I could take detail from the timeline to that article, as it is about 2022 not just the war. Haven’t figured out what to do about slimming down the timeline, although I have some thoughts, and sure, help would be welcome. Does this answer your question? Elinruby (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I see you really are quite new. Feel free to ask additional questions if you like. Also, no need to apologize. I am mainly relieved that you aren’t still writing in present tense Elinruby (talk) 04:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with you on the points above on taking away the titles for Zelenskyy, Putin, and the Russian Minister of Defense, and if it helps out on your overall goal to reduce wikilinks, even better! I was never against the idea to begin with, I was just curious if that was standard because I am still pretty new. As for the length of the article, I understand the potential for this to get too long quite quickly, and that is certainly a concern of mine. I have two solutions that might help. Option one, reduce the maximum amount of events per day from 6 to 5 (which is something I'm already doing in the June section) but maybe less if it needs it. It is hard for me to pick and choose which events should be kept and which ones discarded especially early in the war when choosing which tragedy resulting in loss of life is less important. I don't think this is particularly the way to go, and that it's probably better to play by ear adding events, but it is still an option. Option two, because the article is specifically titled 2022 in Ukraine, if the article needs to be reduced I could easily go through and start deleting articles that don't actually take place in Ukraine (i.e. Russian and Belarusian runners not being able to participate in the Boston marathon because of the war in Ukraine). I think option two is better in my opinion and I can start implementing it if you like. I really like editing and maintaining 'year in' articles on Wikipedia because like you said earlier, they don't just cover wars and politics, but everything that goes on in the country in the given year, giving you a big picture of the state of the nation, including events like sports and music to politics and war. I was able to keep up with adding events for the article for the month of April (which was when I discovered the article was a stub in such an important time in the nation's history) but after April finished, I really was burned out and took a break for May. I will eventually fill it in, and I'm starting to add events in again for June. Thank you again for your contributions and offering to help, I really am grateful 😃 --Johnson524 (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2022 (UTC)


 * just to be clear, because I am not sure I was, the first time someone is mentioned, wikilink, full title. The rule about wikilink first time mentioned only also applies to towns, rivers, boats, weapons, etc. Also, there is a move away from wikilinking countries, not sure of the exactly wording of that policy, but I personally only do it when somebody might not recognize it, like Andorra or Brunei. I haven’t figured out what to do about length otherwise, but I am taking a break from the article. You might consider adding the bits about the Boston Marathon to the Sanctions article. Or Reactions. Feel free to ask any other questions. And btw did you get Eurovision and the World Cup semifinals? Elinruby (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Elinruby: Ok, I will keep that information in mind moving forward, and yes I can add the eurovision and World Cup semi finals when I go back and do May's events. I'll be sure to ask any questions if I have any! -- Johnson524 (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:AE
You should never ever comment on WP:AE without providing diffs, and make sure that the diffs do support your statements, whatever they might be. Otherwise, you may be quickly sanctioned yourself for WP:NPA at WP:AE. Many users were sanctioned this way. My very best wishes (talk) 19:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. I am in the middle of about six things but I guess I will stop and find diffs for the reliable sources notice board stuff, which I don’t think you covered. Elinruby (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I cannot get into the talk page archives on my mobile and am about to lose my battery, do I will come back to this later; thanks for the warning. I have removed my statement meanwhile so that it does not become its own issue. You are right, I need to prep and document some Elinruby (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Your comment at ANI
Hello, Elinruby, with regard to this comment of yours at AN/I ("There were few confrontations ... one about the video of Ukrainians allegedly shooting prisoners in the leg where the article text simply did not match the source") I didn't understand what you were talking about. Now I've just made a bit of research and I came up with this:. Apparently this is the only discussion on Russian POWs we've both taken part to. Is that the confrontation you were referring to? If so, please note that the subject of that conversation was not misrepresentation of sources, but if and how to summarise the section on the POWs in the lead, and whether we should mention ill-treatment and torture of Russian POWs. We were disagreeing on what WP:NPOV and MOS:LEAD implied under those circumstances.I read the conversation again and the issue of misrepresentation of sources never came up. Am I wrong? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:37, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby and Gitz6666. The discussions on ANI are meaningless, unless there is an obviously problematic behavior by someone along the lines of WP:NOTHERE. When you see that a posting by someone did not get traction, it is best to ignore the discussion. The faster it will be automatically archived the better. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I am pretty sure I asked you not to ping me. I meant talk to me really, about anything. I realize this won’t be possible if we are in the same article, fine, but we aren’t right now. I will need to address the Le Monde source, and am not saying we don’t talk to me when I do, but seriously dude, leave me alone right now. Don’t explain things to me. I said what I said and I stand by it. I realize this is is stressful for you and actually feel some sympathy for you. On the other hand I would ask you to look up sealioning and stop doing it here. I have told you a couple of times that I do not wish to debate with you. I will answer the question though, because of the sympathy. In the passage you reference, I believe I was describing the extent to which I was an involved editor. It isn’t always about you, you know, although it may seem that way when your name is on a big out of control thread like that one. I will even give you some free ppm advice. Everybody but you has stopped talking. The sooner you do too, the sooner the thread archives, unless of course some admin takes some action. Oh and a language quibble: all deportations are forced, by definition. Good freaking night. Elinruby (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * is he? Elinruby (talk) 06:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This is getting frankly ridiculous. You are now replying to a message I left on your talk three days ago. And you had already replied to it at ANI (19:33, 27 June 2022: I am here again however because Gitz6666 suggested on my talk page that I had misunderstood him with respect to the Russian prisoners)! Or maybe you're instead replying to My very best wishes, whom you mistook for me? We sign our posts precisely for preventing this kind of silly time-consuming mistakes. Since the last time I replied to a message of yours (09:50, 29 June 2022) you have written to me no less than three messages (at AN/I 10:37, 29 June 2022 and 21:03, 29 June 2022; here at 06:41, 30 June 2022) and in each one of them you say that you don't want to speak to me - then please just stop speak to me, stop writing, don't reply please - goodbye Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

if it wasn’t a new message, then I apologize. I have been exhausting myself the last few days with a big nasty physical job, and only commented on wiki about this matter because it was important. And I answered you the way I did here because In my exhaustion I thought the message was new and you had ignored my requests. But yes, your followup questions, while definitely civil, can be very annoying. Please accept this as a suggestion along with my apology.

To be completely clear: If you do not wish me to answer you on ANI then do not claim there to have instructed me in the error of my ways. I am, for your benefit really, trying to stay out of the ANI thread at this point. Keep my name out of your mouth and we shouldn’t have a problem with that. I am not yet asking you not to post to my talk page, and I am not saying that we cannot discuss something in future if we wind up editing on the same page, but I plan to try to avoid that scenario unless I see something really egregious. I really don’t like the way you talk to me and about me, and I *really* object to some of your remarks about sexual violence. Elinruby (talk) 17:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the apologies - no harm done. You probably thought that I was the author of the message that MVBW left on your talk page. It's a common mistake and I might have overreacted this morning: I could have simply pointed at the fact. Note that at ANI, when I wrote "As I demonstrated in the discussion with Elinruby (see the diffs there)", I didn't mean to say that I had proven my point, falsified your arguments, won the discussion or similar things; I just meant to say that I had demonstrated that I've published those sentences in the lead section in which we use Wikivoice for describing many war crimes committed by the Russian army - which is simply true, I wrote those sentences. Best wishes, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)


 * no actually, I answered him separately. I just thought you were ignoring my requests, which were repeated, as you note. Thank you for this particular answer; I am glad that you accepted the apology. I am also prepared to believe that you did not intend what you said to be read the way I read it, but please be aware that it is a plausible and perhaps likely reading of it. Your English is quite good but there may be a subtle idiom thing going on there. Some of what I have said to you as friendly advice, by the way, was intended as just that, not sarcasm, and I do not think it was wrong. You may want to re-read it. Or not, if you so choose. This post does not require a reply ;) Elinruby (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC)