User talk:GizzyCatBella/Archives/2022/October

You have to be kidding
You have an editor who is doing multiple reverts to multiple editors by changing longstanding passages in several articles, and I get a template on my talk page? Not him. I was ready to report his actions where he would surely be blocked, but held off in hopes he would stop. Items were sourced but the editor removed them. This was not something that has happened in the past 6 months... this is something that happened eight years ago. Why would you not put a template, or give warning, on the person who is disrupting all other editors? I'm in shock that a longstanding editor would do this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Fyunck(click) That wasn’t a warning, you did noting wrong. Regular content dispute . Take a look at the template again. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  19:38, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps the only thing is your removal (this edit) of sourced information, it wasn't a smart decision. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  19:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You're talking about things that were sourced but removed by a single disruptive editor. He was likely on the verge of being blocked for his edit warring. You not looking at the situation on the whole and what others are dealing with this editor, was also not a good decision on your part. It looks very biased to me whether intended or not. I'm truly flabbergasted you didn't see this before acting. That one revert was part of a bunch we all did on this disruptive editor. Perhaps that one should have stayed, but most were pov disruptions. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

User:Ukrajinec01
I know very little about Socks. Would you check the destructive and competent editor? Xx236 (talk) 06:46, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Acceptable resources
Hey @GizzyCatBella thank you for adding those templates to my talk page, just wanted to clarify some things, if by RS you mean 'reliable sources', WP:Reliability makes no express mention of the forbidding of documentary evidence as a reliable source. Rather, the argument could be made as to why there is a whole article dedicated to the citation of audio-visual materials if as you suggest this is expressly forbidden. Thus, can you possibly provide a positive expression by Wikipedia that documentary evidence is not to be used? If so I would remove parts of my edit cited as such with alacrity. Similarly, I have noticed you have sought to revert my edits twice and are approaching the (3RR), as instructed by WP:AVOIDEDITWAR it is not impractical advise that 'Rather than reverting repeatedly, discuss the matter with others;', though the onus is largely on you to do this, as you have reverted my edits more than I have yours, after addressing this missive to you I will initiate a discussion on the talk page of the article. The comment 'i'll check your other sources soon' appears to be the paradigm of WP:OWN, WP:PRESERVE also seems to be highly apposite in the current circumstances, where it advises ' Rather than remove imperfect content outright, fix problems if you can, tag or excise them if you can't.' Removing cited edits outright because of an adverse opinion on the quality of one citation seems to be in conflict with the general rules outlined in WP:EP and the constructive framework it establishes.@NachmannWikiWhat NachmannWikiWhat (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi NachmannWikiWhat, I would suggest using the talk page of that article to discuss your preferred modifications and sources you wish to use. - GizzyCatBella  🍁  12:03, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey GizzyCatBella, thanks for the advice, I am already in the process of doing so, please feel free to join and articulate your opinion, you seem to have a long history with Ukrainian related articles so I am interested to learn from you? On another note, if you have read my new section under your talk page you may have noticed some others areas for disambiguation? Please get around to them when you can?NachmannWikiWhat (talk) 12:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)NachmannWikiWhat
 * GizzyCatBella Kindly refer to the talk page for Pacification of Ukrainians in Eastern Galicia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NachmannWikiWhat (talk • contribs) 12:39, 14 October 2022 (UTC)  sock strike

Source for “gueriilla”
New topic added to Talk page for Stepan Bandera – please review. jonnynut 00:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonnynut (talk • contribs)

October 2022
Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Talk:Sevastopol. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! ''This is the second time you are dragging my name and other names through the mud without bringing up the FACT we have another editor causing the issue with all of us. That editor seems to escape your ridicule every time. Please get off the bias train with regards to all of us and start focusing on the actual problem. Thanks.'' Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Fyunck(click) Other that welcoming me to Wikipedia what are you accusing me of again? - not assuming good faith and 'dragging my name through the mud" <--explain with diff’s please for the record. Thanks - GizzyCatBella'  🍁  07:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You just posted garbage at Sevastopol talk page that three editors chastised you for. I'm not giving diffs for that. You seem to be ignoring the huge culprit there, so just knock of the bias approach and all will be well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record - I suspect that this is the comment that triggered the above attack.
 * @Fyunck(click) I’m sorry, but at this point I’ll be deciding if "all will be well". - GizzyCatBella  🍁  07:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)