User talk:Kovanja

Periods
I am not sure why you are restoring two isolated periods after a template. 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;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 Edit warring, Consensus, and Three-revert rule. Your recent editing on the article All-Russian nation was not consistent with any of these important policies. You also modified a direct quote to insert material apparently not in the cited source. I could have imposed a block for this conduct but I have protected the page instead.

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
Neutralitytalk 16:19, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Agenda-driven editing
You are moving the goalposts and clutching at straws. SME is a reputed broadsheet newspaper and one of the most widely read in its (free-press) country. The paper easily qualifies as a reliable source. This is quite a contrast to the sources you misguidedly consider reliable, such as random blogs, websites and other Russian sources with no apparent reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. A cursory review of your contributions shows that every single edit you make presents Russia/USSR in a more positive light or its opponents in a more negative light. That is a remarkable coincidence in a project based on a neutral point of view (see WP:ADVOCACY and WP:SPA). Wikipedia's core content policies are not optional. If you continue to violate these policies, you will find yourself blocked or sanctioned. Prolog (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

SMEis tabloid, its hardly qualifies as a reliable source. It's not even academical source, there is nowere cited academic source inside the article. Im a student of Russian History in Charles University in Prague. Of course Russia is my main topic. I do not violoate these policies stop spamming Slovak tabloid. And show me definiton of (free-press) country. Journalist Kuciak was killed by mafia 2 years age. It's free press country indeed.--Kovanja (talk) 11:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)


 * 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 Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Ermenrich (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)