User talk:Mzajac/2021

Hello looking for input. I saw your work on the Holodomor genocide question page
Hello Mzajac,

I came across this page Collaboration in German-occupied Ukraine and It looks like there are no pages at all. On the English wiki talking about all the Ukraine's who fought the Nazis and tried to resist them, I was thinking about making a page called Ukrainian resistance to Nazism. What do you think about this project I want to do as somebody who knows the history of Ukrainian?Thelostone41 (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey!
 * It might be a kind of self-conscious exercise to try to balance a “negative” article with a “positive” one. War is heck, and all of these articles should have a balanced view, including the ugly truths. I’d start by making sure existing articles are balanced, and not missing any important matter. Concentrate on supporting statements with good citations.
 * I would start by editing all of the relevant articles and article sections including Soviet invasion of Poland (and Invasion of Poland), History of Galicia (Eastern Europe), Carpatho-Ukraine, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Eastern Front (World War II), Operation Barbarossa, Reichskommissariat Ukraine, Battle of Kiev, Battle of Kharkiv, Ukrainian Insurgent Army, Sluzhba Bezpeky, Territories of Poland annexed by the Soviet Union, etc., etc. And by the time you’ve done that, . . .
 * What is missing is a full article about Ukraine in World War II, covering the history of Ukrainians or of modern Ukraine’s entire territory during the war. The closest is a section at Modern history of Ukraine, which could probably be improved and expanded first.
 * Let me know where you go next. —Michael Z. 00:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input I will see what I can do.Thelostone41 (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Just ideas. Do work on what you enjoy. —Michael Z. 16:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of adjectivals and demonyms for subcontinental regions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rus. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:18, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Help with warning/banning user.

 * Hi, can you help me again with warning/baning user Kedr26? After the ban, he continued to vandalize the same articles. I've already reported him here, but I was advised to make a warning post. Honestly, I'm kind of bad at that. Would you mind helping me with a warning/ban? --Kram333r (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Just checked his edits history, apparently, he broke the 3RR multiple times and also did multiple edits wars. This is one of many examples.--Kram333r (talk) 03:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Another UPD, the user clearly has political motives, he removes everything Ukrainian related from every article he edited.--Kram333r (talk) 03:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone’s got it, for now. —Michael Z. 04:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Old East Slavic
Hi, can you help with reaching a consensus on Old East Slavic? Please read this talk page. We also kind of reached a consensus on that. Thanks!--Kram333r (talk) 11:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Please remove the name of the country in Russian
This is nonsense! In Ukraine, there is only one official language - Ukrainian, so the name should be duplicated ONLY in Ukrainian!!!!! https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine Yaroslav Dolishniak (talk) 22:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You are right. Thanks. —Michael Z. 02:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Timeline of the war in Donbas
Hey,

I'm not sure how to do a batch move, could you move the battery of Timeline of the war in Donbass to the proper spelling?

dyaks —blindlynx (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Will do, as soon as the parent article is moved. Currently waiting for an administrative move over permisssions. Cheers. —Michael Z. 21:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * cool, i didn't realise it wasn't moved after the close—blindlynx (talk) 14:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well the move is official, but as the requestor, I’d rather let the process complete. Patience . . . —Michael Z. 14:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Makes sense!—blindlynx (talk) 14:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Patience . . . has its limits. I have moved the article after 24 hours in “uncontroversial technical requests.” —Michael Z. 18:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As the closer, thank you for that. I'd closed the last discussion on the topic without issue, and hadn't expected to run into a move-protection until it was too late. Vaticidalprophet 18:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for closing and posting at Tech Requests. —Michael Z. 18:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

On top
Re, 'Which reliable sources say “on top” doesn’t refer to sex unless it’s preceded by “woman,” and then it transforms into a “coherent encyclopedic topic”? Sounds like balderdash.' – You've completely misunderstood Crossroads's argument. It is that "on top" as a phrase that could refer to various sexual situations/practices is not an encyclopedic topic. It's "not a thing", as the kids say today. "Woman on top" is a stock phrase with a clear referent, a subject about which many sources have been written. "On top" as a phrase in reference to sex[uality], regardless of which party is doing what and who is what sex/gender, does not qualify. By way of a direct (noun-preposition-object) analogy, "clerk of court" (also "clerk of the court" or "clerk to the court", depending on jurisdiction) is a real legal term-of-art, and is an encyclopedic topic. Just "of court" or "of the court" or "to the court" by itself is not (and yes, it does refer to other legal things, such as officer of the court, so the analogy is even more direct than you might think). It's possible that "man on top" and some other "[someone/something] on top" phrases exist in reference to sex, and that they might have sufficient RS coverage to be article here, but they are not all to be glommed together as "On top (sex)" as if they're all the same thing. That's novel synthesis to suit some editor's idea about "how things should be" or "how English should work". And yes, it absolutely is motivated by WP:GREATWRONGS / WP:ADVOCACY PoV-pushing activism about the same gender and sexuality stuff that is so constantly a source of dispute on this site. Speaking of which, if you are going to get involved in such discussions, you need to know just how controversial they are and that unusual limits apply to them on WP:

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don’t agree with some of that. Thanks for the patient explanation, though. —Michael Z. 19:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Topic ban violations (Warning)
Michael, why are you editing Talk:Kievan Rus' in violation of your topic ban? Please don't do that. WP:BROADLY very much applies in this instance. Thanks in advance for your close attention to this matter. El_C 16:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I will be more careful. —Michael Z. 16:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kishka (prison cell)


The article Kishka (prison cell) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The only source used in the article, as well as the only source for the use of the term 'kishka', is a book that told a story which was later revealed to be fabricated (see Sławomir Rawicz). The term is identical in meaning to the term 'standing cell', and its alleged use in the Stalin-era USSR is mentioned in that article. There's no need for this article, and I propose that it is either deleted or redirected to standing cell."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Te og kaker (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited GRU (G.U.), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chechen War.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gagauzia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gagauz.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Manual of Style
Hello Mzajac,

the Manual of Style is a guideline, which has even rules for the layout. The chapter MOS:REFERENCES says, that a separate section must be added for the footnotes between "See also" and "External links". Why do you don't accept the Manual of Style? Why have you reverted my edit with the References section? --GünniX (talk) 05:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:GünniX, sorry, I can’t remember doing that, although I was looking at the article today. Must have hit the wrong link in the mass of blue that is the page history. Reverted. —Michael Z. 07:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Graham Phillips
Hello, just wanted to let you know about the Articles_for_deletion/Graham_Phillips_(journalist)_(2nd_nomination) and invite to take part in the discussion. Cloud200 (talk) 08:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Vedel
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artemy_Vedel&action=history this may need your attention.--Aristophile (talk) 01:31, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Russian explorers, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rus and Finnic peoples.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Help with an Ukraine-related topic
Hello, there's an ongoing dispute with an Ukrainian biography article and I wonder if you'd like to participate to solve it. The article is Petro Mukha and the dispute is about whether the Mukha Rebellion was also in Bukovina (apart from Galicia) or not and whether it had help from Moldavian peasants and Stephen the Great. The other party of the dispute has cited two sources from the Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine but they contradict each other, Mukha rebellion says the rebellion was in Galicia with Moldavian support while Bukovyna says the rebellion was against Moldavia in Bukovina and Poland in Galicia and makes no mention of Moldavian support given to Mukha. I've found sources that may give a better insight but none of us speak Ukrainian, so I was hoping you could help us out. In case you're interested, the discussion is here and the sources I've found are these:, (pp. 168–174) and  (pp. 106–122). Super  Ψ   Dro  19:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I will have a look and contribute if I can help, in the next day or so. —Michael Z. 19:54, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Vladimir Pashkov has been accepted
 Vladimir Pashkov, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Vladimir_Pashkov help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Sahaib3005 (talk) 20:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Emine Dzhaparova has been accepted
 Emine Dzhaparova, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Emine_Dzhaparova help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! DMySon (talk) 05:14, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Siebert and King
There's an ongoing Dispute_resolution_noticeboard that involves the same two users that are now trying to rewrite Cloud200 (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Holodomor denial sources
Since you are an admin and a highly experienced user, I find this your edit highly unacceptable. The first reference just provides no definition of denial of Holodomor, but is cites Chertok's article in the Euromaidan press, which fails WP:V, because it is a dead link. The second source (Dobczansky) just says that library of Congress set a new category (for works that discuss diminution of scale and significance of Ukrainian Famine of 1932-33 or the assertion that it did not occur), so that is not an opinion of that author. Finally the third source (the Library of Congress page) contains the references to ... the Wikipedia page on Holodomor denial as the closest page, and it verbatim reproduces the text from Wikipedia article. It seems we are dealing with a purely Citogenesis event. It is sad that such an experienced user made such a mistake.

By having said that, I agree that denial of Holodomor is a negative phenomenon that must be condemned by all available means. However, to say that the discussion of its scale and significance falls under a category of "denialism" is incorrect, because that statement is not found in reliable sources, and because the debates about the nature of Holodomor (for example discussion of the Holodomor genocide question) and on its impact are in progress now, which makes Holodomor different from the Holocaust (indeed, in contrast to the former, the latter had been studied in details, so any attempt to adjust the number of victims, to the lower side, or to question its impact is a true Holocaust denial; in contrast, our knowledge about Holodomor is currently more incomplete and fragentary, so the discussion of figures or impact is by no means a denial). I suggest you to self-revert, otherwise I am going to add this case to the List of citogenesis incidents.--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe you’re not right. And your discussion style, denigrating and not collegial, is not conducive to finding consensus. Probably best to discuss article edits on the article talk page. —Michael Z. 01:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I checked the article's history, and is seems there is no citogenesis here: the LOC wording precedes the article's text. However, the LOC site is the only source that directly supports the proposed text, so I still doubt the text is properly sourced (I am not sure LOC definition is a good source, because it is citing just Wikidata as the only source). Please, remove other two references, because they do not support your words.
 * If I am not right, please, prove it. I provided concrete arguments, you provided nothing.
 * And I see no denigration here, in contrast, by saying that you must comply with more stringent standards than unexperienced Wikipedians, I emphasize the fact that you are a very experienced user. --Paul Siebert (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I won’t go into detail here. Maybe we should move the discussion to the article’s talk. The gist is that an authoritative primary source gives that definition, and two secondary sources refer to it. Four other sources are cited, and I believe none actually gives a definition statement like this one, none conflicts with this fuller definition, and all actually support it by giving examples of diminishment of the scale and significance. If you disagree, please take it to talk.
 * I suggest one “comment on content, not on the contributor,” which can come off as especially patronizing when one is mistaken, per WP:TPYES. —Michael Z. 04:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Paul Siebert. It seems that you're trying to get information from very dubious sources onto the article, and you're avoiding the good faith disagreements of other editors about those sources. The LOC source is very questionable, Paul has made a serious effort to explain that, and you're avoiding the discussion. Stix1776 (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Holodomor Memorial Day
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Kerch Strait
Hello, I saw you recently made a couple of changes to the Kerch strait section of Russia-Ukraine relations. Whilst I understand your doubts over the reliability over the TASS's reporting, all sources cite the FSB, and the TASS was merely a medium through which I could see what the FSB said (as this was a Russian affair, naturally the FSB would be involved). As to what law, Kerch–Yenikale Canal states that since the annexation of Crimea Russia has full control over the canal. Which specific law? I cannot read Russian unfortunately, so that is beyond my capabilities. I hope this helps & I am open to advice for future edits. Obama gaming (talk) 08:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My concern is that the entire paragraph relies on one Russian-state source for what took places, and what laws applied. Russia is internationally recognized as an occupying power, and it always and enforcement of them in Ukraine are illegal, and this should be made clear. (The second Reuters source barely mentions this event in passing.) it is potentially one-sided and NPOV, and we should not rely only on it.


 * Oh, I see someone snuck in a revert of my edit. Ugh. —Michael Z. 14:12, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Understood, I will amend it in a couple of hours. Obama gaming (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Putin drove a taxi
I considered saying he claimed this, but I'm guessing that wouldn't be any better.

It's unfortunate there was no clear date, and I probably put the information too early, but it didn't seem to fit anywhere else. Where he quit one job before starting another, if it can be worded that way, it seemed best.

I wasn't sure it would be accepted, but it's always good to try when sources at least look good.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  22:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries, User:Vchimpanzee. I changed the wording because he told two different stories, and the Guardian article was skeptical. You can improve it, but I think it’s important to say that he is the only source, because no reliable secondary source confirms it (see WP:RS). —Michael Z. 23:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't look that closely at the sources but only one made the specific claim I was looking for, and that was what I used. I also didn't notice your edit was not a revert. I see now there is a different number of characters subtracted than added.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:28, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That looks really good.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  20:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)