User talk:Muchandr

Hello Muchandr, and Welcome to Wikipedia.

Hello, I'm RenatUK. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on Vladimir Ashurkov, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! --Renat (talk) 10:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Vladimir Ashurkov. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you.--Renat (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Putin's Palace; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

No I am not, you are The article as is insidiously setup to sell very high quality Computer-generated imagery My contribution was an actual real world video taken at the site in question, showing that none of the imaginary luxuries are there at all. It is an empty box that is not even electrically wired yet. Do you seriously think that using a lot of red bitmaps and not signing will get me to mistake any of this for some kind of official notice? Muchandr (talk) 16:59, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Renat (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Vladimir Ashurkov shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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.

RenatUK (talk · contribs) is the one who is clearly engaging in edit war he is accusing me of. I actually added additional sources he wanted, while keeping RT on the account of them having an original English audio track without the Russian dub, superfluous for the English Wiki. You, on the other hand, simply deleted my content for reasons appearing made-up.

Being involved in an edit war can result in being blocked from editing—especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.--Renat (talk) 16:33, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your request for arbitration of this issue, the Arbitration Committee has agreed that arbitration is not required at this stage. Arbitration on Wikipedia is a lengthy, complicated process that involves the unilateral adjudication of a dispute by an elected committee. Although the Committee's decisions can be useful to certain disputes, in many cases the actual process of arbitration is unenjoyable and time-consuming. Moreover, for most disputes the community maintains an effective set of mechanisms for reaching a compromise or resolving a grievance.

In all cases, you should review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution to learn more about resolving disputes on Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia community has many venues for resolving disputes and grievances, and it is important to explore them instead of requesting arbitration in the first instance. For more information on the process of arbitration, please see the Arbitration Policy and the Guide to Arbitration. I hope this advice is useful, and please do not hesitate to contact myself or a member of the community if you have more questions. firefly ( t · c ) 12:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Igor Konashenkov. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please remember that Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss encourages users who have had edits reverted to engage in discussion and obtain consensus before reverting again. Please do so, thank you. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 21:47, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Not sure how that WP:BRD handled. Is there any additional markup for it? So far, I managed a random comment in the talk page for the article, but there doesn't seem to be a way too hook the sequence of reverts and un-reverts into it. Am I missing anything?

Also copy-pasting the comment to you

I am specifically objecting to the rather dubious Ukrainian source mazepa.name for the claim that Mazepa was made a prince of the Holy Roman Empire. Unfortunately, all the paperwork for the actual title disappeared from the Austrian archives. This is hearsay. As presented by anonymous third party at a verbal seminar at University of Vienna?

Secondly, there is no prince without principality! A grant of estate as large as a small country! Menshikov, Mazepa's nemesis, was actually offered a title of HRE Duke of Cosel (Koźle) in exchange for recognition of his title Duke of Ingria, but it looks like some kind of in-joke, because Ingria roughly corresponds to Leningrad oblast+Finland in area. This was the Tsar's personal estate administered directly from St. Pete. Cosel means goat in Russian, and is rather derogatory. Also, a Polish woiwowode title was really equal to a Count Palatine in HRE table of ranks. Between a count and a prince. Thus, the recognition of princely/ducal/royal equivalency conditional on some additional small print. Some prince-electors, the highest strata of HRE nobility were modest Palatine Counts, but most were really just counts. The only Emperor Palatine is the one from Star Wars. The Polish woiwode appears to also be the closest equivalent to Ukrainian hetman and alt-Germanic margrave, of which there was only one extant in the Anglosphere. That of Phil, Prince Consort of Lizbekistan. You know, the one who begat Chuck, their current king. Muchandr (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be no consensus possible. I've proven already that the source is hearsay. The deed was never granted and was subsequently lost. I am reverted by Lute88 (alias Aristophile) nonetheless. Muchandr (talk) 05:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]