User talk:PsichoPuzo

Welcome![edit]

Hello, PsichoPuzo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 01:22, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, PsichoPuzo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Message regarding the Ukrainian VDV[edit]

You and I are obviously at a disagreement on the Ukrainian_Airmobile_Forces page. I've opened a conversation on its talk page to hopefully resolve the issue. I apologize if this isn't the best way to message you regarding this, but I don't see any other messaging function on this site. Thanks in advance for your attention. 100.14.87.173 (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copying licensed material requires proper attribution[edit]

It appears that you have added material to the article Nil Khasevych using content translated from the Ukrainian wiki. While you are welcome to re-use licensed content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original author(s). When copying from other compatibly-licensed web pages, please at minimum mention in an edit summary at the new page where you got the content. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied licensed material before, even if it was a long time ago, please go back and provide attribution. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, PsichoPuzo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dnipro (anti-air missile)[edit]

Hello PsichoPuzo,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Dnipro (anti-air missile) for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:20, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Hello, 2S22 Bohdana has been tagged as unreferenced. Can you remember what your sources were? If they are the items listed in 'External links', can you re-name it 'Sources' or 'References' to make that clear? (External links just means suggestions for further reading). Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of LimpidArmor[edit]

Hello PsichoPuzo,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged LimpidArmor for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

SamHolt6 (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of LimpidArmor[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on LimpidArmor, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I saw your comment on the talk page, I'm afraid I had to delete the article anyway. The language was just too promotional, and there were concerns that it had been copied from a web source, too. Please read WP:NOTPROMO and WP:COPYVIO before making further contributions. Vanamonde (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian irredentism[edit]

Your recent editing history 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.(KIENGIR (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC))[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, PsichoPuzo. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Solar power in Belarus[edit]

Thanks for creating Solar power in Belarus.

A New Page Patroller Meatsgains just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

Consider providing reliable sources to strengthen the page's verifiability.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Meatsgains^(talk) 16:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for violating the 3 revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 19:02, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PsichoPuzo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Violated blocking rule terms. "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." with provided evidences on noticeboard [1]--PsichoPuzo (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This doesn't look like vandalism to me, let alone obvious vandalism — edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism. It looks like a content dispute. stwalkerster (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

It's not obvious to me. If it is, indeed, so outside of the mainstream, another editor can revert them. You should not be violating 3RR to do so — the edits just do not constitute obvious vandalism. El_C 19:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

Because I mistakenly unblocked the other user, I am unblocking you, too. You are just lucky I made a mistake with them, and so I am unblocking you to be even-handed. You may edit the article talk page, but please do not edit the article itself, in any way for 60 hours. El_C 21:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Geothermal power in Ukraine) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Geothermal power in Ukraine.

User:Onel5969 while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Please be wary of simply copying material from other sources. Please read WP:COPYVIO.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:20, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Iryna Harpy[edit]

Hello, PsichoPuzo. You have new messages at Talk:List of territorial entities where Russian is an official language.
Message added 23:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please don't keep reverting without edit summaries or solid sources confirming that co-official status has actually been retracted by the the oblasts involved. Reading between the lines on the objectives of a far broader law is a breach of WP:NOR. We use WP:SECONDARY sources to do our research for us, not second-guessing. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you[edit]

		The Redirect Barnstar
		Your diligent work in the area of redirect categorization and improvement is duly recognized and greatly appreciated. You are truly one of the unsung heroes of Wikipedia, and we hope you continue to enjoy your improvement of this awesome encyclopedia! ibicdlcod (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Knights of the Cross of Merit[edit]

A tag has been placed on Category:Knights of the Cross of Merit requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Knights of the Cross of Merit has been nominated for listification[edit]

Category:Knights of the Cross of Merit has been nominated for listification. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Figures of UPA has been nominated for upmerging[edit]

Category:Figures of UPA has been nominated for upmerging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Vilkha (missile complex), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete sources for the provided information.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 21:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 320#defence-blog.com and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 344#armyrecognition.com, they are not reliable references. They are self-published garbage. FDW777 (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is very loud statement. All sources are self-published in that interpretation. Nevertheless, they provide meaningful information and there is other sources available in search with same information. But removing sources and afterwards information they reference for is pure vandalism.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content supported by deprecated and/or unreliable sources is not vandalism. Edit warring to restore disputed content supported only by unreliable sources will lead to a block.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been blocked for edit warring before and tried to pass it off as reverting vandalism in your unsuccessful appeal, so you cannot claim to be unaware of what does and does not constitute vandalism on this project.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. FDW777 (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: you will be reported for exciding blocking terms.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to report me once your block expires. You seem to have as thorough a grasp on our blocking policies as you do on Wikipedia's reliable sourcing criteria and what does and does not constitute vandalism. In the meantime, the instructions for posting an appeal can be found in my block message. No need to ping me again as admins don't review their own blocks.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Vilkha (missile complex) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 22:56, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transition of church communities to OCU moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Transition of church communities to OCU, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:40, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Chronology of Ukrainian language suppression for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chronology of Ukrainian language suppression, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of Ukrainian language suppression until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2023[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: are you sane?--PsichoPuzo (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I've chosen an indefinite block is your response to the previous warnings and blocks, so thanks for the confirmation. Your behavior is currently incompatible with a collaborative project, as demonstrated at Separate Presidential Brigade and the messages visible above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: So you reasoning indefinete block with reverting sourced information removal and overall article improvement with additional disambig pages creation and additional description with translations from other languages in article originaly created by me? Am I right?--PsichoPuzo (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly didn't look much at the content of your edits other than that they have been repeatedly identical against another user's good-faith concerns. If I understand the last part of your question correctly, you should have a look at WP:OWN. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Is it ok with you that revision 1135428751 and revision 1135433293 is a bit false reporting?--PsichoPuzo (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care, really. I evaluate behavior, not content, in such disputes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: So false reporting and 3rd revert by another user with false reasoning in comment controversal to WP:RV. How do you evaluating such behavior?--PsichoPuzo (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: is it good behavior revision 1135437644 not described in false reporting? In case where language translation is changed to wrong spelling?--PsichoPuzo (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The block is about your behavior, not others'.

The first helpful step of dispute resolution is usually a talk page discussion. Sadly, Talk:Separate Presidential Brigade is empty. Instead of discussing the concerns another user had at least voiced in an edit summary, you have repeatedly made the same contribution again and again without showing any interest in collaboration (WP:UNRESPONSIVE). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: I assume that at least revisions provided above prove that it was not same contribution again and again. Ant it is not a valid reason for indefinite block (WP:UNRESPONSIVE).--PsichoPuzo (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[2]: "No difference". [3]: "No difference". Again and again. Preventing further disruption is a valid block reason (WP:BLOCKP describes the situation quite accurately). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: Is it revision 1135426551 same contribution again and again wich was described as without showing any interest in collaboration?--PsichoPuzo (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your question, and I think you're missing the point. You said you have not made the same contribution again and again, I have proven the opposite by linking to three byte-to-byte identical revisions you have published during the edit war, each time in response to another user's removal of statements you subsequently re-inserted. If you believe that this isn't sufficient to demonstrate a preventative need for a block, you can ask for a second opinion using the instructions in the block notice above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PsichoPuzo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

False reporting in revision 1135433940 with actual doing what was described in false reporting revision 1135306023, revision 1135428751 and revision 1135437644 with starting descussion afterwards revision 1135440647 (actually after it was mentioned here revision 1135439558). Overextended not relevant WP:BLOCKDURATION. PsichoPuzo (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's clear yoiu still do not understand why you were blocked, and are arguing your point here in your unblock statement. Also, I believe there is a competency issue with your edits as well. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@RickinBaltimore: Could you please explain or prove you statement about competency issue ? Because for the moment I see a bit opposite with disruptive edits where users can't distinguish ukrainian from russian language and cant make into word endings. A bit related to WP:GS/RUSUKR in diffs provided above.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PsichoPuzo: It is not a requirement of editors of the English Wikipedia to be able to understand either Ukranian or Russian, nor even to inherently distinguish the two. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: but it is pretty obvious that grammatically senseless wording from other languages in article describing objects from that origin is a bit strange.--PsichoPuzo (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Ukrainization of the Imperial Russian Army in 1917[edit]

Hello, PsichoPuzo

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Firefangledfeathers, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I've proposed an article that you started, Ukrainization of the Imperial Russian Army in 1917, for deletion because it meets one or more of our deletion criteria, and I don't think that it is suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The particular issue can be found in the notice that is now visible at the top of the article.

If you wish to contest the deletion:

Edit the page
Remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
Click the Publish changes button.

If you object to the article's deletion, please remember to explain why you think the article should be kept on the article's talk page and improve the page to address the issues raised in the deletion notice. Otherwise, it may be deleted later by other means.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Firefangledfeathers}}. And remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 08:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ukrainian resistance movement has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:Ukrainian resistance movement has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. GCarty (talk) 21:13, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]