This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robby.is.on (talk | contribs) at 10:49, 10 September 2020 (→Daily Mail: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 10:49, 10 September 2020 by Robby.is.on (talk | contribs) (→Daily Mail: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome!
Hello, NachtReisender, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! 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:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Misplaced Pages
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
You may also want to complete the Misplaced Pages Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! DemocraticLuntz (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Template:Z33--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
ANI topic
I opened an ANI topic about your editing style, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ukrainian nationalist editor NachtReisender. You are welcome to reply there.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
Dnipro
You used a source template here. Please check if the matter isn't easily to be seen sourced elsewhere. There is an entire section on that matter(Typonymy) and you can find the sources there. There are lots of sources that use that name in the description, too... Please do a bit more research than that.Lurking shadow (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- I came her to say exactly the same. This is a long article, and there are plenty of sources for the old name, including a dedicated section and the end of the history secrion. in these cases, WP:MOS discourages adding sources to the lede, in order to keep it more readable. It looks like you are not going to be blocked this time, and I (again) strongly recommend you to read the manual of style, it could help you to avoid running into similar problems in the future.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- You're out on thin ice, NachtReisender, so don't push your luck. POV-pushers, and yes, that is exactly what you are, always end up blocked, sooner or later. - Tom | Thomas.W 13:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Thomas.W, ridiculous xD -NachtReisender (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Let me give other readers here a couple of examples: you insist on 8 New Dates being a Russian-Ukrainian movie for no other reason than that one of the actors is Ukrainian (in spite of production company, producers, director etc etc being Russian; by that logic hardly any American movie would be American, since they all have one or more foreign actors in the cast), you claim that another movie (Passions (1994 film)) was Ukrainian (first claiming it was Russian-Ukrainian and then changing that to only Ukrainian) for no other reason than that according to you the director, Kira Muratova, was Ukrainian (which by itself is ridiculous, and is made even more ridiculous by the fact that she was of Russian and Romanian descent, born in Romania, educated in Russia etc, but lived part of her life in the Ukrainian SSR during Soviet times), you repeatedly (, ) changed the nationality of Alexander Dovzhenko from Soviet, linking to the USSR, to Ukrainian, linking to the Ukrainian SSR, in spite of there not existing such a nationality, etc, etc. That's blatant nationalistic POV, and not acceptable. - Tom | Thomas.W 15:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- What Thomas W says is that your edits seem to have the purpose to insert your knowledge or your personal views into the article instead of what has been published by reliable independent sources.Lurking shadow (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
- Lurking shadow Of course OS is a bad thing, it's obvious. I never add to articles any information that is not verified by sources. My mistake was that I did not leave a link to them, I admit it. However, I leave i left it on Administrators' noticeboard, where I was accused of the OS -NachtReisender (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Thomas.W You are mistaken, dear sir. But there is nothing wrong with that, everyone makes mistakes ;) -NachtReisender (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Be careful. OR is not just not using reliable sources, it's also interpreting reliable sources. If you make a non-obvious interpretation you are engaging in OR, too. For example, if you call something ukrainian-russian based on that a source says that an ukrainian was part of it then that's OR. It's not OR if a source expressly calls it like this. Even if it isn't OR, you still need to look at the balance of sources - if your source is the only reliable source saying X in a sea of reliable sources saying Y then your source has to be disregarded as an outlier. If both viewpoints are backed up by reliable sources in an about equal manner then both viewpoints belong into the article. If one of the views is a minority view, but not an outlier, then it belongs into the article, too, appropiately labeled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurking shadow (talk • contribs) 18:28, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks -NachtReisender (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Daily Mail
Daily Mail
Hi. Please do not use the Daily Mail as you did at Falling in Reverse. See WP:DAILYMAIL. Kind regards, Robby.is.on (talk)