User talk:A.Skromnitsky

"Bibliographies"

Could you please explain why you have added sections entitled "Bibliography" to several articles on Latin-American history? As far as I can tell, these sections do not relate to the articles you have added them to. Thanks, N Shar (talk · contribs) 20:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you realy think that first documents of Latin America history do not relate to those articles? Or you have another bibliography/documents for them? Thanks.

• Generally, we would try to attach citations to specific statements in the article (see WP:CITE for more information), rather than listing a large bibliography without explaining which statements come from which sources. In any case, you should include the titles, and not just the authors' names. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 20:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course. But all operations is not posible for the list of autores (titles can be added late by me or others). We have one problem: for lack of any documents of the history of South America (in english, spanish, russian), and for countries: Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, and ethnias: quechua, incas, aymara. That's my speciality.

Please sign your signature on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~). If this field is your specialty, please integrate the information from those books into the articles in question, and reference that information. You might also want to try the Spanish Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that has ever existed, and so it is not a bibliography as well. The articles must be written in a summary style, as an introduction to the topic. Here is a guide to referencing to get you started:

Referencing may look daunting, but it's easy enough to do. Here's a guide to getting started. References are important to validate your writing and inform the reader. Any editor can remove unreferenced material, and unsubstantiated articles may end up getting deleted, so when you add something to an article, it's advisable to also include a reference to say from where it came. If you need any assistance, let me know.

Thanks, Lithoderm 22:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Linkspam

Dear A.Skromnitsky, You seem to be using your own website as reference. I would suggest, since you seem to know a great deal about these subjects, that you incorporate the information into the wikipedia-articles. EdBever (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Inca

Hello. Thanks for your contributions to the Inca article by pointing to information the Russian Language wikipedia. I've looked through some of the articles that you've written/contributed to, and I'm concerned that you're putting down Original Research, which is something that is against Wikipedia's policy. Please have a look at WP:OR for more information. What I see on at least one article is that you're quoting your translation of an original, primary source, rather than what a secondary source had said about it. If you have secondary sources you can quote, or information to be added, please do that, rather than publishing information from a primary source. Thanks! Hires an editor (talk) 05:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Inca Empire

I'm afraid I have had to revert the table you have added to this article. Firstly its in Spanish which is not understood by nearly all users of English Wikipedia and secondly you do not give any source for this table but state it is based on your own research. Unfortunately Original Research is not allowed on Wikipedia so for it to be acceptable it must be based on someone else's research not you own. Thank you - Galloglass 09:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Vadym Rubel (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Ukrainian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

July 2015

Do you actually know what to do if your edits get reverted? Ever heard of WP:BRD? If you do not want to get a block, pls self-revert, and go to the talk page to discuss. Are you seriously thinking that you are the first person editing the lede of this article?--Ymblanter (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

In this article does not remove anything. Just rename the unit according to official information (see http://ngu.gov.ua/ua/news/rozyasnennya-shchodo-statusu-specpidrozdilu-azov). All references about neo-Nazis moved one paragraph below. So do not be confused with the movement of the removal. The information is ordered and it is not repeated twice in the first and second paragraphs. Therefore, your demands are not suitable for this case.A.Skromnitsky (talk) 19:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I believe the battalion should be called a Ne-Nazi organization in the first paragraph. Please go to the talk page and discuss. You are currently one revert from an automatic block via WP:3RR.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

The title should be the official name. And it is given according to the current state of affairs. Since this is a governmental structure, there should be the full official name. But there is no mention about the Nazis (see again the second paragraph of the statement http://ngu.gov.ua/ua/news/rozyasnennya-shchodo-statusu-specpidrozdilu-azov).

I am sorry that you still misunderstand Wikipedia policies after such long tenure. I am filing a 3RR report, will let you know when I am done.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Well. But you lose the dispute.A.Skromnitsky (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Here we are: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:A.Skromnitsky reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: )--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

See talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azov_Special_Operations_Detachment A.Skromnitsky (talk) 19:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Please discuss your changes first and stop edit warring

You made very controversial changes to the talk page about Neo-Nazi militia known as Azov Battalion. Please discuss your changes first on talk page.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not controversial changes. Battalion Azov does not exist. The title should be the official name. And it is given according to the current state of affairs. Since this is governmental structure, there should be full official name (see the site of the National Guard of Ukrane http://ngu.gov.ua/ua/news/rozyasnennya-shchodo-statusu-specpidrozdilu-azov).A.Skromnitsky (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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.

Edit warring at Azov Battalion

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:A.Skromnitsky reported by User:Ymblanter (Result: Blocked). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)