User talk:Jargo Nautilus

Public statement: Russians who are suffering under the Russian Federation regime, I am on your side

If you are a Russian Wikipedia editor who is living directly in Russia or is living outside of Russia but still has inextricable ties to the country (e.g. your bank account), and you are truly not a supporter of Russian President Vladimir Putin's War of Aggression against the independent sovereign state of Ukraine, then I am on your side. I support your right to free speech, your right to maintain your own livelihood, and your right to protect yourself and your loved ones from the dangers of the authoritarian regime under which you live. I do NOT expect Russians living in Russia to openly voice opposition to the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, since I KNOW that doing this is illegal and punishable by imprisonment, torture, or even death. If you are one of these such members of the Russian Resistance, then I salute you, and I am on your side. I am not opposed to the Russian people. I am opposed to the Russian government and its leaders. That is all I have to say for now. Thank you, and take care, JN. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

My recent talk page activity

I'm a bit upset at the moment due to the death of my pet bird. I will probably go back to normal in a few days. If anyone wants to discuss "states with limited recognition", feel free to do so here. I believe that I am clogging up various talk pages. And indeed, out of all separatist regions, aside from the terrorist ones (like ISIS), I generally support each region's right to self-determination, although this can entail either independence or autonomy. But there is one separatist region that I am absolutely not convinced by, and it is the Donbas region. Donetsk and Luhansk are the spitting image of historical Manchukuo, which Japan carved out of China in the years leading up to World War II. If anyone thinks I'm anti-China due to my pro-Taiwan stance, well, here's the proof that I'm really not. I can recognise when there's is a worse of two evils... China was never a perfect country, but Japan's actions in Manchuria (which they called "Manchukuo") during the pre-WWII era were despicable. The actions of Russia in the Donbas region in the present day mirror this situation almost exactly, just in a slightly different context. History takes place every day, and it is happening right now. In fifty years from now, Donbas will be invariably described as puppet states in the history books, just as Manchukuo is today. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:07, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Just stop

Please stop deleting relevant information from the Wikipedia. Otherwise, I shall be forced to report you as a vandal. Derim Hunt (talk) 10:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

This is one of the lamest threats I have ever received. Try harder. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not a threat you dunderhead, it's a fact that you're a blatant propagandist. 2600:8801:BE09:6600:4C83:337:60EC:8C5E (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Have fun living in the most abhorrent country on Earth. You laugh at the Ukrainians, but you yourself barely have any rights under your own government. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm actually rather surprised at the specific section of my user page that you decided to vandalise... In this edit summary (which got disallowed), you have attempted to remove the text wherein I wrote that I did not recognise the Republic of Crimea, Kherson Oblast, and Zaporizhzhia Oblast as sovereign states (which, indeed, I don't, because I recognise all three regions as constituent parts of Ukraine). Indeed, the more inflammatory text within my profile is the part wherein I specifically highlight Russia as an "enemy" of mine, and also the fact that I don't recognise Russia itself as a sovereign state. It can be said that you have "bigger problems" here. You are worried about whether I recognise some Russian-annexed territories in Ukraine... But you should be more worried about whether Russia itself as a country will continue to exist in the near future. I don't recognise Russia itself, but this seems to have gone over your head. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Archive of discussion over "vandalism" accusation by user Zenzyyx (July 29, 2022)

This user has a habit of deleting conversations on his talk page without archiving them. As such, I am creating an archive of one such discussion on my own talk page, for self-reference.

Here is the link to the last revision of the conversation before he deleted everything - 1. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Title: "Marking edits as vandalism"

• My first comment.

I would request that you don't just immediately mark someone's edit as vandalism. I was rewriting a section of the article "Donetsk People's Republic–Russia relations", and you immediately reverted it and labelled it as vandalism after I deleted the pre-existing section. This was in spite of the fact that I had both (1) written a sufficient edit summary and (2) explained my removal of content in the associated talk page. - Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• One of my subsequent comments.

I'm not going to heed any advice from you. You have no authority over me. And I probably won't remember anything you've said today. - Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• My last comment.

I feel like I am speaking to a pretentious prick who doesn't bother to analyse a situation beyond what he sees in the first 2 seconds. Also, his analysis in the first 2 seconds was wrong anyway. - Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC) - Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Donetsk and Luhansk (self commentary)

The reason that I am actually bothered to contribute to these Donetsk and Luhansk articles is that I seriously believe that public opinion in the real world (i.e. outside of Wikipedia land) is so strongly in favour of Ukraine's position that it overwhelmingly negates the official recognition that Russia and its proxies (North Korea, Syria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia) have provided to the Donetsk People's Republic and the Luhansk People's Republic. The editors over at the article "list of states with limited recognition" seem to be convinced that Russia's official recognition is the be all and end all, the end of the discussion. However, I beg to differ. In my opinion, global public opinion is strong enough to remove these two entities (quasi-states) from that list article, and the recognition from Russia has absolutely zero legitimacy, whether in real life or in terms of Wikipedia's own narrow guidelines. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

North Korea was a proxy of the Soviet Union. Modern Russia? Not at all. They might be on neutral or better terms compared to Western countries, but that does not mean that Russia controls the actions of North Korea. The Juche ideology is far more extreme than even the height of Stalinism. SkoraPobeda (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The Soviet Union propped up the North Korean regime in order to establish a foothold in Korea against the United States. So, regardless of any ideological similarities or differences between the Soviet Union and North Korea, North Korea has always functioned as a proxy of the Soviet Union for the purpose of keeping the United States out of the region. The same applies to China, who currently maintains this kind of a relationship with North Korea. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

My views on Russia (self commentary)

In the past, I think I used to have positive views towards Russia, or at the very least, not overly negative. Indeed, one of my favourite computer games as a kid was entirely Russian-created and owned. I also used to play a Turkish computer game, and I currently still play a computer game that is based in Ukraine.

My views on Russia have changed over the years, largely as a consequence of my views towards China deteriorating, given that China is commonly viewed as a close ally of Russia (although their exact extent of friendship is complex).

My views towards Russia have definitely taken a sharp turn for the worst following the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I don't think I've ever been quite as outraged by anything in my life up until this point.

Simply put, I have lost all respect for Russia as a country following the 2022 invasion. And, the sad thing is, I used to indeed have a decent level of respect for Russia in the past.

Officially, I do not recognise the authority of the Russian government anymore, and I've declared war against Russia in retaliation to its 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

With all of this being said, I would like to see Russia return to some semblance of normalcy. Obviously, the Ukrainians who have lost their lives in this war can't be revived. And neither can all of the property in Ukraine destroyed by Russia be exactly revived either (i.e. buildings and the like). Still, I hope that one day, after this is all over, Russia will become a normal country once again. That's all for now, JN. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

You've 'declared war'? The military of Ukraine will appreciate your volunteering to fight - when are you flying to Chernovtsy? 50.111.25.27 (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

If your argument is "voluntarily die for no good reason", then, sure, you make a good point. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I take it that you're most likely a teenager, since most adults don't say things like "I declare war" on a country. I personally feel that you shouldn't hate on an entire country over a conflict which you didn't pay close attention to previously. This is a main symptom that I noticed with people here in America, most didn't care about Ukraine (and over 95% definitely can't even find Ukraine on a map.) And then suddenly once Russia invaded, everybody started to virtue signal over Ukraine, how "we all need to stop big bad Russia over invading poor little Ukraine." To me it's just comical, nobody shed any tears for the children of Donbas that were murdered for 8 years by Ukrainian shelling in separatist regions. No, their lives don't matter apparently, it's only Russia that can do evil. Mainstream media isn't the only reason people hate Russians, think about all the movies, TV shows, video games where Russians are brutal villains. You think that's not a part of social engineering? It certainly plays a huge role; people don't critically think anymore, they just go off of sensationalist media headlines (which is what corporate media is all about) and emotional responses to it. SkoraPobeda (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm in my early 20s, so not quite a teenager. I state that I "declare war" on a country because I consider myself to be a sovereign entity in my own right, i.e. I am not bound by my nationality to make political decisions. As for Russia, I have known about Russia since 2012 or so, I would say. I had positive views of Russia prior to ~2018. Meanwhile, I have also known about Ukraine since around 2012 as well. Both Russia and Ukraine have been known to me for a relatively long time, perhaps not deeply since I can't speak Russian or Ukrainian, but to a decent extent. My ancestry is primarily Chinese, so I am partially connected to Russia due to Russia's colonial influence in China (being the patron of the Chinese communists, particularly). I actually coincidentally had a German-Ukrainian friend on the internet at the start of the war, and both of us play a computer game that is coincidentally headquartered in Kharkiv, Ukraine. Meanwhile, coincidentally, I happened to have a school teacher (training course) at the start of the conflict who is native to Mariupol, Ukraine. In the past, one of my favourite computer games was based in Russia, which introduced me to Russian culture. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I am an internationally-minded Australian, more so than many other Australians, I believe. One of my close relatives works with/for the United Nations as a human rights lawyer and has literally gone on diplomatic missions to various countries, including Iraq of all places. I think this is certainly not a "normal" experience for most people of my demographic. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm in my mid 20s, so I guess that makes us of the same generation. It's good to know you're not the average minded Australian, I'll be bringing up points below in the Russians section to see where you stand on some things. And awesome, I personally haven't chatted with a Chinese-Australian before, so that's always a first. Same goes for you chatting with a Russian-Ukrainian-American I suppose. I play computer games on Steam myself, I wonder which ones got you interested in Russian culture? I know that 4A Games is a Ukrainian company that made the Metro games, which I enjoyed playing too. SkoraPobeda (talk) 05:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I was playing Contract Wars (FPS), which was hosted on websites including Kongregate, VK, OK, and Facebook. The first time I played this game was in ~2012, and the last time was in ~2019. The Ukrainian-based game that I currently play is Asphalt 8 (racing). It was originally developed in France/Spain and then outsourced to Ukraine. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh nice, I haven't heard of those actually, I'll have to look into them. SkoraPobeda (talk) 06:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

My views on America (self commentary)

If there's any consolation for you Russian sympathizers out there (who might criticize me for hating on Russia so much), bear in mind that I also don't particularly love America either (i.e. the United States). I have a love-hate relationship with America. When I was a kid, I hated America, literally citing it as my "least favourite country in the world". Subsequently, my views on America became more positive, but the negative element never truly went away. I know that America is a very diverse country, and there are definitely some aspects of it that I like. For example, my favourite musicians are all either from America or living in America. Meanwhile, I have some extended family members in America. Not to mention, I consume various American products such as TV shows, food, video games, etc. With that being said, I think there's a culture of arrogance in America that can never really be overlooked, no matter how much good stuff also comes out of that country. I am definitely happy to befriend a good American, but I am equally willing to consider a bad American my enemy. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

And I'm sure the Americans return the sentiment. 50.111.25.27 (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

They don't even know or care which country I come from. Brah. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, you left a message on my talk page - I'm here responding to that. To be honest what happened pushed me over the edge... need to take a LONG break from Wikipedia, if I ever come back to editing again. I am probably partially to blame, 50/50, and naïve to think that the Russian teams that are paid to monitor and edit Wikipedia will let a low level editor like me make edits to pages they control. Going to try and take a few months off and come back. Have a great weekend and thanks for stopping by on my page. Cheers Colinmcdermott (talk) 17:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hey, no worries, I've gone through some rough times at Wikipedia too. Wikipedia has this insane hierarchical system that can only be overcome by investing thousands of mind-numbing hours both on and off the website (off, because a professional academic background of some kind can provide a major advantage). There are some people who have spent longer on Wikipedia than I've been alive (I'm not that old, which probably isn't hard to figure out). And yes, Wikipedia is a battleground of propaganda coming from all sides, and especially the Russians at this very moment. I've been arguing with someone just today because he reverted an edit (title change/ article move) of mine without explaining why, and then when I asked him why he did that, he became hostile saying "stop pinging me, I'll tell you later". This guy is clearly a bit more addicted to Wikipedia than I am, so he hides behind his apparent accolades in order to shield himself from criticism. But I did have a valid reason for being upset, since he really didn't provide a very good explanation at all for why he was so opposed to my edits. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:27, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello sorry for the slow reply, and thank you for the positive words and explanation. That makes a lot of sense. Still taking a bit of a break from things but might edit sporadically in the future. Have a good week. Colinmcdermott (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Dates in 2022 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan

Hi, at one point I had brought all dates in the 2022 Chinese military exercises around Taiwan article to one style (dmy) per MOS:DATEUNIFY, now you seem to be changing them to use mdy format. Any particular reason for that? I'm just wondering because that seems to run somewhat contrary to MOS:DATERET, and I cannot see MOS:DATETIES that would call for a change to mdy. M16A3NoRecoilHax (talk) 08:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, it seems that you can use either one of them (according to those guidelines you linked), so you can change it back to the other format if you wish. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you can use either one, but it is normally discouraged (per MOS:DATERET) to just change them from one format to another without reason. Not to mention that they are now no longer uniform and some are dmy where others are mdy. I will make them uniform again then later. M16A3NoRecoilHax (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know that it was discouraged. People haven't necessarily read all of the guidelines pages on Wikipedia, you can't expect people to have done so when there are so many of them with so much excessive information. I was editing the dates on account of my own understanding of style, not on account of Wikipedia's actual style guides. As I said, I have no problem with changing them back, but please note that I don't believe I did anything particularly wrong. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that you did it with malicious intent (I don't believe that at all), I'm just stating my reasons for why I believe that it should be changed back. M16A3NoRecoilHax (talk) 09:34, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as I said, they are perfectly reasonable reasons. You don't really need to contact on Talk for this, a simple edit summary would be enough. Cheers. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:45, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Russians are mafia. Change my mind.

Russians are mafia who cannot handle criticism and censor those who oppose them. Change my mind. Anyone who is willing, please provide evidence that there is some humanity left within the Russian people. Or have they been completely orcified? Nothing is off limits here. Except censorship, of course. Don't delete my comments or things will get messy. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

We can continue the discussion from the Pro-Russian separatists here. Is this title meant to bait people? Because obviously you saying that they can't handle criticism could be looked at as the same with people who believe the Western narratives. And as I mentioned previously, I have my mom's family that lives in Donbas (my mom is from eastern Ukraine - Donetsk region, my dad is from Russia). I myself was born in the United States, and over the years went from only believing Western medias, to only believe Eastern state medias, and now independently researching for the truth in the middle. Also, as an Australian, you should recognize that your own government has been very fascist and Orwellian in terms of Covid lockdowns with such little cases compared to places like New York state where we had millions of reported cases. Even Russia wasn't as authoritarian with the lockdowns. But that's a whole separate topic of its own. SkoraPobeda (talk) 16:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

I was literally censored at Talk: Russia just yesterday, so that is the reference to censorship. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

As for Australia, I would not consider Covid lockdowns to be "fascist" by any means. I'm not sure who got the idea that they are fascist. Perhaps authoritarian, but fascism usually refers to a kind of ethno-nationalism. Authoritarianism to stop the spread of a disease is not inherently ethno-nationalistic (although it can be, perhaps). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

On Dictionary.com, it says Fascism is "a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism." The last part is not what I'm referring to, but the complete power and forcibly suppressing opposition, criticism and industries is definitely relatable to the Covid lockdowns. All the opposing doctors who put their careers on the line to oppose this group-think mentality on masks, lockdowns, PCR tests were all shut down and heavily criticized by the media and social media. I have a friend who lives in Australia, and although he also disagrees with my assessment, he trusts that the government knows better about how to stop a virus than average citizens. Though there is a difference between staying at home when you're sick, to closing down an entire country and hurting the industry over some inaccurate numbers pumped out by the pharmaceutical industry and their national healthcare organization allies. This is what has been referred to at least in the US as Medical Fascism. And although I don't trust the PCR tests, masks or vaccines, New York state where I live had supposedly one of the highest cases of Covid in the whole world in 2020. We had hundreds of thousands of cases and allegedly tens of thousands of deaths with 19 million people living here. (I still had not heard from anybody who actually knew of someone who died from it in my local city, a lot of it was fear mongering inflated numbers with empty hospitals.) But Australia had like 4000 deaths for a country of 25 million and they went all super crazy with quarantine camps and other very authoritarian measures of firing people for not being vaccinated. (Here in NYS we had many people fired too, but at least opposing the lockdowns was allowed much more.) Personally, I view the whole world as being under the influence of giant corporations, and pharmaceutical industries are tied to governments. And Russia as a matter of fact was no exception, my friend who moved to Moscow in March 2020 ended up basically not allowed to do any social activities for 2 or 3 months, kind of forced to just wait it all out in his apartment. Lots of people's mental state got ruined with it during the time. So I trust real evidence-based science, not Big Pharma paid peer-review journals that push experimental and potentially deadly solutions such as those vaccines (especially AstraZeneca, the worst of all). But again, it's all a separate topic that I'm ranting on. SkoraPobeda (talk) 06:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

One of my own relatives from Macedonia (yes, I have European relatives) died apparently due to Covid-19. Of course, this is circumstantial evidence, but I will point out that it is not very difficult to wear a mask. If wearing a mask can possibly stop the spread of the disease, then I'm going to do it. I do think that mandating masks is perhaps over the top though. I'm not forcing anyone else to do it personally.

I'll also point out that I don't necessarily agree with my own government on a variety of issues. The thing about Australia is that you are (theoretically) allowed to believe whatever you want. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

There is an article which I'd like to bring your attention to regarding masks, I found it months ago and think it's noteworthy. Obviously up to your interpretation, and it's one of those things that would be considered non-RS here on Wikipedia of course. SkoraPobeda (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I think there is something of a false premise in that study. I don't wear a mask to stop myself from catching the disease so much as I wear it to stop myself from spreading the disease. Obviously, if I am diseased and start coughing, I can use my arm to cover my mouth or whatever. But a lot of the time, I won't instinctively do that. Also, when I am talking to someone, some saliva (spit) can go flying, especially with certain letters like plosives ("P" and "b"). So, to me, wearing a mask can basically stop that. It might not sound sanitary in the slightest, but humans are unsanitary by nature. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Ethno-nationalism is not really a major factor in the Australian identity because there's not much of an ethnic identity in Australia to begin with. Australia is a civic nationalist country at best, which is currently built on the idea of "multi-culturalism". Coming from someone who was born and raised in this country, there is really very little substance to Australian nationalism, much less so than America, which faces the same sort of issue due to being a settler-colonial country (America has a richer culture than Australia). Canada and New Zealand have similar lack of substance to Australia in comparison to America. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

There does exist an ethno-nationalism in Australia, i.e. white nationalism, but it is a relatively obscure movement that only represents a small proportion of the population. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:36, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

The national identity of Australia is built on some fundamental factors. Firstly, we all speak English as the first language, no matter what background we come from. So, this is a monolingual country. Secondly, we are closely connected to all other English-speaking countries, i.e. America, Britain, Canada, and New Zealand (and Ireland, etc). Thirdly, we have an "immigrant culture" as of the 1980s, wherein we basically allow anyone to immigrate to the country and contribute to the culture. Which explains why it is getting harder and harder to define the exact culture. We practically have open borders here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It's funny because here in the US we basically have a similar thing in terms of there being foreigners that replaced natives, having many immigrant waves and now being a melting pot with no particular pure identity. Of course with the US and Canada it was more extreme, since the Native Americans were practically slaughtered and put in boarding schools that wiped away their cultures. But the weirdest thing for me is the whole race categories. We have 4 main ones here: White/Caucasian, Black/African-American, Asian, Hispanic/Latino and then sometimes the option of Other is there too (like Pacific Islander). In my parents' experience, the Soviet Union's identities were much easier to define. A person could even consider themselves just as Soviet. But ethnically, it was much easier to separate the groups. Russians, Ukrainians, Jews, Uzbeks, Georgians, etc. There wasn't ever a division based on race. While here, we have the stupid identity politics which is meant to get people mad over the topic of racism. Especially Whites vs. Blacks or Whites vs. Hispanics. It's all the elites playing games on people really. But even besides that, the racial categories make no sense. First of all, the word 'Caucasian' has no historical roots for us 'white people', other than the Caucasians that actually came from the Caucasus region. Then when you ask a Native American who they would fill themselves out as during a survey or Census, would it be the same Caucasians that murdered their ancestors? Or what about Indians themselves, technically they are their own sub-continent in Asia. Yet nobody calls them Asians, so they would fall under Caucasians. Same goes with Middle Easterners or Arabs, they are 'brown' but have no category of their own, so they also choose Caucasian. Let's not forget Hispanics, since that word technically means descendants of Spain. Well for most Spanish-speakers, at some point in their DNA lineage that's probably the case. But the majority consider themselves Latinos, since they had indigenous ancestors who didn't speak Spanish. Most white people in America have mixed European ancestry, mostly being from the UK, Ireland, Germany or Italy. But since they lack their original European identity, they just become plain 'white'. Even though technically the correct term would be European-American, which nobody uses unlike African-American... Last but not least in this funny topic, why is it that we call white and black people those colors, but Asians are not yellow people and Hispanics are not tan people? ... To conclude this comedic scholarly opinion of mine, race is a social construct. Racism doesn't exist, it is instead ethnic hatred that people might have or express. But since whites and blacks here have the least amount of identity to their original ancestors, they have created their own cultures that is taken advantage of through division sown by the government's tools: especially the media. But since we identify mostly whites and blacks by the color of their skin, but not Asians or Hispanics, we have become two-faced with the color-coding. SkoraPobeda (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Some interesting observations for sure. I would say that race isn't a completely imaginary construct. Ethnicity is in fact partially imaginary as well. It's a spectrum of imaginedness. I've mentioned Australian identity earlier because I don't exactly have a true Australian identity, and I suspect that such a thing doesn't really exist. A large part of what is considered the "Australian" identity is simply whiteness and Christianity, neither of which applies to me. Neither of these two attributes is unique to Australia, it's basically just British. The white nationalist movement in Australia is a bit of a joke in that sense since it's basically just English/British nationalism.

This problem doesn't just affect Australia, but all countries. As you've mentioned, Ukrainian nationalism has perhaps artificially been driven by some key figures and events and developments. Well, I could say the same about Russian nationalism or any other form of nationalism. In my opinion, all nationalism and religious sectarianism is an illusion to some extent. I myself am largely free of having any kind of strong nationalism towards any country. Sometimes, I feel like there is something missing, but then I remember that it is just social conditioning that makes me feel that way, and that it is indeed better to have no identity than to have one so strong that it cannot be moved. Part of what makes me internationally-minded is that I am explicitly not nationally-minded. And that makes me freer than most. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

"Well, I could say the same about Russian nationalism or any other form of nationalism. In my opinion, all nationalism and religious sectarianism is an illusion to some extent." Cheers to that, I agree with you there. I believe that there is a major difference between feeling deeply involved and interested in one's nation or ethnicity that they belong to. But when it becomes an organization that focuses on how to hurt others or even become imperialist to push their goals, then it becomes a problem that affects many. Of course many can argue that Russia is doing exactly that, including the rise of neo-Eurasianism or saying that Ukraine is not a real nation. But these are all things that are meant to separate people instead of bring them together and realize their differences have meaning and purpose. At the same time Ukrainian nationalism tries to also change history by saying Russia and/or Belarus has no connection to the Kievan Rus'. It's all tit for tat nonsense, those who study history know that all three of those countries have the same origins, which eventually branched out and became separate nations. The list goes on with other places in the world where people have the same roots and culture yet hate each other for minor reasons like religion, such as India and Pakistan. SkoraPobeda (talk) 18:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus If you are going to continue with personal attacks, it will lead to a block. You were given another chance after an indef block. Mellk (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk - This seems like an inappropriate place to make such a comment. What does this comment have to do with Russia? Nothing. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@SkoraPobeda - For this conversation to continue, you must acknowledge the fact that Russia is currently engaged in an invasion of the entirety of Ukraine and is killing people indiscriminately. As you might be aware, in Russia, it is currently illegal to refer to this conflict as a "war" or "invasion", and you are instead forced to call it a "special military operation". If you can accept this basic detail of the situation, then discussions can continue. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I will agree that this "Special Military Operation" is an invasion yes. Entirety of Ukraine? That is not Russia's goal. Again, it is to De-Nazify Ukraine of its ultranationist ideology that has origins from the 1910s by Petluira and 1940s by Bandera and Shukhevich. And of course it is to De-Militarize Ukraine, which they are very successfully doing contrary to popular belief. It's not something Russians take pride in either (unless they are TV watching couch patriots which every country has), this is a fraternal war between two brotherly nations that is a tragedy for both countries. And they are killing hundreds of Ukrainian troops every single day. The reason they call it the SMO is because they are using a limited amount of Russia's Armed Forces (around 10%), and because there are combined military, police and counter-terrorist actions going on all at once. That is what makes this not any typical invasion. Since you have to admit, Russia is using their National Guard widely in this too. They are special police forces essentially, and are armed with small arms and no tanks or artillery. Killing people indiscriminately? No, if Russia was really doing this, then all of Kiev would be rubble right now. It is not, and neither are most cities that are under Russian control. Occasional reports of Russia randomly brutally bombing some apartment building or any other civilian object cannot be independently verified to actually be done by Russia. Since as I've seen since the start of this invasion, no Western source ever has the gall to admit that Ukraine has a wide history of false flag attacks on their own towns to blame separatists or Russia since their genocidal ATO. (Perfect example would be the 2015 Kramatorsk BM-30 shelling, which they blamed the DPR. Even though a missile dud in the center of the town landed from the Southwestern direction of Krasnoarmeysk, indicating it was Ukraine that did it. They repeated the same thing in April 2022 with the abhorrent Tochka-U cluster attack on the Kramatorsk Railway station, this time again from the Southwestern direction of Dobropolye in Ukraine's control.) The cities that are rubble under Russian control such as Mariupol or Severodonetsk only became rubble after the Ukrainian neo-Nazi paramilitaries decided they were going to bomb the advancing Russian positions, regardless if there were civilians in the area. In fact, there is much evidence of Ukraine using inexcusable methods to increase likelihood for Russians to increase civilian casualties. They place armored vehicles and artillery near houses, hospitals, schools and use the civilians as human shields. Don't believe me? Check out the American journalist Patrick Lancaster who puts English captions in his videos, he interviewed dozens of civilians in Mariupol. They themselves say that they were used as human shields and weren't being allowed to exit the city through humanitarian corridors because of false Azov Regiment claims that Russia was killing civilians (even though they killed people trying to escape the city at night.) Patrick always asks the civilians in those videos who is responsible for the shelling of infrastructure, and most times the answer is either "Ukrainian forces!" or "I don't know." It's not propaganda under the threat of violence, since he is an independent crowd-funded journalist. So check out his channel for actual interviews you won't find in Western media. And yes, Russians are not allowed to call this a war or invasion. This is authoritarian, I agree. But from the Russian perspective, this is a war started by NATO on Russia for their survival; and Ukraine is in the middle being used as cannon fodder ever since the Western regime change in February 2014 (prior to the Crimean annexation). You may disagree, but it's not the first time that an alliance of European countries had the idea of invading Russia itself. 100 years ago it was Hitler and his European puppets, 200 years ago it was Napoleon and his European puppets. Now Russia seems to be facing a similar threat, and they're not trying to lose almost 30 million people like in the last big war... Again, you must understand both sides before assuming you know what this war is really about. I also highly suggest to you to check out this Belarussian English-speaking analytical channel which publishes daily reports of the Ukrainian frontlines named Military Summary. He, unlike Western media doesn't ignore the Russian Defense Ministry reports of where the battles are going on and the statistics that go with them. SkoraPobeda (talk) 07:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Too much to respond to here, but I will say that Ukraine has accused Russia of the exact same kind of "False flag" operations. Russia did not take Kyiv because it was unable to, so the scope of the war changed to just taking the Russian-speaking areas. Originally, Russia was trying to change the regime in Kyiv and force the government to capitulate, which failed. As for being a "special military operation", the police units do not make a difference. When Wikipedia reports on invasions, we report in a way that is universally understood. The idea of "special military operation" is only understood to Russians. To everyone else, the invasion or war is easy to see and identify. Before February 2022, Ukraine was minding its own business. After February 2022, one-fifth of the country has been militarily occupied by Russia. When one country is conducting "police" operations inside another country without permission, then that constitutes an invasion by default. Like it or not, Ukraine is not a part of Russia anymore. When Russian Federation troops are standing in Ukraine, they are standing on the soil of an independent country, not on the land of their brethren. And I must stress this too; how much of "brothers" can you be if you are willing to kill each other? Russia has been shelling Ukraine. How much has Ukraine been shelling Russia? And I stress; the Russian mainland. Ukraine probably has been shelling the Donbas region during the war, but how much has Ukraine been shelling the sovereign territory of the Russian Federation? Excluding Crimea. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I will definitely have a look at some of these resources you have linked to me here, although I am worried that I may be flagged for suspicious activity by the FBI agents that are monitoring me. So, I may need to use a burner device to view them. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Only in recent years have we seen countries accuse each other of false flags more. In this case, no Western sources ever investigate the accusations against Ukraine, because to them anything that Russia says is a lie. And Kiev wasn't taken because that was not the goal of the Russian military when they started the invasion. That "failed assault on the capital" assumption was what most average people and media talking heads assumed, though the real reason Russia entered the north was to redirect many Ukrainian forces (including elite ones) from the Donbas region to different fronts such as Kharkov, Chernigov, Sumy and others. The Russian military isn't stupid, the 20-30,000 or so troops in the Kiev region were not enough to storm the largest city in all of Ukraine. That's why they only focused on the suburbs to make it appear as if they were planning on launching an assault into the city. Never forget that psychological warfare is a big factor, especially in modern warfare where any map update can be tracked instantly. Mind you that Zelensky's day 1 criminal orders of giving 100,000 AK-47s to any adult citizens willing to "go and fight Russia" ended up in the hands of criminal gangs. Even on Telegram there were many videos of night time shooting going on inside of Kiev between gangs. Not to mention the fact that they in the following weeks let out war criminals from groups such as the neo-Nazi Tornado Battalion who later ended up brutally torturing and killing Russian POWs. Then after the goals were met, Russia withdrew from the north and redirected its forces in their main goal - Donbas. Police units do make a difference with the way they operate in occupied regions compared to only military patrolling the streets. Law and order is more of the focus of the National Guard, as well as the humanitarian aid and pensions being provided for citizens (which is very well documented but ignored by RS.) And Ukraine has actually shelled Russia's mainland quite a bit of times since the invasion. Not only weapons depots, but even civilian houses such as in the city of Belgorod. I remember seeing a Ukrainian news video where the propagandist was talking about a weapons depot that exploded, and he was saying "look at how it burns beautifully". Contrary to popular belief, Russian state-media never says those kind of things. But Ukrainian private oligarch media is full of visceral hatred. At least you can admit that the Donbas region was 'probably' shelled, but what you haven't realized is that the Donbas War was a civil war with Ukrainians from 24 oblasts (regions) killing eastern Ukrainians that lived in two oblasts that opposed the Maidan coup regime. The subsequent presidents Turchinov and Poroshenko could hardly be looked at as democratic, the latter was a billionaire with broken promises the likes of Donald Trump. Yet Maidan was supposedly meant to get rid of oligarchs from power, and then they elected one who was more "pro-Ukrainian", what a joke. The Donbas War was even more of a fraternal war. I'm not saying they are brothers for killing each other, I'm saying for both Russians and Ukrainians, they were brotherly nations for centuries and have been pitted against each other over governments and ideology. It's a tragedy for both of them. SkoraPobeda (talk) 17:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

And don't you mean ASIO? Australia doesn't have FBI. And if you are worried about being monitored for suspicious activity and using a burner device just for looking at two YouTube channels, that ought to make you ask questions of how free and democratic your country really is. SkoraPobeda (talk) 17:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Self-determination in Russian-speaking areas

I will clarify that my position is that I support the self-determination of all areas where a genuine desire for self-determination exists. Clearly, the Donbas region has some kind of a self-determination movement, as I am speaking to someone right now who claims to be native to the Donbas (albeit living overseas) and is seeking self-determination for his people. With that being said, I am strictly against all forms of violence where possible. Obviously, the Donbas region is accusing Ukraine of brutality. Obviously, Ukraine is accusing the Donbas region of the same thing. Personally, I would like to see the war end as soon as possible, and I would also like to see Russia to remove itself from the region. There should be some kind of a referendum in the region about self-determination after the war. However, the same applies to Russia itself. If a referendum is to be held in the Donbas about secession from Ukraine, then Russia needs to allow referendums to be held all across its territory, including in the region of Chechnya, for example, for self-determination. I will also stress that voter suppression, intimidation, and all other interference in the democratic process is highly discouraged. I'm not really sure that Russia is even capable of holding democratic votes considering the state of democracy in the country right now, but I digress. Indeed, now that I think about it, anyone who supports Donbas self-determination should also support Chechnya self-determination, and they can be said to have double standards if they don't. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I never claimed to be a native to Donbas. I said that my mom is from there and her family is still living there, that's a big difference. And yes, I worry about their safety and wellbeing because they've been under a 'democratic' dictatorship for the past 8 years in Donetsk oblast. And now especially it's concerning to me when they have a neo-Nazi group like Right Sector stationed right outside their town, which has already committed war crimes inside of it too (looting, rape, murder and even shelling the town once to blame Russia for it); all while not stopped by the Zelensky regime. With regards to the democratic process, I noticed on your profile that you consider yourself to be Anarcho-Communist, is that right? I consider myself a Green Anarchist, so for me, I view any statist government as a form of oppression. However, the reality we live in is that there are lesser of two evils. Some governments are more brutal and strict than others. With that in mind, I would argue there is no such thing as a real democracy. Every single election in every country has some form of election vote rigging, ballot stuffing, intimidation, etc. It's funny you bring up Chechnya, because if you support the Republic of Ichkeria, that means to me haven't looked into the ideology they held. Self-determination and independence is all on the surface of what they were fighting for, but what you don't hear is the Wahhabi ideology that they had as their core. It's the same kind of ideology that Al-Qaeda and ISIL had, as well as most terrorist groups that fought against the Syrian Army. The First Chechen War infobox clearly shows who supported the independence movement of Chechnya, Arab Mujahideen (foreign jihadist terrorists), Ukrainian UNA-UNSO ultranationalists and Turkish neo-Ottoman Grey Wolves... I see that you are anti-Erdogan as I am, yet what is the number one country in the world that supports the Republic of Ichkeria and names streets of their leaders? Erdogan's Turkey. And I understand that Kadyrov is a pro-Russian puppet, though if you look at the alternative, Chechnya is better off with Kadyrov ruling instead of Mashkhadov or other radicals like Shamil Basayev. They have stability, and Grozny is fully rebuilt from the two previous wars. Referendums can easily be rigged yes, but in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea in 2014, feelings of the 80% ethnic Russian population there wanted to join Russia. It's what they wanted since the 1990s when the corrupt Western puppet Yeltsin regime was in power. They in fact had several referendums in the 90s, and the compromise was to give them autonomy instead of joining politically weak Russia. Chechnya on the other hand had opportunist radicals that came to power and wanted to ethnically cleanse Chechnya of Russians, evidenced by the fact that they kidnapped and killed over 1000 ethnic Russians in 1994. Which culminated in the eventual messed up First Chechen War; which Russia indeed carried out a lot of war crimes due to the brutal urban fighting, corrupt and disorganized post-Soviet military structure and leadership, etc. SkoraPobeda (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

If your mom is native to a place, then I consider you yourself to be native to that place by default unless otherwise indicated. By the way, I have to sleep soon, so I can't respond in detail. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I see, well thank you for clarifying. No worries, I had a lot of free time to respond today, so feel free to answer on your free time as well. Also, I noticed some user above Mellk is talking about you might be blocked for personal attacks. I think if you respectfully answer people like you have with me here, then there shouldn't be issues. SkoraPobeda (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I will stress also that I view the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic as illegitimate entities since I don't believe that they were created in a democratic, non-violent fashion in the slightest. Nonetheless, I still support self-determination in the Donbas region, just not in the form of those two republics. I am not even against complete secession; I am simply against unfair processes. The DPR and LPR ostensibly are not free countries at the moment. I will say this, though... If it is possible for the DPR and the LPR to reform themselves to an acceptable degree, then I may consider recognising their legitimacy. Currently, I don't believe that the DPR and LPR represent the people of the Donbas region. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The main principles that I stand for --> Non-violence, Democracy, Self-determination, Individual freedom, Social compassion, Anti-government, Anti-nationalism, etc. Several of my core principles seem to contradict one another. For example, self-determination and anti-nationalism are not really compatible ideologies. In this sense, I support the freedom of people to choose their own ethnic/national identity, but at the same time, I believe that humans are united by our differences. Meanwhile, individual freedom and social compassion (a term that I made up just now, meaning "care for your neighbour and even for a stranger") are not really compatible either. Because, in a world where we are all following individual freedom (i.e. humanism), we might only care about ourselves and nobody else. However, I have always believed that it is my responsibility as a human being to help out other human beings where possible (and, indeed, other animals and other life forms on this planet). So, I believe that even though we should have the freedom to look out for numero uno (i.e. only care about ourselves), we should also always strive to look after other people too, and not just those who are similar to us but indeed those who are different as well. I believe that nobody should be forced to hold any of these principles or to do any of these things that I'm saying. After all, given that I stand for democracy and freedom, I believe that it is everyone's right to make up their own mind about this. It is also equally my right to advocate for all of these things. I recognise that the entire world, not just Russia, is mafia. And I have taken it upon myself to be a leader where there are none. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you and I have similar core values in the sense that we don't believe that violence is the answer, self-determination for people, individual freedoms that are guaranteed, social compassion, anti-government, these are very good humanist values. It's why I eventually became a Green Anarchist as I stated above, because statist governments are not compatible with these ideas without infringing upon certain rights and going their own authoritarian direction. "I recognise that the entire world, not just Russia, is mafia. And I have taken it upon myself to be a leader where there are none." Exactly, I agree with you there 100%.

And yes, I understand why most people don't see the DPR and LPR are free countries. Though technically, the two regions that were under separatist control did have a referendum in May 2014. That one is much less verified since it was in the middle of the ATO initial phase ever since April, and the voting didn't happen in all cities of both regions. Then again, the regional administrative buildings that got taken over, the announcement of the creation of the Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics, and the sudden appearance of camouflaged self-defense militias bears similarities to what happened during the Western-sponsored Euromaidan protests in late 2013. Although no separate republics were announced, many Western and Central Ukrainian regions had administrative buildings being taken over by nationalist groups that opposed the Yanukovich regime. They also did this without any democratic process, and had armed militias belonging to the infamous Right Sector, Svoboda party, Spilna Sprava, UNA-UNSO] and many others which intimidated politicians and threatened the government with violence. That was why they were instrumental in the February 2014 coup, because they didn't want just some territory to be under their control, they wanted the whole country - including the eastern regions that disagreed with them. The new Ukrainian regime now was going to embrace Western Ukrainian ultranationalism for all regions, and that was why after the coup, the first and failed law that they tried to pass was banning the Russian language as an official language. Most Russian-speaking regions opposed this and saw the writing on the wall, hence the Anti-Maidan and Russian Spring movements rose very strongly, until they were crushed by the ATO and SBU shaking down organizers. SkoraPobeda (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@SkoraPobeda. Such views are very sad, but not surprising. I do know people, even here in the US, who believe every talking point of Russian propaganda, like that Bucha was staged by Ukrainians, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Sad because I have an opinion other than the gigantic doubleplusgoodthink corporate news outlets? I've seen primary source footage and analysis outside of Russian state-media about this conflict since November 2013. Because Maidan was the real powder keg, it slowly built up before anybody here who virtue signals about Ukraine even heard of the country's name... And yes, it was indeed a US and EU-backed Color Revolution. The Obama Administration didn't exactly have the best track record to plead any innocence in regime change attempts, considering the massive crimes they had done in Libya and Syria just a few years prior to Ukraine! SkoraPobeda (talk) 03:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

@JN. I think you was wrong by making these editds. (1) It is absolutely irrelevant what had happen several years ago, and your diffs about it are not convincing to say the least. (2) Admitting your mistakes and removing your own erroneous comments is a good idea. My very best wishes (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree that I was mistaken, but I do agree that the comments occurred too long ago for them to still be relevant in the present day. I have not seen any grievous activity from HiLo48 more recently, so I'm going to presume that his behaviour had changed over the years. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Reading through your comments, I understand and share your main concern: this war is a lot more important than anything that had already happened (WII, etc.) just because it is currently ongoing and we do not know how it ends. BTW, here are the latest news: Putin is planning an urgent "referendum" to annex DPR and LPR. Then, he will probably make an ultimatum to Ukraine: this is our territory, hence we will nuke you if your army goes any further. The response by Ukraine? Sure, they will consult with their NATO partners, and the partners will probably say: "you guys will need to negotiate this". What else if Biden has said already that they will do very little even in the event of Russia using nuclear weapons [1] (Russia "would become more of a pariah in the world than they ever have been ... Depending on the extent of what they do will determine what response would occur." P.S. Of course such scenario can be easily countered by US administration by quickly passing beyond the point when such ultimatum by Putin would be meaningful, i.e. by giving numerous ATACMS to Ukraine to quickly hit the Crimean bridge, but my impression is that the current US administration is not smart and brave enough to do that. Of course the chances that Putin will actually use nukes are close to zero, that was always just a blackmail. My very best wishes (talk) 20:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

OK, I changed my AE comment. Well, this is all relative. During this war, I talked with people who expressed joy and happiness that Russian tank crews were burned alive, and I totally understand their feelings. My very best wishes (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Warning

Jargo Nautilus, why do you call Chipmunkdavis Jones repeatedly? Why did you call them Bob at WP:AE a few hours ago? You need to stop with the names and you need to stop berating them. I'm starting to realize that you simply do not possess the discipline at this time to edit the WP:ARBEE topic area dispassionately and that you should be removed from it, at least until you can prove you can do so without the constant WP:BATTLEGROUND. In that AE report, you had promised that you would do that, but then you go on to break that promise in that very same AE complaint a few hours later? How can you be trusted now after having done that? El_C 12:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh I missed the following comment where you called them Frank and tried to intimidate them, again providing 0 evidence. I think a topic ban from the EE topic area is all but inevitable now. El_C 12:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It is interesting that CMD seems to be so irritated by the name "Jones". It's a reference to his username, "Davis", both of which are surnames. I have encountered CMD several times in the distant past, and I had no problems with him before. I only began to have problems with CMD after I noticed his interactions with Colinmcdermott from a few months ago. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

In terms of "necroing" a thread. There was a discussion on Talk:Russia, which is still effectively open, about whether to add the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to the introductory paragraphs. Instead of making a new thread to discuss this topic, I decided to comment in the old thread. I also decided to comment there because I noticed that one of the users had misquoted another user, which I wasn't sure was intentional or accidental. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@El C - I believe that I have sufficient evidence to prove that HiLo had made some racist comments/edits back in 2014. The only problem is that he made these comments/edits back in 2014, which is a long time ago, so his behaviour may have changed since then. I was originally in the archive because I was looking for some information relating to the main article, and I found HiLo's comments by accident. HiLo was the editor who originally deleted mine and Colin's comments in the talk page in September 2022. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

This is the edit that I perceived as racist from User:HiLo48: [2]. He writes, in the edit summaries of the Russia article, Reverted. Sloppy English and POV additions. Take it to the talk page please., and he completely wipes out the edits made by User:Aleksd. Ostensibly, HiLo48 had cited two reasons for doing this, i.e. "sloppy English" and "POV additions". HiLo48 subsequently wipes out Aleksd's edits a second time, writing NO!! This may be justified, but not in that form. Please DISCUSS on the Talk page. Refusal to do so equates to vandalism, -- [3] -- wherein he makes reference to his previous edit summary, and he accuses Aleksd of vandalism.

In this Talk:Russia comment [4], HiLo48 writes, And perhaps you could seek some help with your English expression. As you have written your addition so far its just not acceptable..

As for HiLo48's more recent reversions of mine and Colin's edits, those occurred here: [5], [6]. Note that HiLo48 marks the second edit as MINOR even though it wasn't. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

In terms of language backgrounds, HiLo48 claims to be a native English speaker whereas Aleksd claims to be Eastern European. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, if you have evidence, then submit it. Don't tell me about your belief that that that evidence exists. And if you are unable to provide that evidence, don't make that accusation. Because without that evidence, it is a personal attack / aspersion, and a serious one at that. Beyond that, I don't see what something from 8 years has to do with anything. Also, you complain about "combing" contributions when it purportedly concerns yourself, but when you do it, it's okay? That doesn't align in my eyes.

The WP:NOTAFORUM provocations about Russian trolls and so on, you should expect those kind of comments to be removed as a matter of course by, really, any veteran editor. Had I seen those, I would have removed em, too. Those incendiary polemics add nothing of value. What can anyone really do with those?

Finally, I note that you still haven't responded to my multiple questions to you about your calling CMD those various random names. But at this point, I don't expect you to respond to that. I mean, this is the 4th or 5th time I queried you on that, so I pretty much expect you to continue to ignore me on that. Oh well. El_C 02:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Your comment grew five fold since I wrote the above. I suppose I'll read it now. El_C 02:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"Sloppy English," etc., none of that is racist. It isn't even a personal attack. It isn't even uncivil. Also, what is the point in going back 8 years? I'm honestly baffled. El_C 02:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

You can see that HiLo48 deletes all of the edits for "Sloppy English" and "need some help with your English Expression". The user whose edits he deleted is an Eastern European who does not speak English as the first language, whereas HiLo48 himself is a native English speaker. I don't know what Wikipedia's policy in this area is, but I believe that any native English speaker is easily capable of copy-editing a non-native English speaker's edits in order to be more readable. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

HiLo48 does say "WTF" and "LOL" in the beginning of this edit summary, [7], which I view as moderately uncivil. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I've already explained that the reason I was in the Talk:Russia archives was in order to look for some useful information for editing the main article in the present day. I wasn't originally there to find HiLo48's comments. I just found them by accident. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Jargo Nautilus, it is way more egregious for you to call any of that racist. And again, you complain multiple times about other people "combing" your own contributions, but you feel fine going 8 years back when you do it to someone else? Also, them responding with, what is at worst, mild incivility to that person diminishing their integrity by calling them Russian — why do you take issue with that? Not to mention that it seems quite one-sided on your part, to the point of looking like blatant partisanship. But by all means, feel free to bring that up to any other admin. I'd be genuinely surprised if you get any traction whatsoever from that, since, as noted, none of it tracks.

As for non-native English speakers (which I am one, incidentally) speaking less than coherently, it shouldn't be expected of anyone but the editor who has poor command of English to further proof read their comments or edits to make them more coherent. That is their burden. Command of English is required on the English Wikipedia. It is a matter of competence, which is required. Otherwise, there's other language projects for them to contribute to. El_C 03:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, thanks for clearing that up. In my opinion, HiLo48's actions were relatively harsh. He could have said "please improve the grammar of these edits" rather than "Sloppy English". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, maybe they'd have expressed that more mildly had their integrity not been diminished by that personal attack. How would you have responded in that instance? Again, try to view both sides rather than just the one, even and especially when you have a strong view on something. Being even-handed is a virtue to strive for. El_C 03:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will try to see the perspective of both sides in the future. It is just very difficult considering the circumstances surrounding this topic area. One thing that triggers me severely is violence, so it irritates me when people like CMD dismiss violence in Russia as being normal. For someone like me, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine is one of the most terrible things to have ever happened, on par with WWII and the Holocaust. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

As inhuman as the Russian invasion is, comparing it to the Holocaust is something I find extremely offensive. I understand the reason for the hyperbole (it happening now), but even still. I just can't. As for your accusation (ever-unproven) that CMD dismiss violence in Russia [in Russia?] as being normal, I'm not even gonna bother. We're well past that now. El_C 04:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you regard everything that I say about CMD as being an official accusation. But indeed, he was arguing that Russia has waged wars against all sorts of territories, whether inside or outside of Russia, which makes the 2022 invasion of Ukraine "just another war". As for the Holocaust, I read about it during my childhood, and I can see parallels between modern Russia and Nazi Germany. This isn't even supposed to be some kind of an insult; it's an observation. I literally believe that modern Russia is the reincarnation of Nazi Germany. You can choose to agree or disagree with me on that point. In any case, just like Nazi Germany, the Russian regime is eventually going to implode, so all that's left for me to do is wait. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I would not comment on sanctions, but JN, yes, one can reasonably argue that the current invasion is "just another war" by Russia on par with Circassian genocide, Afghan war, occupation of Baltic states, supression of Hungary in 1956, etc. And no, this is obviously not a WWII (yet), and Russia is not like Nazi Germany that occupied the entire Europe. Modern day Russia can not do anything like that, as the current war convincingly proved. My very best wishes (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

This is only not WWII yet due to how incompetent Russia's regime-military apparatus actually is. If Russia was able to, it would not hesitate to go further than Ukraine and take other regions like Poland and the Baltics as well. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course Putin would like to occupy whole Europe. But he can not do it for whatever reasons (there are several). And even speaking about Ukraine alone, he probably can not occupy it even if he resorts to nuclear weapons. My very best wishes (talk) 04:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Out of interest, your bio says that you are a native Russian speaker who lives in the US. So would you consider yourself a Russian liberal? Because not that many Russians outside of ones who watch stuff like Russian Television Network of America actually believe that Putin is out to get all of Europe. SkoraPobeda (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

"Russian liberal"? No, beyond just being a US citizen, I do not consider myself associated with any specific country or ideology. Russian in terms of culture - yes. "all of Europe"? This is not my opinion, but something Putin and his propagandists say: that their enemy is whole NATO. Yes, what they mean is probably not occupy, but destroy. Same about Ukraine. And they are very successful. For example, promoting Donald Trump was the most successful active measure by Putin's Russia. But right now their luck has ended because they destroy Russia. My very best wishes (talk) 09:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Russia is committing war crimes, not a genocide. That is an important distinction. RE: CMD, I don't understand what you mean by "official accusation." An accusation is an accusation. One which I have no idea about, and for you to expect an outside reviewer to somehow know what you know about this or that dispute so as to parse any of that — that's an unreasonable expectation. We're all mortal; none of us is omniscient. El_C 04:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

El C, when I say "official accusation", I mean an accusation wherein I'm trying to paint someone in a bad light or incriminate them. My point is that I'm not even trying to incriminate CMD. I'm not saying that he did or said anything wrong, I'm just saying that his attitude towards warfare is triggering for me since I am triggered by all forms of violence. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, this the thing: you being "triggered" by violence to such an extent obviously becomes a problem if you intend to edit topics involving any kind of armed conflict, as these are inherently violent, by definition. So when you're unable to restrain yourself from to deriding CMD, including by calling them various names (even at the AE complaint itself, multiple times), that's destructive to the editing ecosystem. For fraught topics such as these, especially, dispassionate discourse is absolutely vital, or it all just becomes a huge distraction and nothing gets done. El_C 04:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that I'm definitely not the right person to be editing in these areas, given that I can't handle violence. As I said in the arbitration discussion, I am mainly motivated to edit due to a false sense of urgency. Any edits that I'm planning to make, there are probably other editors who are also wanting to make those edits. So, I may as well sit out of the discussion entirely and let other people make those edits. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Jargo Nautilus, I appreciate you saying that. That is to your credit. I encourage you to contribute to topics that are less taxing for you. El_C 05:05, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

As for genocide, I believe that Russia's entire motivation for the Ukraine War is genocidal. Obviously, they have not yet systematically carried out a genocide on the scale of the Holocaust. Russian media and commentators have made plenty of comments about Ukraine that carry genocidal connotations. They want to assimilate the Ukrainian ethnic group into the Russian civilization, and they want to kill all of the Western sympathisers. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. don't think the motivation of the Putin regime in Ukraine is genocide. I don't see how it'd be in their interest to be motivated to do that. But if it was in their interest, somehow, and they could get away with it, I don't think they'd have any qualms about it. But the point is that it isn't a genocide, and I also think it's unlikely to become one. Hopefully, I'm not proven wrong! El_C 05:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

This is getting into off-topic territory, but the Russian invasion of Ukraine already carries some of the hallmarks of genocide due to the resettlement of Ukrainian children throughout Russia (which reminds me of the Stolen Generations in Australia). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

On that we are in agreement. El_C 05:07, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

We have a page, Allegations of genocide of Ukrainians in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.My very best wishes (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed we do, but wrt those countries, their adoption of that terminology seems more to do with politics than demography. Otherwise, what would we call the mass murder of hundreds of thousands or even millions of people? Super-genocide? Without a sense of scale relative to a given locale, the word loses its meaning.

Also, the politics, geopolitics, especially, usually matters a lot. For example, our article on the Vietnam War speaks of half a million to two million Vietnamese civilians killed, mostly as a consequence of American military action (very far from home). But who in the West calls that a "genocide"? Some, but not many.

Anyway, my point is that precise language matters as does the understanding that not all tragedies are created equal, be it politics-wise or actual demography. It's a point that extremely challenging to convey when war crimes, massacres, and mass murders are happening in real time, understandably so. But I digress; apologies for that. El_C 14:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@User:El C - I definitely view the Uyghur Genocide article under that definition. It has been labelled a genocide due to alleged sterilisation of women and mass re-education camps. However, as far as I'm aware, no large scale massacres or even small scale pogroms have taken place. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

That we know of, but fair point. Incidentally, until recently, I've been pretty much the only admin who has made use of the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Uyghur genocide sanctions regime, so I'm acutely aware of the horrors that the Chinese have brought on the Uyghurs. Also incidentally, there is a current proposal to widen the scope of that sanctions regime (here), which I am very much in favour of. El_C 15:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and I just noticed the proposal passed today (diff). Good. El_C 15:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

As you've pointed out, it is really quite tricky to define what a genocide is. We can go by both intentions/words and actions/outcomes. I am closely connected to the Cambodian Genocide since one of my close relatives was working as a lawyer in the UN tribunal. I also have close Cambodian relatives. The Cambodian Genocide was committed by ethnic-Khmer mostly against other ethnic-Khmer, albeit with some targeting of ethnic minorities as well. The main purpose of the genocide was to wipe out the former French-aligned political class as well as the educated people in the country.

As for Ukraine, even though the events right now might not exactly qualify as a genocide, there is an entry in Wikipedia's list of genocides for the Holodomor, which was a famine that occurred during Stalin's USSR that wiped out millions of Ukrainians. Presumably, it is classified as a genocide because most of the starvation occurred among Ukrainians rather than Russians, for example. Currently, in the 2022 War, Russia is stealing grain from Ukraine, blowing up other grain silos, and blocking exports of grain from Ukraine. This is not only starving the Ukrainians themselves but also the foreigners, mostly in the Middle East, that rely on this grain. Connections have been made between these contemporary developments and the Holodomor. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:36, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Problem with the Holodomor narrative is that it affected millions of Russians too in the Rostov and Kursk regions. So it's hardly a "genocide on Ukrainians" as they've portrayed it. And the stories of Russians blowing up grain silos and other Red Dawn type Hollywood evils can't really be confirmed with visual evidence. The MSM loves blaming Russia for anything now, just as the Ukrainian media has been since 2014. And showing pictures of starving children in Africa suffering because of baby-killer Putin is just to stir the emotions of the Western audience. I've personally noticed that the corporate MSM is very heavily based on selling stories using emotions instead of proof for their higher ratings. Especially when it comes to headlines, a classic case of modern yellow journalism. For example, nobody talked about how Russia personally sent millions of dollars worth in food aid to Africa after the grain issue started happening. It's convenient to leave out such actions, and only talk about *bad* *bad* *bad*, "Russia can never do anything positive." SkoraPobeda (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

You have a problem with logic because the death by hunger was arguably a genocide of Ukrainians and genocide of Russians and genocide of Kazakh people, and so on. Also, no whataboutism please. Your arguments do not make sense: Russia is not a person and are you saying that children were not killed? What surprises me here is your "passion". Happy editing. My very best wishes (talk) 06:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Narrowing the sanction

Jargo Nautilus, I thought a bit about this, and in light of our discussion above, your latest comment especially, I'm now inclined to narrow the topic ban perhaps just to modern armed conflicts in the region. Because WP:ARBEE is a very wide topic area. Its encompasses a 'region' that includes Eastern Europe, much of Central Europe, the Balkans, the Baltics, and Russia. Also, such a ban would involve countless subject matters unrelated to modern organized violence. So is that something you think you could handle? Or do you think you just need to stay away from that entire 'region' in any and all capacity? (No shame in that, on the contrary.) Please let me know. Regards, El_C 14:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@User:El C - I will be avoiding most topics to do (directly) with Russia, and anything to do with direct warfare or indirect military activities. There are a lot of people who are more qualified to edit these topic areas than I am. Most of the former Soviet Union is experiencing turbulence at the moment. Parts of Eastern Europe are not experiencing as much trouble, ironically including the Balkans. I myself am not Eastern European, although some of my close relatives are, specifically from North Macedonia. At the end of the day, I will be avoiding Russia-related topics in general since I see no benefit to even touching those areas anymore. I had a good run, but I clearly need a long break. I might return once the war is over (in ten years from now???). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm good with that. I brought up narrowing the sanction at the WP:AE complaint, so hopefully, other admins will likewise view it as you and I do. El_C 15:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Kherson referenda

For those naive people who argued that Crimea was an "insignificant" issue, well, Russia is currently in the process of annexing most of Luhansk, most of Kherson, and large portions of Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia. So, one "insignificant" issue is about to turn into five "insignificant" issues. Have fun updating the info-box map for Russia! Yes, this is a subwikeet. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

By the way, the fact that Russia is annexing Donetsk and Luhansk basically means that those two "People's Republics" that I've been arguing about for weeks will be rendered moot. Those two articles are now in the depths of history, as are the articles about their international recognition as sovereign states and their foreign relations. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh yes - [8]. And then they are going to be taken back by Ukraine, unless the American land-lease program was also a sham. It might be, given the unwillingness of Western countries to provide more offensive weapons to Ukraine, such as tanks, longer-range missiles planes, and even a lot more artillery. My very best wishes (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

My point is that some certain people over at the Talk:Russia page -- including some people who testified against me during my arbitration case -- have recently (a few weeks ago) suggested that Crimea's annexation by Russia was "no big deal" because it happens all the time (really?) and is a relatively small territory (compared to Russia, yes). Well, now that Russia is annexing 20% of Ukraine's territory (the four sham "referenda" are guaranteed to succeed), can these people really say that it's not such a big deal? When has annexing 20% of another country's territory ever not been a big deal? And it looks worse now because it's 20% of Ukraine, but back when it was Crimea -- which is just maybe 3% of Ukraine -- it was equally as bad. It's just that few foreigners cared enough about Ukraine to make a big deal out of Crimea back then. But it was always a big deal. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The one consolation prize for me is that the Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic will both effectively become defunct once they are annexed by Russia. They might retain the same nominal title, but they will cease to be anything resembling a sovereign state and will be converted into provinces of Russia. So, the entire concept of Donetsk PR and Luhansk PR being "real countries" has completely gone out the window now, unless they subsequently volunteer to leave the Russian Federation and "restore" their independence. After Russia annexes Donetsk and Luhansk PRs, they will need to be removed from the article "List of states with limited recognition" because they won't even be states at that point (they will be provinces), and their articles "Donetsk/Luhansk People's Republic" will become historical, i.e. archived. Their articles about foreign relations and foreign recognition will also effectively become irrelevant; it will be more relevant whether they are recognised as provinces of Russia, rather than recognised as sovereign states. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I will also point out that the "Republic of Crimea" was briefly an independent sovereign state (nominally, not actually) between seceding from Ukraine and acceding to Russia. It has always been known that the Donetsk and Luhansk PRs could take a similar path to Crimea. It's just that their period of nominal independence has been significantly longer. By the way, the Republic of Crimea had the same name when it was an independent state and a province of Russia, which is confusing. Previously, Crimea was known as the "Autonomous Republic of Crimea" under Ukrainian rule. And Sevastopol is also a separate legal entity from Crimea, although it's part of the Crimean Peninsula. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

On the point of Crimea... There was never a Wikipedia article about the independent sovereign state known as the "Republic of Crimea", because it only existed for a week. Instead, the article about the "Republic of Crimea" mainly discusses the Russian province that came afterwards, and only briefly mentions the independent status that came beforehand. However, the Donetsk and Luhansk PRs have existed for far too long for their pre-existing Wikipedia articles to be converted into "province of Russia" articles. Effectively, what will happen is that we will have to make entirely new articles about "Donetsk/Luhansk, province of Russia", and archive the two articles about the independent states as "historical entities". Alternatively, we could combine these articles together somehow. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:14, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

NOTE: My opinion on Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, and Artsakh is completely different. Well, for starters, I recognise Artsakh on a diplomatic level (for my own reasons), but regarding Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria, those three entities broke away from Georgia (x2) and Moldova back when the Soviet Union was dissolving in 1991. So, Georgia and Moldova have effectively never ruled over Abkhazia, South Ossetia, and Transnistria after the Dissolution of the Soviet Union (the same is true for Artsakh). On the other hand, Russia annexed Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia a long time after the Dissolution of the Soviet Union, so there is no direct connection to that event, and the five provinces were under Ukraine's administration for a long time in recent history. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, Abkhazia and South Ossetia are both populated by distinctive ethnic groups; the Abkhaz and the Ossetians. From what I know, the Abkhaz are a completely unique group (extremely unique, actually), and they are only living in Abkhazia. So, effectively, Abkhazia is the homeland of Abkhaz people, who are ethnically separate from both Georgians and Russians. Meanwhile, Ossetians are found in two places; the other place is North Ossetia, which is a province of Russia. Ossetians are not as unique as Abkhaz, but they are still separate from both Georgians and Russians nonetheless. Also, even though the Ossetians are found both inside of Georgia and inside of Russia, they are only found in two (small) places, so South Ossetia effectively is a large portion of the Ossetian homeland. Russia wants to annex Abkhazia and South Ossetia, but the Abkhaz and Ossetians are different from the Russians, and they therefore cannot be easily assimilated or absorbed. On the other hand, the populations of Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia are mostly either ethnic-Ukrainians or ethnic-Russians, both of whom can be easily assimilated and absorbed into the Russian civilization. So, this is another reason that I've always regarded the Donetsk and Luhansk PRs to be completely different from Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, of course the annexation of Crimea was a huge deal for Ukraine and Russia. What independent sovereign state known as the "Republic of Crimea", because it only existed for a week do you mean? What week? When the Crimean Parliament was taken over by Russian special forces? You say: the Abkhaz and Ossetians are different from the Russians, and they therefore cannot be easily assimilated or absorbed. Why on the Earth anyone needs to be "assimilated or absorbed"? I can not make much sense of your comments. Good luck with editing these subjects if you are not topic banned. My very best wishes (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

The "Republic of Crimea" was nominally independent between seceding from Ukraine and joining Russia. Nobody has recognised this except for Russia. Meanwhile, it is important whether an ethnic group can be "absorbed" in order to consolidate the territory. Abkhazians aren't Russians, so it is possible for them to break away from Russia. On the other hand, Donetsk is largely Russian or Ukrainian, so it is easier for the people there to be brainwashed into identifying as Russians. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

This is too much to discuss. However, speaking on your first comment (the significance of referendums and annexation), I think it is indeed significant because Putin backed himself into a corner. Now, he will have to fight for these territories until the end, the end of Russian army, of Russian state, but most probably the end of him personally. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that Russia will not hold onto Kherson and Zaporizhzhia forever. Donetsk, Luhansk, and Crimea are a bit more iffy because they've been under Russian influence/control for much longer. Indeed, I think Russia probably could have kept Crimea indefinitely if it had stopped at Crimea and not asked for more territory from Ukraine. Now that Russia has bit off more than it can chew, I think this is going to come back to bite them, and they will lose everything, including Crimea, even if it takes several years for this to happen. They weren't happy with just one small piece of Ukraine. Epic fail by Vladdy Poutine. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not just Putin and his incompetent decisions. It might be even good that he is so incompetent. Russia will remain a big danger for the entire world for as long as it has nuclear weapons. Other countries with nuclear weapons? Yes, they too. But Russia is special. My very best wishes (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm in favour of nuclear disarmament of every country that has nukes, but it would be a good idea to start with Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is impossible, and it might be remotely possible only in the event of disintegration of the country. If anything, other countries will learn a lesson that Ukraine made a huge mistake by giving up its own nuclear weapons. I checked various discussions about it. One of many questions: if Putin strikes Ukraine, what and why will other countries do beyond meaningless condemnation, ineffective economic sanctions and an isolation Putin does not care too much about? Fortunately for Ukraine, it is located in Europe. Hence, the radioactive cloud will likely travel to Europe which can be interpreted as an attack on other European countries (NATO members). They will have to really do something. But what exactly? Based on the existing options, the best of them is targeting the leader. So, as one Ukrainian commenter said, they will have to hunt Putin (and possibly a few others) down just like they do with Islamic terrorists. My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Of course the annexation is also significant in many other aspects. For example, as Fareed Zakaria correctly frames here, if these territories are now perceived by Russian leadership as a part of Russia, then there is no difference when Ukrainian forces are attacking any targets at the "former" Ukrainian territories and in other parts of Russia like the Belgorod region. Hence the US government should lift the restrictions on the use of HIMARS and provide longer-range missiles to Ukraine, should not it? Because the reason for such restriction was the Biden administration being afraid to provoke Putin. Note that US government not recognizing the annexation is irrelevant in such context, it only matters what Putin/Russian government think. Unfortunately, Lloyd Austin dodged this question. But thinking logically, this annexation frees the hands of US government to provide long-range missiles to Ukraine to hit any Russian military targets until Ural mountains.My very best wishes (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Russia - Mayhem

I've just had a look at Talk:Russia, a page that I've been warned against editing at. That page is currently undergoing mayhem. Maybe like 50,000 words characters (imprecise) since my last visit there a few weeks ago. After Russia's annexations of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia, the talk page has gone crazy. Note: The talk pages of "List of sovereign states" and "List of states with limited recognition" have also seen some action. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

It is perhaps pertinent to note that the four annexations of territory -- whilst changing a lot on paper -- don't actually change much on the ground. The fact of the matter is, Russia has been occupying 15% of Ukraine's territory (not counting Crimea and the former borders of the DPR and LPR) for over seven months now. Russia has not been making gains on the ground for months now. Indeed, Russia has actually lost territory, including a significant portion of Kharkiv and small bits of Donetsk and Kherson. Russia's economy is not doing very well. Politically, Vladimir Putin is not feeling very secure. Overall, Russia is in a precarious position at the moment. The annexation is supposed to be a "power play", in order to assert that Russia is still in control of the situation, but clearly, Russia is losing control. Russia has already lost the city of Lyman (inside Donetsk Oblast) to Ukrainian forces just a day after the annexations occurred (September 30 --> October 1). So, it's quite interesting to see Wikipedia editors making a huge fuss over the political statuses of the DPR, LPR, and Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, and Zaporizhzhia Oblasts, when the reality on the ground hasn't really changed at all. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, this is not a lot of changes. According to some historians, this annexation may open a Pandora box leading to disintegration of Russia, starting from the currently annexed territories and followed by Chechnya, Dagestan, a demographic takeover of Siberia by Chinese citizens, etc. But I must go and do something more productive. Good luck! My very best wishes (talk) 00:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

There's a lot of action on the Russia talk page, but not too many edits to the article itself. Indeed, I can't see Russia gaining any benefit from annexing Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. Things are going to go downhill from here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Simply as an entertainment, you can read this. Here is how Victor Suvorov predicted the beginning of future USSR-NATO conflict in his 1987 non-fiction. Among other things, it includes "In the United States an epidemic of some unidentified disease breaks out and spreads rapidly." That gave me a pause. A lot of other things did occur, including even the recent downfall of Boris Jonson (not sure if you know the story relating him with Lebedev [9]). Fortunately, Russia is not USSR. P.S. "A serious accident takes place on the most important oil pipeline in Alaska" (Suvorov, 1987). Well, no, that were gas pipes in Europe. My very best wishes (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

But here is the overall meaning of the writings by Suvorov: Russia/USSR was preparing to attack the collective West during the entire time of its existence. That day has come on February 24 2022 (in his latest speech and before Putin was talking a lot more about the West than Ukraine). The period of "grey terror" Suvorov was talking about continued many years before and included promotion of Brexit, Donald Trump, etc. If Donal Trump was reelected, then the entire Ukraine (and Belarus) would be annexed by now, and the entire Ukraine were one big Bucha. My very best wishes (talk) 10:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Kherson

Hi

an infobox change is needed. Panam2014 (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

What change are you requesting? The change I can think of is indicating that Kherson Oblast is disputed between Ukraine and Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast Panam2014 (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

We'll have to have a discussion about that on the talk page. Currently, the entity is referred to as the "Kherson military-civilian administration", although the official name is now just "Kherson Oblast", according to the Russian government. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

It should be changed. Panam2014 (talk) 02:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I probably won't be the one to do that, at least not right now. I need to have a break. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 02:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

I did it. I had a break and then did it. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

You should change infobox for Crimea and add info about breakway state.--Panam2014 (talk) 01:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

You should do the same for Kherson than to DPL LPR and Republic of Crimea. Panam2014 (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I've just spent the past ten hours editing these articles. All of them. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Chechnya

Absolutely beautiful. --> Ukrainian recognition of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria

I myself have already recognised Chechnya as an independent state for several months now. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Yep. You should realize that it was also recognized by Russia itself as a de facto independent state by signing the Khasavyurt Accord and Russia–Chechnya Peace Treaty. But there is one little problem. Putin does not respect any agreements that Russia signed. My very best wishes (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Russia - a universe of its own

When the war broke out, I was extremely outraged. In Russia, however, they are pretending that everything is okay. I accuse Russia of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity. For the Russians, it's just another day. I tell them that Russia could collapse tomorrow. They continue to shill for the regime. I say that Putin will fall sooner rather than later. They keep licking his boots. Russia; it is in a universe of its own. And Russians are not aware of the society collapsing around them. Or, more accurately I think, they are indeed aware, and they are simply in denial about the gravity of their situation. When Russia collapses, these people will be left wondering what it was that they were ever fighting for. The valiant footmen, grasping at straws to defend the falling empire. Your desperate efforts will be remembered. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Fibs

Regarding the comment in this edit summary, you may find this section - part of WP:5P4 - of interest (note point 2(d)). While I'm here, in RFCs generally it's best to observe quite strict adherence to WP:TPO and WP:REDACT. Striking any of your own comments that have already been replied to may cause less disagreement, but if (only if) no-one has replied to them it's usually OK to remove/edit them. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

As Gitz6666 has edited comments of yours to which there has been no reply, I've tried to restore them to the last version by you (from this diff). Please check that this is the version of the comments you wish to remain, as your edit summary suggests you edited them at the behest of another editor. Collapsing of comments should generally not be done at all in a RFC unless clearly uncontroversial. I warned Gitz6666 about editing your comments. Cambial — foliar❧ 20:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I don't believe that Gitz's act of collapsing my comments could be described as a "reply", and he is twisting the facts by saying that it was one. Furthermore, Gitz's act of collapsing my comments was clearly an escalation. Previously, he had not replied to my comments after a few days, and upon seeing my comments, decided to "nuke" them. Indeed, a more civil approach from User:Gitz would have been to message me at my talk page and advise me of my alleged wrongdoing, and then ask me to remove or strike-through the comments of my own accord. Clearly, he was not interested in a civil resolution, and instead decided to resort to inflammatory measures. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Advice I was given in similar circumstances: walls of text discourage administrator action. The thread is in a good place right now. (Tho way too long) and my suggestion is that you go silent and give administrators a chance to read it. Alternately, this may actually belong at Arbcom, where there is a limit on length. But I would ask somebody else more attuned to these contentious waters about that before opening a thread yourself. Give him half a chance and he'll hang himself there. All I know is that Ukraine is considered Eastern Europe. And the thread I linked was closed because the parties posted a deluge. HtH Elinruby (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

My goal is not to get Gitz blocked/banned. I myself have also gotten into trouble several times before for differing reasons. Hence I'm not super keen to attack people. Bear in mind that this dispute began when Gitz collapsed my comments because he didn't like them. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think his behaviour will change, personally. And his behaviour is, in my opinion, a net negative for Wikipedia. It isn't merely that he is sufficiently misguided to parrot Putin; he creates drama at AN/I for those who disagree with him. In the past I have been somewhat sympathetic, believing him sincerely confused, perhaps due to party membership. I now question this, although I am unwilling to invest my time and energy in "getting" him. But having watched him at some length, I just want you to know, first of all, that I think you are right to argue this point (Russian constitution), but he will post another wall of text every time you answer him. It is natural to feel the need to defend oneself when someone is saying things that aren't true about one and asking for sanctions, but at this point you have done so. My turn in the AN/I spotlight had nothing to do with him, btw, but I have spoken up on some of his spurious reports. As I did here, pointing out the pattern of behaviour that I perceive. So far none of these reports have gone anywhere because nobody wants to wade through the walls of text. But the chilling effect also seems to be real. I just want to tell you that IMHO calm will go a long way. I do not think he should have collapsed your remarks, although I am not sure what the policy is on that: I have seen it done, including to me, when it may have been called for. My advice is just that you have said your piece and it will now be more effective if you move on to something else while admins decide what to do. I realize the advice is unsolicited and will not be upset if you ignore it, but I think you will be better off if you don't. Over and out. Elinruby (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit confusing how he says he is not pro-Putin and yet constantly pushes pro-Putin talking points. It's a bit like those people who say "I'm not racist, but...". As for the constitutional argument, well, it's gotten a bit out of hand; recently, in the RfC, one user has commented that "if Russia were to claim Western Australia as a republic of Russia, then it would automatically become a republic of Russia even with zero control of the territory". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:58, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Bear in mind that, in order for us to recognise every constitutional statement by Russia as an undeniable fact, we first have to recognise the legitimacy of Russia as a country/government. Personally, I do not recognise Russia as a sovereign state (I recognise it as a gap in the world map, a bit like Greenland and Western Sahara -- "the Great Sea of Russland"). Given that I don't recognise Russia, it goes without saying that I don't recognise anything within Russia's constitution or the Russian constitution itself, let alone some illegal constitutional amendments that were recently added to it. This is the fatal flaw in the pro-constitution argument that certain users are making (they are ignoring the flaw intentionally, of course); they are working on the assumption that Russia is automatically a legitimate country/government and that Russia's constitution is automatically a legitimate document, and hence everything in the constitution must automatically be true. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

There are some deep issues of sovereignty here, and I am not sure what the Wikipedia policy is. Playing devil's advocate for a moment - the United States passed a law early in the 20th century, whose name currently escapes me, making Native Americans US citizens. Opinion about this seems to be divided among Native Americans; Navaho I have spoken to regard the law and irrelevant and consider themselves a separate country surrounded by the United States. Similarly, Texas and Quebec consider themselves separate countries, and so do some people in Scotland. But this is not that; there seems to be convincing evidence that the "separatists" in Donbas and Crimean are in fact almost all Russian military. Given the number of demonstrably false statements made by Russian officials, I see no reason to give the Russian government credence when it claims to be annexing, evacuating, or protecting anyone, particularly in the face of mainstream reporting to the contrary.

TL;DR=I agree with you. The current Russian government is a kleptocracy that spews an amazing amount of bullshit as a matter of policy. Which means there is always other bullshit that can be cleaned up elsewhere, if mental serenity requires declining to engage at a given moment. I am taking a wikibreak from 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine page but am among those who maintain that NPOV does not require us to repeat blatant lies there. Yes, Western governments also are capable of propaganda, but one of these things is not like the other; Western governments for the most part are not wholesale denying consensus reality. At least not at the moment and not in Ukraine. An argument might be made for Afghanistan or Iraq, perhaps, or even the Trump administration. It might be worthwhile for one of us to investigate whether Wikipedia considers that state actors are reliable sources for even their own actions. The answer to reliable source questions is always "it depends" but it might be possible to craft a question that sparks a discussion of any preconceptions in Wikipedia policy, which is the framework that we are given to work within. Come to think of it, maybe WP:NPOVN is a better venue. And maybe I should ask it since I am not currently arguing with anyone about Russia. I will give it some thought. Thanks for an interesting response. Feel free to ping me on this or other matters if you feel so moved. Elinruby (talk) 06:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I just noticed that you have an open case at Arbcom in which Gitz played a role. As a result, I'd like to amend my friendly advice to you. First, stop responding to him. Whether or not my opinion of him is correct, he is not your friend, and the wall of text comments apply to you as well. Walk away. I think it is very arrogant of him to attempt to police your behaviour, given his own, but your Arbcom case is still open and can still be revisited. Second, El_C threw you a lifeline. Take it. Go find some other bullshit to work on, and watch out for your tendency to grandstand. Remember: Calm. Dispassionate. Facts. Get a blog if you want to write about your opinion of Russia. Third, My very best wishes and Volunteer Marek are good editors to cooperate with when working in Eastern Europe, as they are familiar with the history. I say this even though I have disagreed with both. Vehemently. However, if you are having a little trouble being dispassionate, there is a lot wrong in Eastern Europe in the moment and maybe you should practice on some historical topic, such as the Lost Generation you mentioned. I feel the need to be this blunt because I agreed with you above, but it is important that you do not take this as encouragement to argue with Gitz. You are a little too close to your topic ban, and for your own good you need to WP:DROPTHESTICK. While these comments are blunt they are also intended as friendly advice, and I hope you will take them as such. Elinruby (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

"...state actors are reliable sources for even their own actions..." - I'm wary about this point. Recently, I challenged the usage of the source TASS for reporting Russia's annexation of a part of Mykolaiv Oblast, which users were referring to as the "Snihurivka Raion" (and the Kinburn Peninsula). The main user whom I was debating with said that TASS is a reliable source for this particular piece of information because it's a Russian mouthpiece reporting a Russian action. Indeed, while TASS is a Russian mouthpiece, it isn't necessarily an official one; I can't verify whether Putin has legally classified TASS as his personal mouthpiece or whether it just de facto acts as Putin's mouthpiece (the latter is more likely). Furthermore, I know from experience that Chinese mouthpieces often aren't 100% connected to the government and can sometimes even work against their own government (within the limits of the CCP's extensive control); the situation of the press is likely similar in Russia. I do know that for general purposes, TASS is a terrible source, since most of what they say about the outside world tends to be largely fabricated. If they can't be trusted to report reliably on information outside of Russia, then I'm not sure that they can be trusted about information from inside of Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, regarding that arbcom case, I'm not sure why it is still open. Indeed, the reason I tend to draw a lot of attention from pro-Russia editors is that I tend to state my anti-Russia views openly. In the most recent dispute with Gitz, I don't think I necessarily did or said anything terribly wrong; I believe that he merely just didn't like my comments. Nonetheless, I made an attempt to resolve the dispute peacefully by deleting the parts that I thought were a bit too opinionated. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you're the one with the currently open Arbcom case so the open question is whether you can control yourself. I understand that you were trying to resolve the dispute. It's a good rule of thumb, however, not to mess with anything another editor has done on a talk page. Regardless of who "started it". Look there, is a whole list of thousands of articles that need help at the Community Portal. Work on one of them for a while. Or go for a run or something. Part of adulting is learning to let other people be wrong, because the only person in the exchange you can control is yourself. Hope that helps Elinruby (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that it didn't occur to me that deleting my own comments would be viewed as a crime by Gitz (indeed, I can't see how it could possibly be viewed as a crime... that just doesn't make any sense to me). Clearly, Gitz is acting in bad faith, because he refuses to co-operate with me even when I am acting in good faith. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I suspect you are right but it doesn't matter what you or I think of him; he is not currently the issue, even if we think he should be. Do not try to explain to him that he is wrong, or he will post a wall of text to which you will feel a need to respond. Unless you want to be banned from Eastern Europe altogether? Maybe that would be easier for you. Exactly how young are you? A lot of grown-ups have trouble acting like adults -- lord knows I have had the problem -- so if you are less than about 15 maybe it is just too soon for you to be working on documenting this war in the face of the gaslighting that takes place in the topic area. Elinruby (talk) 08:22, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not that young. I'm 21. I started editing Wikipedia when I was 17. I started editing Wikia (sister website) when I was around 12. I'm a young adult, so not a kid but also not a whole lot of life experience. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:48, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Then you can do this and it is a skill that will help you outside of Wikipedia as well. Elinruby (talk) 08:53, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

My opinion on Russia is extremely negative at the present moment. I don't believe that observing an NPOV means stating both the Russian and Ukrainian viewpoints on various matters; to me, this is "bothsideism" or a "false balance". Indeed, it is actually quite difficult for me to personally comprehend how there are seemingly so many people (mostly Putin-sympathisers and far-right/left people in the West) who are completely indifferent to the horrors that are currently unfolding in Ukraine. I've always been concerned about humanitarian issues. One of my close relatives is a human rights lawyer who has helped to prosecute war criminals for the United Nations (I myself do not hold such a profession on account of my relatively young age). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah. Perhaps your close relative can give you tips on how to channel the outrage in a productive way. Because the problem we have here is that you need to prevent them from being able to make you the issue. Elinruby (talk) 08:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Community_portal Elinruby (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the link. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Currently, I am studying music, which could be called my "profession" at the present time. I do believe that music is one of the best outlets for channeling emotions. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

A lot of passion in that area too, but a minimum of violence. Might be an idea. Also, if you speak any other languages, we always need translators. There is a section at the Community Portal for that list. Elinruby (talk) 08:25, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Alternately: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music Elinruby (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry if I gave offence - I just named everyone who had contributed on the page frequently, in the hope that that would be more neutral, which it seems not to have been. I agree that your comments shouldn't have been edited by another user. Furius (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi Furius, no worries. I have been busy and hence haven't been weighing in on the conversation for a while. Was just letting you know that I'm already basically inactive from the conversation. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: Aaron Mate

With regards to some of your comments in this section: note that we give the subject of BLPs considerable leeway to complain about their article content and such complaints should not be regarded as canvassinging per se. That is not to say that we should automatically edit the article to satisfy the subject of the BLP or be blind to the sudden influx of motivated editors; only that we as wikipedia editors should focus on evaluating the merits of the complaint and try to ignore the possibly intemperate terms in which the objections may have been raised. Abecedare (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Nonetheless, I do believe that if Aaron Mate has specifically pinpointed Wikipedia editors such as Volunteer Marek on his social media accounts, then that is not helpful behaviour. This in particular has me concerned since it could amount to slander and harassment. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:26, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I understand your concern. Here's my advice:

• On the article talkpage focus solely on sources and content. Remember that it is important not to weaponize wikipedia articles to "punish" BLP subject's whose own, or followers', off-wiki conduct annoys wikipedia editors.
• Raise any on-wiki editor conduct issues at the relevant noticeboards or with individual admins
• Raise any off-wiki conduct issues by sending an email to an admin or to WP:ARBCOM, depending upon the issue and need for privacy

I am intentionally being circumspect here per WP:BEANS but you can email me if you have any particular on/off-wiki conduct in mind, and I can at least guide you to the right venue to report it to. Abecedare (talk) 01:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I only learnt about the alleged off-wiki conduct from other users in that discussion that I started which you closed. Indeed, I have personally checked Twitter to see if any shenanigans have been going on. From what I can see, there's been a mild amount of problematic behaviour from Aaron Mate, but he has only made one tweet so far singling out the Wikipedia users Volunteer Marek and Valjean. If the behaviour continues, then I might file a report, but for now, it seems that things have died down from Mate's end. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:12, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek is clearly an activist editor as are you. And it's clear from your own confessions on this page that you are not here to edit in line with NPOV. Maybe you should consider those facts before you engage in behaviour inconsistent with Wikipedia's policies on BLP.~~~~ ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Supporting Ukraine in the context of the Russian invasion is not a violation of NPOV. Indeed, I hold the opinion that presenting the Ukrainian and Russian positions equally is a case of bothsideism or a false balance. Ukraine clearly did not deserve to be invaded nor Ukrainians massacred. Russia's invasion of Ukraine has resulted in thousands of civilian deaths as Russia indiscriminately bombs populated areas. Regardless of your opinion on Russia's sphere of influence, it is undeniable that Russia's actions in Ukraine are inhumane and barbaric. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Understanding evil

As a child, I was led to believe that evil was a thing of the past. Indeed, in my country, it largely is. I live in one of the safest and most developed countries of our time. However, evil is largely still alive in other parts of the world. It has never gone away, and we must fight against it now as we've always done so in the past. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 04:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Note: This comment was made in response to viewing some of the images at the article Bucha massacre. The crimes that have been committed by Russia against Ukrainian civilians are grotesque. Russia is one of the main evils of our time. It is a shame, since I don't believe that Russia has always been this way. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry to have caused this distress but I guess you understand the need for a shower. I don't think it's "Russia" though. Look at all the people there who protested knowing what would happen to them. I think it is fascist oligarchs in general and Putin in particular. It makes a difference. Russia is a concept and Putin is a man. My very best wishes talked me down off a ledge once (metaphorically) so he or she is capable of giving a damn about someone else. I really don't think that Putin cares about anyone else. At all. Renenber what I said though. Do not get into an argument on Wikipedia Elinruby (talk) 08:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

True, I don't think it's "Russia" per se. But remember, identity is just a social construct after all. At the present time, a large part of what it means to be Russian is to support Vladimir Putin. I've mentioned this somewhere else, but it is actually possible for people of Russian descent to not identify as Russians, even if they ostensibly originate from Russia. Russia is ultimately just an idea, just as every other country is. Indeed, Gitz has made reference to this concept when he claims that "federal subjects are imaginary concepts created by governments that do not need to correspond to pieces of land in real life". That notion about federal subjects can be extended to countries themselves; countries are imaginary, and land is real (as are the people, animals, plants, etc. living on the land). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 08:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

You quite literally state on your own bio that you do not recognise Russia as a legitimate state. You are being dishonest here, because you have been called out for what is essentially xenophobia. Stop it. And consider ceasing your clearly emotionally driven, POV editing of this site.ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

There's a distinction between (1) Russia, the people and (2) Russia, the sovereign state. The fact that I do not recognise Russia as a sovereign state does not mean that I hold animosity towards Russian people in general. With that being said, I despise anyone and everyone who supports Vladimir Putin, which coincidentally includes a large proportion of the Russian population. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

there is a problem on the Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast where the control of cities one of them is missing the pop and looks messed up can you fix that please 141.193.239.153 (talk) 23:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Done. The table in the "Russian occupation of Kherson Oblast" article is actually a template that originates from the article "Territorial control during the Russo-Ukrainian War". Diff. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

oh my bad thank you for the information 141.193.239.153 (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Russian war crimes

I accidentally placed this comment in an archive. I've reverted it and I'm moving it here for safekeeping.

Literally, if Russia didn't do these crimes, then who did? Russia has accused Ukraine of committing these crimes against their own citizens, but this notion is preposterous. No one takes the idea seriously that Ukraine has been massacring its own civilians. Ergo, the killings must have been committed by Russia, unless it is possible to identify some kind of third party that is neither Russia nor Ukraine (e.g. an unaffiliated terrorist group). Overall, the notion that the crimes are merely "alleged" because they haven't been "proven" to have been committed by Russia is absurd. Reading through some of the comments left by Gitz here, I think I am losing brain cells by the second, so I'm going to stop now before I need to be placed in an intensive care unit. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you will be surprised, but there is a lot of Russians, even here in the US, who still believe that Bucha was staged, that Ukrainian forces massacre their own civilians in their houses, and most importantly, that Russian military are "good guys" who came to save ordinary Ukrainians from their fascists. I talked with some of them. Is it really so surprising given the number of people in the US who believe in QAnon, that the elections were stolen and that Donald Trump was making America "great again"? Here is how it works. These people take their core belief, e.g. "We Russians are always good guys", as an axiom that must be always true. One doctor gave the following example. Consider a mental patient who believes that he is a corpse. Doctor: "Do you really think that corpse can run?". Patient: "Yes, sure, because I can run, and I am a corpse". Note that the patient can think logically, and he is just fine in all other aspects. Some others admit that the excesses of war are inevitable, and that they are strongly against the war, meaning the Ukrainians must stop warring and accept that the Crimea and Donbass are Russian territories. My very best wishes (talk) 03:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Propaganda works. My neighbor went full-on anti-vax, then got covid, and still thinks he was correct because, after all, he survived it. Elinruby (talk) 09:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I think the section on my talk page titled "Understanding evil" can alternatively be titled "Understanding idiot". Indeed, conspiracy theorists exist in every country. Nonetheless, everyone with half a brain knows that Russia committed the atrocities in Bucha. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Fun fact. In Australia, the same national broadcaster, which has pushed exclusively the Ukrainian line in the conflict since Feb, pushed vaccine misinformation about Russian and Chinese vaccines during 2020, because of our country's geopolitical interests. Oh wait, that's not very fun. That's a media source, trusted widely by the public deliberately lying about vaccines, during a pandemic.

There's a reason why people go anti-vax in that kind of climate. And there's a reason why the editor you're on the talk page of here is so wildly misinformed about Ukraine's conduct in this war that they're asserting that there has been no intra-Ukrainian violence. Both have the same cause. Both need to be argued against on this platform.ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

...intra-Ukrainian violence. - Please do not spread disinformation (not mis-, dis-) on my user talk page about the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. I will report you for spreading falsehoods. Bear in mind that my own opinion about recognising Russia is not a falsehood since I'm not saying that Russia objectively doesn't exist; I'm just indicating my opinion in that I don't recognise Russia personally. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, as I said, I'm happy to provide reliable sources backing up that fact. Your statements on Russia may be your opinion, but they also demonstrate your intention to be an activist on this site, which only serves to make it clear that you are not here in good faith.ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

You have demonstrated your own hatred against Ukrainian people by promoting the Russian government's propaganda narrative about its illegal invasion of Ukraine across various talk pages on Wikipedia. There are zero reliable sources that show that Ukraine has committed atrocities against its own citizens (note: such activities are not unheard of, such as in the context of the Chinese Civil War+Second Sino-Japanese War, in which the Kuomintang/Republic of China did actually kill its own citizens in well-documented events), and promoting such theories without evidence can be regarding as spreading conspiracy theories. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Which 'war'? There is no 'war', but a 'special military operation'. You do not know Russian politics or prefer to ignore it? Xx236 (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

There are well documented, widespread war crimes committed by Ukraine against it's own citizens, in reliable sources. I can direct you to some of them if you're unconvinced by my assertions. The fact that you're so opinioniated, and acting as an activist on a website that intends to produce NPOV, encyclopaedic content specifically on a topic that you appear to be grossly uninformed on speaks volumes to the level of information warfare that has been conducted on these topics, and I'm truly sorry that you're so confused and emotional about these topics. But you need to take a step back, reflect on why you know so little about these subjects, and apologise to the people you are attacking out of ignorance.ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Your source = Crazy Russian uncle knows the truth about the special military operation in Nazikraine! Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

This is a personal attack, and totally unbecoming of a Wikipedia editor. You betray yourself repeatedly.ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 13:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe that you need to have another look through Wikipedia's policies about personal attacks in order to discern what a personal attack actually is. I don't believe that my comment above constitutes a personal attack. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

"There are well documented, widespread war crimes committed by Ukraine against it's own citizens, in reliable sources." I assume that ConfusedAndAfraid is talking about this section of our page War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Placement_of_military_objectives_near_civilian_objects included per an RfC. I do agree that describing this as Ukrainian war crimes is a blatant misinformation in WP, but there is little I can do about it beyond something I already did. So whatever. This is no longer my responsibility. Try to fix this page if you wish. I will not, in part because this is an extremely painful subject for someone like me. My very best wishes (talk) 16:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

• Look at this. My very best wishes (talk) 05:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

  Is anyone surprised? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

North Caucasus economic region

I propose deletion. Xx236 (talk) 12:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Xx236 - Have you actually created an Articles for Deletion discussion page? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

If PROD doesn't work then I will. Xx236 (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't realise that there was such a thing as "proposed deletion". However, I believe that you need to start a talk page discussion about the deletion, particularly since you didn't write a sufficient edit summary to explain the proposed deletion (however, you did write the reason within the actual proposed deletion itself in the article). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of North Caucasus economic region

The article North Caucasus economic region has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Based on pre-2014 sources describes Russian imperialistic opinion as a fact

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Xx236 (talk) 13:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that the article should not be deleted but instead modified. The article is legitimate with regards to the territories that are located within Russia, such as Rostov Oblast. However, the parts that are inside of Ukraine and have been "claimed annexed" by Russia are non-NPOV, and this needs to be addressed somehow. The statement "The major cities are... ...Zaporozhye..." is obviously problematic given that Russia doesn't even control Zaporizhzhia (called "Zaporozhye" in Russian). Additionally, the cities of Ukraine that Russia does control are also problematic to be included, such as Donetsk. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 13:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I would urge you to look at this editors own bio, where they proclaim themselves to be an anti-Russian activist, as well as their clearly bad faith attacks on NPOV edits/editors.ConfusedAndAfraid (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Please take note of the distinction between (1) Russia as a group of people and (2) Russia as a sovereign state. I am opposed to Russia as a sovereign state, but I do not hold any prejudices against Russian people in general, with the exception of those Russians who support Vladimir Putin. I oppose any notion that I hold racist views against the people of Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Texas

Texas is not "a province" it's a state. 178.120.56.62 (talk) 16:02, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I use the word "province" as a catchall term for all national subdivisions. So, I regard "states" (in the Australian or American sense), autonomous regions, independent cities, territories (e.g. Northern Territory in Australia), and actual provinces as all provinces. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:03, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of islands of Taiwan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matsu.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Reaper5680

Hi, thank you for your warning regarding Reaper5680's possible sockpuppetry but I think it is not necessary to explain to him the reasons behind the SPI; it might encourage him to start another account and avoid the mistakes that gave him away. Just my point of view. In any case, thank you for spotting it. WikiHannibal (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@WikiHannibal - I've given Reaper5680 the benefit of the doubt. No malice is intended towards him, and if he intends to improve his behaviour, then, by all means, he should be given that opportunity. Nonetheless, his most recent comment at his talk page does lend some doubt as to whether he is capable of that (e.g. "Western disinformation elites like you"). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:55, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topics alert - Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts

You have recently made edits related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts. This is a standard message to inform you that Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Indefinite topic ban from modern armed conflicts in Eastern Europe including the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

You have been sanctioned for your conduct at Talk:2022–2023 blockade of the Republic of Artsakh including bludgeoning discussions [10] as well as personalising disputes and casting aspersions [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. This follows the discussion in this AE thread from September 2022 and the thread with El C above which, while the topic ban wasn't actually imposed, should have been a severe wake up call to you.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

This edit is a violation of your topic ban as it relates to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. I've reverted it and won't take any further action (such as a block) but you need to be cautious of any further violations. Make sure that you read WP:TBAN and WP:BANEX so that you're clear on what you can and can't do. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I thought I was clarifying a relevant piece of info... Oh well. Other users can certainly confirm what I said. It was just one sentence. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Bear in mind that there is an ongoing discussion about content within the article (i.e., something which I'm forbidden from commenting on) within the talk page section at your talk page that I opened up about my topic-ban, because for some reason, Grandmaster decided to start the discussion there instead of in a new talk page section. I don't see how this is appropriate since it means that I'm not allowed to comment inside of part of the talk page section that I myself opened? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

On the other hand, ZaniGiovanni's complaints about Abrvagl can probably stay in the section that I opened up for now (given how Abrvagl was the person directly responsible for reporting me, in spite of his own problematic behaviour). Nonetheless, if that discussion becomes derailed (which might happen if Abrvagl begins to comment there), then I think that discussion should be moved to a new talk page section as well. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems that both sections (Grandmaster and ZaniGiovanni) have been split out now. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocked from editing

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for breaching your topic ban with this edit this edit which is clearly about the topic area you are banned from and follows my warning to you above, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

@Callanecc - I don't see how this comment was about the topic area. My point was that I specifically wasn't personally attacking Grandmaster because I was criticising his content, not his character. I believe this temporary block is unwarranted. I believe it may be fair to call in another admin to investigate this case. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to appeal the unblock using the instructions above if you want the block reviewed by others. However, as I warned you about above, mentioning the topic area is itself a violation of the topic ban except in very limited circumstances such as asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban but not to relitigate other editors' behaviour within the area you're banned from. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your comment does not make sense. Do you not remember that it was you who clarified that "a personal attack is when you criticise the person, and not the content"? In that comment on your talk page, I was directly challenging my topic-ban and your accusations against me by pointing out that one of the comments of mine (which you yourself had highlighted as a reason for my topic-ban) was not really a personal attack since it was directly related to the content. Somehow, the fact that I've explained that the comment was directly related to the content means that I'm currently discussing the content. To me, this is a circular logic and doesn't compute. I've called in another admin (one of the admins involved with my Ukraine sanctions) to corroborate this. /// EDIT: I'm correct. It doesn't make sense, because the blocking admin made a mistake and linked the wrong diff/comment into the blocking template, which means I wasted some fifteen minutes of my life responding to the wrong block explanation. If you're going to block me, at least do it correctly the first time. It seems like there's some trigger-happy blocking going on when the diffs aren't even accurate. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@User:El C - Hi, sorry to bother you, but I want to inquire about sanctions against myself in which you are somewhat connected. An unrelated admin has indef blocked me with regards to my Armenia-related edits, piggybacking off my Ukraine-related edits (which are two distinct but related topics). At this admin's talk page, he told me that my comments qualified as "personal attacks" because I had been discussing a person's quality of character, and not the quality of content. Subsequently, I argued that I actually had been discussing the quality of content, and that the user's name was only mentioned because he's the person who primarily wrote the content. Just now, the admin blocked me entirely for 24 hours because he's says that my subsequent comment was directly related to the content, which I'm not allowed to discuss, but I disagree. My comment was actually not about the content itself but was instead arguing that the specific "personal attack" comment was actually about the content. /// EDIT: This comment is largely irrelevant now since I've discovered that the blocking admin made a mistake and linked the wrong diff/comment into the blocking template. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Note: I concede that I did actually write some comments that were purely a personal attack. But I also pointed out that the person who reported me for this personal attack had also launched similar personal attacks against myself and another user beforehand. So, at that point, it was a free-for-all, and the discussion as a whole was uncivil, not just my comments alone. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Just noting that El C hasn't edited for a few weeks so you might not get a response from them in the short term. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, since the ban is only temporary. But I do want to rectify this temporary ban (if it goes on my record somehow) because I believe it is unwarranted. Personally, I believe you are being quite strict potentially because you have no interest in discussing my topic-ban further and want to move on (just a guess). But I don't see how it is fair that you are so harsh against me personally when the behaviour of the other editors involved in the discussion clearly isn't perfect either (I mean, from the looks of things, it seems that two of them are currently involved in some kind of arbitration dispute over behaviour). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that the behaviour of other editors is perfect what I'm saying is that it isn't relevant to you now that you're banned from having anything to do with the topic area. So far you've really only taken issue with whether or not the 'personal vendetta' comment is a personal attack even if it isn't I used it as an example of the problematic conduct which is still exemplified by the others. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

But as I said, one of my personal attack comments was basically a copypasta of a similar type of personal attack comment that had been thrown at me only shortly beforehand. Obviously, the other users involved didn't have a pre-existing open arbitration case (well, actually, it seems that two of them do, but it's not as severe as my one), which is why my punishment was more severe (it was more or less compounded). Nonetheless, I do think I'm correct to point out that the entire discussion had been uncivil, and I was simply reacting to an already unsavoury situation. The best option would have been to pull out at the second that I saw trouble, and report it immediately. Next time, I will do exactly that. /// EDIT: Alternatively, I could just pull out altogether for a period of time, since reporting the other user could backfire, especially when they are particularly determined to get me banned. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, from memory, I recall that I came up with the idea for my "copypasta" personal attack due to being directly inspired by the personal attack that I myself had received. It didn't even occur to me at the time that this qualified as a personal attack since the other user had been doing the same thing and seemingly got away with it. Actually, the other user cited a specific Wikipedia guideline, which made it look a bit more legitimate, but in retrospect, it really was pretty much the same as what I did. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

To make matters more interesting, I actually received the inspiration to identify the personal attack (which just now got me temp-blocked) due to having a nightmare about being psychologically abused (something I have suffered a lot throughout my life). I literally woke up in the morning angry due to the nightmare, and it reminded me of the discussions that I'd been having with Abrvagl. So, I didn't actually comb through the discussions in order to find that comment. I literally just remembered it off the top of my head. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

@User:Callanecc - Mate, the comment of mine which you recently deleted from your talk page due to being a "Tban violation" isn't even the same comment that you highlighted as the offending comment in the template above. Indeed, the offending comment is actually still up, whereas the comment that you took down seemingly wasn't actually a Tban according to the template that you filled out above. Obviously, you're free to delete whatever comments you want from your own talk, so I don't really care (I could always bring up this dispute against Abrvagl at arbitration some other time), but nonetheless, I don't see how you can make such a seemingly major mistake whilst simultaneously imposing such harsh penalties. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the one I undid (the most recent one) I've corrected it on the notice above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:25, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

In that case, it seems that the comment you deleted is the one which you highlighted as a Tban, which means that my previous comments in this discussion are largely irrelevant since I thought you were talking about the other comment. With regards to the comment that you deleted, it seems that you are saying that I'm not allowed to accuse another user of misbehaving in the same topic area from which I was banned. No worries, the accusations still hold ground regardless of who is throwing them. And, in one of the accusations, it was actually between Abrvagl and ZaniGiovanni, and not involving myself, which means that this particular grievance is actually relevant to the current arbitration dispute between those two users (and could potentially be used as evidence by ZaniGiovanni). I haven't investigated their case very closely, but it seems that Abrvagl is currently trying to get ZaniGiovanni in trouble (I can't imagine why). Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't report you

Hi Jargo. Hope you are doing well. Your recent comments indicate that you believe it was me who reported you. I just want to clarify that I had no involvement with your block and I did not report you. Have a nice day! A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 18:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

You accused me of personally attacking Grandmaster, which prompted Callanecc to permanently block me from editing the topic. By the way, the specific comment that you reported was not really a personal attack, according to Callanecc's own definition, since that particular comment was primarily targeted at the content, and not at the person. Meanwhile, one of the other comments that Callanecc cited as the reason for my block was literally a copypasta of a comment that you had directed towards me earlier, so I'm not sure of the logic there. Two of the other diffs were from my talk page, wherein you reported me and I responded and then deleted the section that you opened. That leaves just one last diff (number five), which was from the BLP noticeboard, wherein I said that I'm Australian and everyone else is either Armenian or Azerbaijani (at least in some form or another). I also said that everyone is editing in favour of their own side, but I previously saw the exact same kinds of comments in various discussion threads that were promoting this article to be pinned on the front page (i.e. "the article is too pro-Armenian"). So, at the end of the day, I don't think I did one particular thing that was extremely grievous. Furthermore, your report of me counted for 60% of the diffs that Callanecc cited to justify the topic-ban. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

EDIT: There's actually a sixth diff which just directs towards the talk page's history and accuses me of bludgeoning. This might be partially true if you consider my rapid-fire comments to be bludgeoning, but nonetheless, I tend to try not to repeat my points too many times. Usually, my extra comments are actually adding new information that I didn't possess earlier. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:35, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Note also: In the most recent 24-hour Wikipedia-wide block that Callanecc imposed on me several hours ago, he linked the incorrect diff in the blocking template. This only makes me doubt even more his reasoning for blocking me. How am I supposed to know whether the six diffs that he linked previously are accurate? Out of seven diffs, at least one of them was incorrect. That doesn't inspire much confidence. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

By the way, I have mostly forgiven you and have no real interest to "relitigate". I gave up on formally appealing the topic-ban at the outset because I don't have the energy to pursue such an ultimately futile task, at least not in the immediate term. In the meantime, I have been doing some productive things in real life. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Recent situation

I don't know who's right and who's wrong, this is friendly advice: think before you write. Even if they are true, many things should not be written at Wikipedia. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, you do not have to ask me twice. I actually hate this website now. I don't want to get involved in any more editing disputes at this website ever again. The last time I was involved in a dispute was back in February 2023, and I thought it would be the end of it then. But now I have randomly been attacked again, a whole eight months later. Where is the justice? How can I ever quit this website if other people keep forcing me to return? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

No one is forcing you to return. If you want to leave and not care about Wikipedia anymore then do that. What happens on Wikipedia therefore no longer concerns you including anything that may or may not happen with this account so there is absolutely no reason to check out your talk page or edit your userpage or make any other edits anywhere on Wikipedia. Note however you can't have it both ways. You continued to make a small number of edits until quite recently, before you were accused of sockpuppetry. You can't simultaneously expect to be able to make these edits but for no one to people able to call out possible behavioural issues including suspected sockpuppetry.

My advice to you is if you have email notifications turned on, then please turn them or or even delete your email from your account. Then logoff and do not ever log back in. Do not edit wikipedia either as an IP or with any different accounts and try your best not to ever think about this account ever again. If you are ever incorrectly accused of sockpuppetry again in the future, it doesn't concern you since you're not editing Wikipedia. We can sort that our ourselves without any need for your input.

Your history likely means your account won't be eligible for the WP:RTV but you can still scramble your password which if you've also deleted the email from your account means it will be impossible for you to ever use this account again. If that's really what you want to do then do it.

Although do remember if you take the action it's permanent. You will never be able to ever use this account again. If you ever do change your mind and wish to return, you will need to ensure you properly declare your connection to this old account with whatever new account you make. Given your history a clean start isn't likely to be possible.

A better option especially since you are still fairly young and could change your mind might to instead turn off email notifications, log out but leave your email connected to the account. Scramble your password or don't, but do your best to resist any temptation to log in until you are absolutely sure you want to return. Either way if you want to leave then you need to just leave and not worry about what is and isn't happening on Wikipedia including any accusations that may be made against this account.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

This account has formed a strong part of my identity for a relatively long time. This is perhaps the reason that I haven't deactivated (?) the account yet. Wikipedia has served me well in the past, but times are changing rapidly. It is no longer a welcoming or interesting place anymore. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I have been attempting to improve my behaviour on Wikipedia, but it has not been easy. I have faced very difficult circumstances, even when I try to avoid getting into trouble. I would please like to be given a second chance, and I am trying to avoid contentious topics. I want to continue editing in friendlier areas of the website, including things like music and plants *(note: these are areas of my life that I really enjoy; I hate politics). I hope that you can be understanding about my situation. Thank you.Jargo Nautilus (talk) 23:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If in the last 24-36 hours you have decided that you don't hate this place anymore, please specifically speak to the main reasons for the block; WP:NOTHERE, WP:DROPTHESTICK, WP:RGW, WP:POLEMIC, and WP:NPA. 331dot (talk) 08:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

331dot - I believe that I was behaving relatively okay when I was left alone. The original trigger for the block was that someone else started an SPI against me. Beforehand, I had been minding my own business, barely making any kind of annoyance to anyone. Overall, I believe that I should be able to edit Wikipedia constructively if I avoid contentious topics as much as possible, and if I refrain from reacting to the actions of others. The recent incident could have been avoided if I had decided to not respond to the comments /actions of other users. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

You may make a new request for someone else to review; my review puts my involvement here at an end. 331dot (talk) 09:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

331dot - If I isn't too much to ask, can I please email you for advice? I sincerely am not here on Wikipedia to cause trouble. I got into trouble in the past, but I've tried to put that behind me. I would like to find my place on Wikipedia again, and avoid the errors of my past. I also don't intend to edit anything controversial; also, I will add that the SPI case was a dud, so I didn't actually do anything relating to sockpuppetry. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

As a matter of policy I do not discuss Wikipedia matters by email unless the most sensitive personal information is involved. I've pretty much given all the advice I have to give in my message declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I believe that I have the capacity to edit Wikipedia constructively. I do not deny my behavioural problems, but I do believe that contentious topics have contributed to my poor behaviour. I believe that I can work to make Wikipedia a better place as long as I avoid contentious topics as much as possible. I do not wish to relitigate any of my previous encounters, and I want to start my account fresh. Areas such as politics have been a stain on my behaviour, but I believe that I will find much more happiness editing areas such as music, biology, and art, which are things that I enjoy in real life. I promise that I will read the Wikipedia guidelines to make sure that I understand the correct ways to respond whenever a conflict arises by chance. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Due to the discussion below, I'm not convinced there is enough behavioral understanding to warrant unblocking. I didn't have a choice. Yes, yes you did. You could have walked away. You could have asked for an admin to intervene, and then allowed the process to proceed with minimal input when requested of you. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

---

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.

 Comment: I am torn here. I see an editor potentially capable of having an enjoyable and productive time here, but who has shot themselves in the foot repeatedly and determinedly, but probably naively. On the other hand I see an editor who lashes out at others. One of these I believe is owed an apology, and I hope they see fit to offer it magnanimously, and meaning it. Since a block is preventive, not punitive I do see the hope for redemption.

I do believe they are self aware enough to avoid contentious topics, and contentious discussions. I am not sure I believe that they have the self control to do so. Time will tell us, assuming their application is successful.

I am not an admin. I can only say to the admin considering this request that I feel that they will behave well should an unblock be warranted, but I wonder at the same time whether the good behaviour will be long lasting.

Addressing Jargo Nautilus directly, now, please think very hard about how you will behave should this (or any future) application to be unblocked be granted. Consider the enjoyment you will lose if your application is not successful, and make sure that you have addressed the list "WP:NOTHERE, WP:DROPTHESTICK, WP:RGW, WP:POLEMIC, and WP:NPA" in your request, modifying that request if necessary. I have faith in you, but not blind faith. Be worthy of that faith, please. Get it right, then keep it right. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:08, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I didn't start the recent crisis, although I contributed to its deterioration. Originally, the crisis began with absolutely zero input from myself, hence why it caught me completely off guard. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I think I will refrain from comment. Consider the message in this song. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Timtrent - The one thing that I have to say before I shut up, is that I was put between a rock and a hard place in the most recent crisis. On the one hand, I could have walked away and let people litigate cases against me that were probably not going to succeed. On the other, I had no choice but to defend myself. I never wanted to get involved in another controversy, but I was dragged into a new controversy against my wishes. Other people opened cases against me after I had already walked away eight months ago. I didn't have a choice. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Please be very aware that you may use your talk page only to address the matter of your block while you are blocked. I tell you because you may not know this. It is important that no further trouble comes your way. Once you are unblocked I will be happy to meet you properly. Until then please take the advice I am giving you. There is no need to reply to this message. Indeed, you have my permission to delete it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

UtherSRG - As far as I recall, I attempted to request administrator assistance. My account was falsely highlighted as a sockpuppet account, so I made a complaint. There was no evidence of sockpuppetry. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 15:33, 9 January 2024 (UTC)