Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Shortcuts: COM:ANV • COM:AVI • COM:AIV
|
This is a place where users can communicate with administrators, or administrators with one another. You can report vandalism, problematic users, or anything else that needs an administrator's intervention. Do not report child pornography or other potentially illegal content here; e-mail legal-reports | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Vandalism [] |
User problems [] |
Blocks and protections [] |
Other [] |
|
Report users for clear cases of vandalism. Block requests for any other reason should be reported to the blocks and protections noticeboard.
|
Report disputes with users that require administrator assistance. Further steps are listed at resolve disputes.
|
Reports that do not suit the vandalism noticeboard may be reported here. Requests for page protection/unprotection could also be requested here.
|
Other reports that require administrator assistance which do not fit in any of the previous three noticeboards may be reported here. Requests for history merging or splitting should be filed at COM:HMS. |
| Archives | |||
95, 94, 93, 92, 91, 90, 89, 88, 87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 |
87, 86, 85, 84, 83, 82, 81, 80, 79, 78, 77, 76, 75, 74, 73, 72, 71, 70, 69, 68, 67, 66, 65, 64, 63, 62, 61, 60, 59, 58, 57, 56, 55, 54, 53, 52, 51, 50, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 44, 43, 42, 41, 40, 39, 38, 37, 36, 35, 34, 33, 32, 31, 30, 29, 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, 22, 21, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1
| ||
wikimedia.org instead. If reporting threatened harm to self or others also email emergency
To create a report please click on the button above and fill the fields. Alternatively you may copy the following template, replacing USER/IP and REASON with your content, and place it at the bottom of this page:
{{subst:Report vandal|USER/IP|REASON. ~~~~}}
User:Cukrakalnis. Removing a Category for Vector Files[edit]
User: Cukrakalnis (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
User removes Category:SVG historical flags of Belarus, which combines vector versions of flags: 01; 02; 03; 04; 05 ; 06. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Лобачев Владимир is misportraying the situation, because the Category:SVG historical flags of Belarus is for flags of Belarus, which necessarily must be after 1918, when Belarus first appeared as a state (according to Encyclopedia Britannica, if anyone doubts what I am saying). Definitely not anything earlier than that, especially not from other countries. This is not vandalism. This is ensuring that Wikimedia Commons is educational instead of counter-educational. Actually, Лобачев Владимир is the real vandal here, by adding categories where they don't belong, e.g. 1 (adding the category of "SVG historical flags of Belarus" to Samogitia, a region in Lithuania), 2 (same as previous one) ,3 (adding the category of "SVG historical flags of Belarus" to Kyiv, a place in Ukraine, among other inaccurate uses of other categories.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
- Another prove of denying the history of Belarusians by user Cukrakalnis, which is a clear manifestation of the nationalistic chauvinism and national decriminations of Belarusians in here. Is there any sane authority to stop it left?! --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- Does Wikimedia foundation support the national discriminations of Belarusians? --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- Kazimier Lachnovič deems reliable information from Wikipedia:Encyclopædia Britannica to be "denying the history of Belarusians", "nationalistic chauvinism" and "national decriminations of Belarusians". Here is the link to Encyclopædia Britannica and the relevant quote is "While Belarusians share a distinct ethnic identity and language, they never previously enjoyed unity and political sovereignty, except during a brief period in 1918." The previously refers to previously to the 1990s. Where is the discrimination in following historical facts? The issue here is that Kazimier Lachnovič considers historical facts as discrimination where there is none.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
- Another example of ignoring by Cukrakalnis the reliable sources he doesn't like. I've already provided this information here, but the user pretends not to notice the quoted reliable sources. So I need to quote these sources in here as well. Andrew Wilson, a British historian specializing in Eastern Europe, writes in his book Belarus: The Last European Dictatorship (Yale University Press, 2012): The entity referred to as medieval ‘Lithuania’ in fact had the full name of ‘Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus and Samogitia’. Its short name was ‘Litva’. This is not the same thing as ‘Lithuania’. In the modern Lithuanian language, the word for ‘Lithuania’ is Lietuva (p. 21—22). <...> Most of what is now Belarus was part of ‘Litva’ proper. (p. 33). Moreover, another historian specializing in the history of Central and Eastern Europe Dr. Prof. Timothy D. Snyder writes in his book The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999 (Yale University Press, 2003): During the period of dynastic union with Poland, Lithuania became an East Slavic realm in which the gentry enjoyed rights relative to the sovereign (p. 22). Before 1863, the most common self-appellation of the largest group in Russia’s Northwest Territory — Belarusian-speaking peasants — was apparently “Lithuanian” (p. 49). By removing the historical sense of the term “Lithuanian” in the popular mind, Russian power cleared the way for a modern, ethnic definition of Lithuania, and simplified the task of Lithuanian activists (p. 50). <...> The conflation of an old politonym with a new ethnonym (“Lithuania”) prevented non-Belarusians from seeing the connection between modern Belarus and the early modern Grand Duchy of Lithuania (p. 81) <...> As we have seen, the traditions of the Grand Duchy were altered beyond recognition by Lithuanian and Polish national movements, as well as Russian imperial and Soviet states. They have changed least perhaps in the lands we now call Belarus (p. 281). And I'm not talking about denying by the user the works of Belarusian historians (like "The History of the Belarusan Nation and State", published in English outside Belarus in 2005), which is a another clear prove of the nationalistic chauvinism expressed in denying the history of Belarusians, the people of Belarus. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- Kazimier Lachnovič accuses others of what he himself is guilty. He ignores everything, including reliable sources, that go against his preconceived notion of history, but pretends that he is not doing it and that others actually are. His view of history is obviously distorted, because he just copy-pastes the same thing over and over again, without taking into account anything contrary to it, and continues calling historical truth as "nationalistic chauvinism".--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- The evidence suggests that I'm not the one who denies the history of some nation by removing the categories connected to this nation by means of edit warring in order to push this obviously chauvinistic national discriminations. So it's really clear who is disruptive here in order to distract the normal users from their constructive work in this project. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- I am not denying the history of any nations. On the contrary, the accuser, Kazimier Lachnovič, himself illegitimately claims and appropriates more history for some nations than they actually have. It can't be "obviously chauvinistic national discriminations" to ensure that accurate categorization is applied. To put this all in perspective, it is not "chauvinistic national discriminations" to remove e.g. Category:France from Category:History of Germany, Category:Russia from Category:History of Ukraine or Category:Belarus from Category:History of Lithuania. My actions are according to the rules, scope and goals of Wikimedia Commons, so Kazimier Lachnovič's statements are nonsense. His portraying me not as a "normal user" is absolute insanity: to shatter his LIES, all one needs to do is look at my contributions, which are very clearly beneficial, especially in off-loading overwhelmed categories, like Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany. Just for that category, I created many categories. In fact, of the 25 categories under Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, I created the following: Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany (1871-1909), Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Anhalt, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Baden, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Berg, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Brunswick, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Danzig, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Franconian Circle. Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Frankfurt, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Hanover, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Nassau, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Nürnberg, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Oldenburg, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Reuss, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Saxe-Meiningen, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Westphalia, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Würzburg were ALL created by me in just the past week. I created a total of 17 categories for better categorization of what once included thousands of files just placed in a huge mix. To portray me as a not normal user like Kazimier Lachnovič is doing, is a straight-out lie. Kazimier Lachnovič's statements, which clearly go against the policy of Wikimedia Commons, should be punished.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Totally irrelevant to the situation and clearly absurd example («to remove e.g. Category:France from Category:History of Germany, Category:Russia from Category:History of Ukraine or Category:Belarus from Category:History of Lithuania») is another sound evidence that user Cukrakalnis is just trying to disrupt the normal project functionality. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Kazimier Lachnovič clearly did not understand that removing claims of a certain country to another country's history is not chauvinistic. It is precisely the reverse, it is anti-chauvinistic. That is precisely how the project normally should function and Kazimier Lachnovič's claim that this is somehow evidence of disruption just goes to show that Kazimier Lachnovič is himself a disruptive user. When given SOLID EVIDENCE that I am a BENEFICIAL CONTRIBUTOR to the project, Kazimier Lachnovič just dismisses it as irrelevant. He is clearly not acting in good faith.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Beside total misunderstanding of what chauvinism is, the user just revealed their motivation here: «removing claims of a certain country to another country's history is not chauvinistic. It is precisely the reverse, it is anti-chauvinistic». It actually is aggressive removing any connection of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to Belarusians, despite many reliable sources (not only Belarusian, but also not anyhow connected to Belarus and Belarusians) confirming such a connection. To prove that the user is well informed about such recognized connection, I quote en:Alfredas Bumblauskas, ″one of the best known Lithuanian historians″ (English Wikipedia): Norwegian linguist Christian Schweigaard Stang determined that at first Vytautas’ office was dominated by Ukrainian language (Volhynia), which later switched to Belarusian (Novogrudok, Polock, Grodno). In a way, we offended Belarus by forgetting that there is no single sentence in Lithuanian in the Lithuanian Metrica. We called the language Chancery Slavonic (of GDL Slavs) – a term panned by Professor Gudavičius, as the language was used not only in GDL, but in Poland, as well; and, as Poles are Slavic, the definition becomes incorrect. The language was not used only in office, but in poetry, as well. However, the attitude of Lithuanians is slowly changing. At first everyone was outraged that Belarusians are stealing our history. I say, however, that they have been part of our history for a long time. <...> The present-day events in Belarus seem to allow us a more peaceful look to our common history and show kindness in sharing it». --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Kazimier Lachnovič's "response" (not really a response, because he ignored most of what was said by me in the previous message then he went on some irrelevant tangent) demonstrates this user's incompetency and limited, cherry-picked understanding of history. He will not admit that he is wrong or that it is somehow against behaviour guidelines on Wikimedia Commons to denigrate another user and his contributions to the project. And the motivation Kazimier Lachnovič revealed is absolutely in-line with Wikimedia Commons' scope, which is to be educational, instead of engaging in pseudo-historical lies of Litvinism or any other ideology, which are inherently counter-educational. The motivation of removing claims of a certain country to another country's history is absolutely justified, and even commendable. In fact, such actions are necessary to ensure that the project of Wikimedia Commons stays true to its educational goals.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Beside total misunderstanding of what chauvinism is, the user just revealed their motivation here: «removing claims of a certain country to another country's history is not chauvinistic. It is precisely the reverse, it is anti-chauvinistic». It actually is aggressive removing any connection of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania to Belarusians, despite many reliable sources (not only Belarusian, but also not anyhow connected to Belarus and Belarusians) confirming such a connection. To prove that the user is well informed about such recognized connection, I quote en:Alfredas Bumblauskas, ″one of the best known Lithuanian historians″ (English Wikipedia): Norwegian linguist Christian Schweigaard Stang determined that at first Vytautas’ office was dominated by Ukrainian language (Volhynia), which later switched to Belarusian (Novogrudok, Polock, Grodno). In a way, we offended Belarus by forgetting that there is no single sentence in Lithuanian in the Lithuanian Metrica. We called the language Chancery Slavonic (of GDL Slavs) – a term panned by Professor Gudavičius, as the language was used not only in GDL, but in Poland, as well; and, as Poles are Slavic, the definition becomes incorrect. The language was not used only in office, but in poetry, as well. However, the attitude of Lithuanians is slowly changing. At first everyone was outraged that Belarusians are stealing our history. I say, however, that they have been part of our history for a long time. <...> The present-day events in Belarus seem to allow us a more peaceful look to our common history and show kindness in sharing it». --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Kazimier Lachnovič clearly did not understand that removing claims of a certain country to another country's history is not chauvinistic. It is precisely the reverse, it is anti-chauvinistic. That is precisely how the project normally should function and Kazimier Lachnovič's claim that this is somehow evidence of disruption just goes to show that Kazimier Lachnovič is himself a disruptive user. When given SOLID EVIDENCE that I am a BENEFICIAL CONTRIBUTOR to the project, Kazimier Lachnovič just dismisses it as irrelevant. He is clearly not acting in good faith.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Totally irrelevant to the situation and clearly absurd example («to remove e.g. Category:France from Category:History of Germany, Category:Russia from Category:History of Ukraine or Category:Belarus from Category:History of Lithuania») is another sound evidence that user Cukrakalnis is just trying to disrupt the normal project functionality. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- I am not denying the history of any nations. On the contrary, the accuser, Kazimier Lachnovič, himself illegitimately claims and appropriates more history for some nations than they actually have. It can't be "obviously chauvinistic national discriminations" to ensure that accurate categorization is applied. To put this all in perspective, it is not "chauvinistic national discriminations" to remove e.g. Category:France from Category:History of Germany, Category:Russia from Category:History of Ukraine or Category:Belarus from Category:History of Lithuania. My actions are according to the rules, scope and goals of Wikimedia Commons, so Kazimier Lachnovič's statements are nonsense. His portraying me not as a "normal user" is absolute insanity: to shatter his LIES, all one needs to do is look at my contributions, which are very clearly beneficial, especially in off-loading overwhelmed categories, like Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany. Just for that category, I created many categories. In fact, of the 25 categories under Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, I created the following: Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany (1871-1909), Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Anhalt, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Baden, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Berg, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Brunswick, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Danzig, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Franconian Circle. Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Frankfurt, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Hanover, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Nassau, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Nürnberg, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Oldenburg, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Reuss, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Saxe-Meiningen, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Westphalia, Category:Vinkhuijzen: Military uniforms of Germany, Würzburg were ALL created by me in just the past week. I created a total of 17 categories for better categorization of what once included thousands of files just placed in a huge mix. To portray me as a not normal user like Kazimier Lachnovič is doing, is a straight-out lie. Kazimier Lachnovič's statements, which clearly go against the policy of Wikimedia Commons, should be punished.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- The evidence suggests that I'm not the one who denies the history of some nation by removing the categories connected to this nation by means of edit warring in order to push this obviously chauvinistic national discriminations. So it's really clear who is disruptive here in order to distract the normal users from their constructive work in this project. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 15:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Kazimier Lachnovič accuses others of what he himself is guilty. He ignores everything, including reliable sources, that go against his preconceived notion of history, but pretends that he is not doing it and that others actually are. His view of history is obviously distorted, because he just copy-pastes the same thing over and over again, without taking into account anything contrary to it, and continues calling historical truth as "nationalistic chauvinism".--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:43, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Another example of ignoring by Cukrakalnis the reliable sources he doesn't like. I've already provided this information here, but the user pretends not to notice the quoted reliable sources. So I need to quote these sources in here as well. Andrew Wilson, a British historian specializing in Eastern Europe, writes in his book Belarus: The Last European Dictatorship (Yale University Press, 2012): The entity referred to as medieval ‘Lithuania’ in fact had the full name of ‘Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus and Samogitia’. Its short name was ‘Litva’. This is not the same thing as ‘Lithuania’. In the modern Lithuanian language, the word for ‘Lithuania’ is Lietuva (p. 21—22). <...> Most of what is now Belarus was part of ‘Litva’ proper. (p. 33). Moreover, another historian specializing in the history of Central and Eastern Europe Dr. Prof. Timothy D. Snyder writes in his book The Reconstruction of Nations: Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Belarus, 1569-1999 (Yale University Press, 2003): During the period of dynastic union with Poland, Lithuania became an East Slavic realm in which the gentry enjoyed rights relative to the sovereign (p. 22). Before 1863, the most common self-appellation of the largest group in Russia’s Northwest Territory — Belarusian-speaking peasants — was apparently “Lithuanian” (p. 49). By removing the historical sense of the term “Lithuanian” in the popular mind, Russian power cleared the way for a modern, ethnic definition of Lithuania, and simplified the task of Lithuanian activists (p. 50). <...> The conflation of an old politonym with a new ethnonym (“Lithuania”) prevented non-Belarusians from seeing the connection between modern Belarus and the early modern Grand Duchy of Lithuania (p. 81) <...> As we have seen, the traditions of the Grand Duchy were altered beyond recognition by Lithuanian and Polish national movements, as well as Russian imperial and Soviet states. They have changed least perhaps in the lands we now call Belarus (p. 281). And I'm not talking about denying by the user the works of Belarusian historians (like "The History of the Belarusan Nation and State", published in English outside Belarus in 2005), which is a another clear prove of the nationalistic chauvinism expressed in denying the history of Belarusians, the people of Belarus. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
- Kazimier Lachnovič deems reliable information from Wikipedia:Encyclopædia Britannica to be "denying the history of Belarusians", "nationalistic chauvinism" and "national decriminations of Belarusians". Here is the link to Encyclopædia Britannica and the relevant quote is "While Belarusians share a distinct ethnic identity and language, they never previously enjoyed unity and political sovereignty, except during a brief period in 1918." The previously refers to previously to the 1990s. Where is the discrimination in following historical facts? The issue here is that Kazimier Lachnovič considers historical facts as discrimination where there is none.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment Another prove, that the user just ignore the reliable sources they don't like (that time it is the opinion of modern Lithuanian historian Alfredas Bumblauskas). But I'm not sure that any admin really follows. If someone does, please let me know. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Done Reverted. Both users warned. 
User:Cukrakalnis. Removing a Category:Historical military flags of Belarus[edit]
File:Grunwald Pogoń czerwona.svg
Removing a counter-educational and ahistorical category. The user independently decided that Category:Historical military flags of Belarus is anti-historical, and he decides for himself what can be included in it and what not. Please return the category and remind the participant that personal preferences in the project are not desirable. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 11:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Ensuring that historical facts are taken into account is portrayed by Лобачев Владимир as "personal preferences". That Medieval flag, File:Grunwald Pogoń czerwona.svg, cannot be a flag of Belarus, because, as Wikipedia:Encyclopædia Britannica and many other sources state: Belarus as a state appeared only in 1918. There can't be a flag of something that did not exist at the time. If anyone doubts this basic historical knowledge, here you go: link to Encyclopædia Britannica: While Belarusians share a distinct ethnic identity and language, they never previously enjoyed unity and political sovereignty, except during a brief period in 1918. (previously to 1991), link to Encyclopedia of Nationalism (2nd volume), with the relevant quote on page 45: The only real national statehood that could pass for being Belarusian in letter and in spirit was the Belarusian National Republic (BNR), declared in Minsk on March 25, 1918 . In contrast to how Лобачев Владимир is portraying the situation, the reality is that he is himself guided by personal preferences, as he creates fictional flags with elements deriving from his fantasy, and attempts to label them as "historical", e.g. File:Flag of Duchy of Samogitia (1419-1795).svg. With this flag, Лобачев Владимир takes an element of truth, which is indeed based on sources (e.g. that the flag's main colour was indeed recorded in sources as white), but then he adds "Ioannes Casimirus", "Zmudzka" and a bizarre, rectangular pattern surrounding the centre of the flag, none of which are based on anything, except on Лобачев Владимир's fantasy and conjecture. Labelling such creations as "historical" is against Commons' goal of being educational.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- The Grand Duchy of Lithuania is the part of history of Belarus, as well as the history of the Republic of Lithuania (which own name is Lietuva). The Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Republic of Lithuania are not the same (according to the reliable sources I have provided here, i.e. Prof. Snyder, Dr. Wilson, many Belarusian historians). So either both categories must be removed or both must be present. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Kazimier Lachnovič does not understand how categorization works on Wikimedia Commons. The Russian Empire is part of the history of Lithuania, as well as Belarus, Ukraine, and Finland, among others. EVEN THEN, in Category:Russian Empire, there is ONLY Category:History of Russia and not Category:History of Lithuania, Category:History of Belarus, Category:History of Ukraine, Category:History of Finland. And that is how it is supposed to be. Another example is Category:Kingdom of Hungary, which has only Category:Political history of Hungary from among such history categories. This is in spite of the Kingdom of Hungary including parts or the entirety of modern Slovakia, Romania, Serbia, Croatia. None of them placed Category:History of ... on Category:Kingdom of Hungary. Ergo, it is only logical that a similar situation should apply to Category:Grand Duchy of Lithuania, so that it has ONLY Category:History of Lithuania. As for the other part, of course, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Republic of Lithuania are not the same, just like the Russian Empire is not the same as the Federation of Russia, and the Kingdom of France is not the French Republic or the Belarusian National Republic is not the Republic of Belarus. That is beside the point.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- If you follow your logic, then the Middle Ages history of Polotsk, Vitebsk, Minsk, Novogrudok, all cities and territories of Belarus belongs to the Republic of Lithuania, but does not belong to the Belarusian Republic. This is very similar to the ideology of Lithuanian chauvinism. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- The logic I explained is only applicable at the level of states. At the level of cities and towns, the categories that should be used are different. For example, Category:Bratislava was part of the Category:Kingdom of Hungary from the 10th century to 1918. But even then, there is no Category:History of Hungary. The same goes for Belarus, e.g. Category:Minsk was part of the Category:Grand Duchy of Lithuania from 13th century to 1795, but that does not mean that the category will have Category:History of Lithuania. Both Лобачев Владимир and Kazimier Lachnovič are obsessed with calling on Lithuanian chauvinism, while all I am doing is just following Wikimedia Commons policy.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- There are no reliable sources that Russian Empire was anyhow Belarusian state, but there are quite enough such sources that the Grand Duchy of Lithuanian was more Belarusian then Lithuanian (in modern sense with the own name lt:Lietuviai) state. So like I said based on provided sources either both categories (History of Belarus and History of Lithuania) must be removed or both must be present. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Kazimier Lachnovič's statements are indicative of the fringe pseudohistorical theory of Litvinism. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania is regularly called the "medieval Lithuanian state": 1, 2, 3 or even as Lithuanian empire - as is here. Clearly, if the Belarusian element had been so dominant, then the state would not be called Lithuanian so often. Kazimier Lachnovič's statement that there are sources proving that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was more Belarusian than Lithuanian is nonsense, for many reasons (this list is non-exhaustive): the country itself was founded on Lithuania proper by ethnic Lithuanians, the Grand Duchy's official religion was Catholic (not Orthodox) after the pagan Lithuanians (the founders of the state according to Encyclopedia Britannica) were baptised into the Catholic faith, the rulers were Lithuanian-speaking (as is clearly made here with many sources), the dominant nobility was the Catholic (Lithuanian) one, as it had privileges not given to the Slavic nobility and many other arguments refuting Kazimier Lachnovič's distortion of history.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- This is all your personal opinion. But there are no sources that directly state that the rights to the historical heritage of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania are exclusively owned by the Republic of Lithuania. --Лобачев Владимир (talk) 10:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- Without providing reliable sources (like I told you before, reference to any English Wikipedia article is just a poor attempt to disrupt the discussion because according to the rules of that project en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source), that criticize the reliable sources provided by me, your references could be a prove just for the opinion that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was Lithuanian state AS WELL. It means that both categories must be present, removing one of them is clear push of nationalistic (actually chauvinistic) POV, which should be stopped. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 21:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
- Stating historical facts is not a personal opinion. As for 'reference to any ... Wikipedia article is just a poor attempt to disrupt the discussion', Kazimier Lachnovič referenced a Wikipedia article with "lt:Lietuviai" in a previous message. Kazimier Lachnovič is a hypocrite. Moreover, Kazimier Lachnovič's conclusion that "both categories must be present" is a total obfuscation and misportrayal of the actual situation. As I explained in a previous section, it is clear that Kazimier Lachnovič is ideologically motivated as he refuses to remove a category because that is "denial of Belarusian history" (according to him), even if that category should be removed to curb overcategorization.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
- Kazimier Lachnovič's statements are indicative of the fringe pseudohistorical theory of Litvinism. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania is regularly called the "medieval Lithuanian state": 1, 2, 3 or even as Lithuanian empire - as is here. Clearly, if the Belarusian element had been so dominant, then the state would not be called Lithuanian so often. Kazimier Lachnovič's statement that there are sources proving that the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was more Belarusian than Lithuanian is nonsense, for many reasons (this list is non-exhaustive): the country itself was founded on Lithuania proper by ethnic Lithuanians, the Grand Duchy's official religion was Catholic (not Orthodox) after the pagan Lithuanians (the founders of the state according to Encyclopedia Britannica) were baptised into the Catholic faith, the rulers were Lithuanian-speaking (as is clearly made here with many sources), the dominant nobility was the Catholic (Lithuanian) one, as it had privileges not given to the Slavic nobility and many other arguments refuting Kazimier Lachnovič's distortion of history.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 23:49, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Kazimier Lachnovič does not understand how categorization works on Wikimedia Commons. The Russian Empire is part of the history of Lithuania, as well as Belarus, Ukraine, and Finland, among others. EVEN THEN, in Category:Russian Empire, there is ONLY Category:History of Russia and not Category:History of Lithuania, Category:History of Belarus, Category:History of Ukraine, Category:History of Finland. And that is how it is supposed to be. Another example is Category:Kingdom of Hungary, which has only Category:Political history of Hungary from among such history categories. This is in spite of the Kingdom of Hungary including parts or the entirety of modern Slovakia, Romania, Serbia, Croatia. None of them placed Category:History of ... on Category:Kingdom of Hungary. Ergo, it is only logical that a similar situation should apply to Category:Grand Duchy of Lithuania, so that it has ONLY Category:History of Lithuania. As for the other part, of course, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Republic of Lithuania are not the same, just like the Russian Empire is not the same as the Federation of Russia, and the Kingdom of France is not the French Republic or the Belarusian National Republic is not the Republic of Belarus. That is beside the point.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 20:26, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- Comment So the user just admitted that they don't have reliable sources, that are critical to the reliable sources provided by me. This is clear and direct recognition of nationalistic (more precise chauvinistic) POV pushing. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
2.6.62.3[edit]
2.6.62.3 (talk · contributions · Number of edits · recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)
- Still blanking talk page. Obviously didn't take the so-called "death threat" seriously. Well, neither would I. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
- @Rodhullandemu:
{{D}}, blocked for a week thanks to Yann!— Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC) - @Yann: Please reblock without talkpage access, as that access is being abused. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Rodhullandemu:
陳畇榛[edit]
User: 陳畇榛 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
Reason for reporting: Upload Non-free file and can't give any permission.
CreeperDigital 13:09, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Celniku[edit]
User: Celniku (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
Reason for reporting: A sock of Musée Annam, seems to make something up about the "No-U Movement" and adding random files to it, I don't like asking for this but please just do a massive rollback on the edits that add this, they are known for creating weird definitions of categories.
Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Addendum, slightly different modus operandi, do not delete their uploads and nominate the provincial emblem for deletion in a DR. Probably not delete any pages they made or their user sub-page for the supposed "No-U Movement", I will review their edits after their block, but anyone familiar with these edits can tell that it's Musée Annam. Notice the editing of Vietnamese flags with odd categorisation, completely re-inventing categories, uploading a Vietnamese provincial emblem, tagging public domain images as "Own work", and the general pages they edit. I usually don't request a block for them until they're being disruptive but they always seem to mess with categories in a way that only seems to make sense to them. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:27, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Culture_of_the_South_China_Sea I don't know what a "Culture of the South China Sea" / "Culture of the Asean Sea" is supposed to represent but I can't find it anywhere else, the No-U Movement is legitimate as it's a (very large) part of the Vietnamese Democracy Movement, but this Musée Annam sock's edits still require a review and as they keep reverting my reverts I will wait for a block before reviewing their edits, they did some good edits, so they will need to be carefully reviewed and not carelessly rolled back. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:14, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hilarious addendum, he left a funny comment about how I'm a dog 🐶 who can't understand human language and how I should start carrying a knife (which I already do, though because of other people threatening me IRL) because he would do something to me, LOL. He then proceeds with a rant calling me stupid and noticebly referring to Vietnamese as "Duck 🦆 language" (a staple of Musée Annam rants), please don't censor his rant as I prefer to keep a public record of such events, just that this is a very typical Musée Annam rant. Though the longer he's unblocked the more damage he does to categories. Again, please don't mass-delete their edits, I will take the time to review the good ones from the bad ones. This is hilarious because he's a member of the 8X generation yet threatens people online like you would expect from a 10 (ten) year old. Not meant as an insult, just an observation. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
2600:1011:B00A:3258:B09A:4240:38A5:12A6[edit]
User: 2600:1011:B00A:3258:B09A:4240:38A5:12A6 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
Reason for reporting: cross-wiki vandalism, already warned; blocked elsewhere (cf. edits on enwiki and mediawikiwiki.)
Hasley 20:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Md Rahat Islam 1997[edit]
User: Md Rahat Islam 1997 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
Reason for reporting: vandalism multiple user's talkpage
Stang★ 01:22, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
- User also continues to upload copyrighted images, after being warned to cease. Bidgee (talk)
- More copyvio files: Special:ListFiles/Md Rahat Islam 1997. Mostly screenshots and copyrighted video game settings or movie scenes being shown on a monitor. The interface of the monitor might be unfree too if it is not a free interface (e.g. Windows). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Diskdrive15[edit]
- User: Diskdrive15 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
- Reasons for reporting: Vandalism only account. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:15, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
MUHAMMADSHAHZAD11[edit]
User: MUHAMMADSHAHZAD11 (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)
Reason for reporting: The user have just uploaded 1 images which can be speedy deleted under CSD Criterion G3. The CSD G3 suggests Users that commit such acts are subjected to their accounts being temporarily or permanently blocked. As the user have not made any useful edits since a year, I suggest permanently blocking him for no vandalism behalf of this user after time.
Contributers2020Talk to me here 07:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)