Hello, I'm Julietdeltalima. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Salo (food), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, please ask the editors at WP:TEAHOUSE for help. Thank you. Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dnieper. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Remsense ‥ 论 18:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Phonk shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly changing content—in a back-and-forth fashion—back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. The best practice at this stage is to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand, not to engage in edit-warring. Wikipedia provides a page that details how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. BusterD (talk) 14:22, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were just reverted for no reason specified. I added references and proofs, while others just revert it without adding a reason why Valentyn Holod (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion is demonstrably untrue. Each reversion has been accompanied by clear explanation (First, this does not belong in the WP:LEAD as the lead should be a high-level summary of the body but also, the source is are list compilied by a couple artists which is not enough to establish importance (see WP:DUE), The references further down in the article don't say "post-Soviet", but specifically Russia (check the sources to the sentence "Drift phonk is a subgenre of phonk that emerged in the late-2010s in Russia.", Do not use genius.com profile to source a statement about artist notability., You just reinstated the genius.com profile). The sources you've applied don't seem particularly compelling to other editors on the page. BusterD (talk) 14:40, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Mwwv. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Palianytsia, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. mwwv ^converse∫_edits 14:35, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jlwoodwa. An article that you recently made, Draft:Ukrainian Folktronica, seemed to be generated using a large language model (an "AI chatbot" or another application using such technology). Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. In particular, you should check each citation, and fictitious references must be removed. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:08, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that due to WP:RUSUKR, editors who are not extended-confirmed may not make edits related to the Russia-Ukraine war, broadly construed. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Olga of Kiev shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. Mellk (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This also applies to you🤦‍♂️

Stop reverting my edits. Valentyn Holod (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CON. The fact you've received this many warnings and still do not understand this is not a good sign. Mellk (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You literally change the topic. In edit wars participate not one person, but more, and here it includes you too for reverting my edits. Secondly, you haven't answered, why in so-called English Wikipedia there are in Russian sources about Olga of Kiev? Double standards, but Ukrainian ones are forbidden somehow? Valentyn Holod (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You made a change to the article and did not get consensus for your change. I reverted to the status quo. Please read the page that was linked to you. Also, the issue is not that you simply used a Ukrainian-language source for the article, the issue is that you added an alt name and cited this source, but this is not evidence that this alt name is commonly found in English-language sources. The Ukrainian-language name is already included in the footnote. Mellk (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So if I add in English sources to that name, all is going to be fine? Valentyn Holod (talk) 22:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We only include significant alternative names in bold. If we included every possible variation in the lead and in bold (like Helga, Volha etc.), this would cause lead clutter (and this is why we have a footnote). Your best bet is to start a talk page discussion (since your edit was already challenged repeatedly) and demonstrate that this name is found in a lot of English-language sources. Mellk (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand it. But the fact is, it's princess of Kyiv, the capital of Ukraine, she was the ruler of culturally Ukrainian city, it would be logical to put Ukrainian variant of her name nearby «Russian??» name Olga.

The popularity of Russian name Olga, doesn't makes it somehow relevant to this person, because it may not even be her original name. Valentyn Holod (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:COMMONNAME. It does not matter where this name came from because we are not here to right great wrongs. This is also about a historical figure, not a modern one. Mellk (talk) 22:24, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, the historical figure has its name, and using a Russian variant of name, it's not a common name, it's simply just Russian name. Calling that common it's specifically out of your own perspective. In English there are Olga, Helga, and Olha, and which one of these to use, it's up to you. But logically, Ukrainian princess should have Ukrainian romanised name, or simply put both variants together. Valentyn Holod (talk) 22:30, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not the common name, then you must demonstrate on the talk page that most English-language sources use "Olha" and not "Olga". But judging by Ngram[1] and Google Scholar,[2][3] this does not appear to be the case and there is overwhelming usage of "Olga" from what I can see. Mellk (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the popularity of using Olga name is still doesn't relevent to specifically this historical figure, we might judge by her written name in that period of History, not by popularity of literally modern Russian name and automatically apply it to hef, because the name is simply popular due to the reason there are more Russian-speaking ppl and propaganda books??? In KyivaneRus' s her name was written like Olgha, where in Ukrainian it remained Olha, Russwithout G sound, in ian Olgaremained . without H sound You can't simply call Gerry as Harry, because these are two different names. And so-called «Olga» of Kyiv in fact wasn't even named like that, because Olga it's just modern Russian name.

I Valentyn Holod (talk) 22:42, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, we follow what the sources say and WP:COMMONNAME says we should use the name found in a significant majority of reliable English-language sources. If you want to dismiss all of those sources as Russian propaganda sources, go ahead, but this is the site policy. Charlemagne comes from French and we use this because this is the common name, even though he was king of the Franks and at that time he was known by other names. Mellk (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Russian Olga name is a common name in English, according to whom? What classifies this as a common name? It's just in mass used by English authors of Russian origin. There are also sources in English with Olha name, and they're left in "talk" but were dismissed for ridiculous reasons. There's no common name for historical figure, because modern name simply can't suit for historical figures, as they had different names back then.

And again you can't just apply a different so-called common name Olga, based on using? it's mostly used by Russians, and they're the biggest Slavic population, here plays the role Russian population of using this name.

So explain me pls, how comes Polish king on English Wikipedia has this uncommon full name Władysław I Łokietek named in Polish btw, but not in Russian "common" name Vladislav??? But when it's about Olha, you apply Wikipedia:COMMONNAME?

This is beyond the logic. Valentyn Holod (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can look at the results on Google Books. Ngram links to this. It is clear there is overwhelming usage of "Olga" instead of "Olha". If you can find data that supports the opposite, feel free to share this on the talk page instead of making unsupported assertions about the background of these authors. Another editor responded at Talk:Vladimir the Great and they have explained this also. Mellk (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]