User talk:Bodia1406

A belated welcome![edit]

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Bodia1406. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Renewable Energy in Ukraine[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Renewable Energy in Ukraine requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from www.elcom-ukraine.com/elcom_greatrenewablepotential1.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 331dot (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Electron Е19[edit]

Hello, Bodia1406. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Electron Е19".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023[edit]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Massacre of Novgorod, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently been editing Eastern Europe or the Balkans which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Mellk (talk) 06:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note you are not allowed to edit articles related to Russo-Ukrainian War due to WP:GS/RUSUKR. Mellk (talk) 06:16, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which should not be taken as a blank permission for posting trash on talk pages. If you continue, blocks would become imminent. Ymblanter (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023[edit]

Just a small suggestion. I would suggest withdrawing this complaint if you do not want to receive a WP:BOOMERANG. Mellk (talk) 22:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I request review of edits @Mellk. I noticed that he does ideological and biased pro-Russian editing about Ukrainian history more than once. It is unacceptable. Bodia1406 (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to hound me like here, I will consider this a form of harassment and request a block. I already told you to stop. Mellk (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that at Talk:Great Stand on the Ugra River#Muscovy versus Russia, Bodia1406 tried to recruit me to complain about Mellk. I have never seen Bodia1406 before, never interacted with them, and I find it rather suspicous that the only thing their user page has been stating ever since they created an account on 8 March 2013 is My goal is to change your opinion about Ukraine! I think there are therefore concerns that Bodia1406 will have trouble complying with WP:NPOV, and is perhaps WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopaedia in the first place, but to push a certain (pro-Ukrainian) POV. If this turns out to be the case, then I think we should not let Bodia1406 disrupt the process of building an encyclopaedia, and unless they comply with the rules (such as follow established procedures about lodging complaints), I think we should cease cooperating with them. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC) PS: Moved this comment to a more relevant talk page section. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You use my poor knowledge of English and Wikipedia to shut up a Ukrainian while Russians are killing us on our territory and another Russian is erasing us from history in the virtual world.

There is a huge problem of covering the history of Eastern Europe, because it is completely woven from Russian myths and falsifications. Starting with the use of the word Russia, in relation to historical events, instead of using the authentic Muscovy, and ending with the fact that one of the users renames Ukrainian cities to russian manner. This is a big problem. There is a problem with this user. And the problem is that Wikipedia preserves falsified Moscow history.

And instead of discussing fragments of historical events, my edits are simply deleted without discussion, and they try to paint me as a stalker and oppressor.

You cannot write the history of a country, only from the words of the former colonizer.

Hear Ukraine. Hear the Ukrainian voice. Hear Ukrainian historians. Stop the genocidal type behavior. Bodia1406 (talk) 00:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you are WP:NOTHERE, thanks for confirming. Mellk (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also you were just warned by an administrator to cease personal attacks. Mellk (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bodia1406 Wikipedia is not in the business of WP:Righting great wrongs. Although I somewhat agree with some of the issues in historiography of Eastern Europe that you (Bodia1406) mention, which I have indeed been working on, the approach you are taking here is simply WP:NOT how we do things on Wikipedia. You are disrupting the process of carefully supporting claims with reliable sources, amicably cooperating with other users and establishing consensus; instead, you are seeking to push a certain point of view, and counter another point of view, in disregard of the rules. Even if some of your concerns about how we write about history may be legitimate, we unfortunately cannot work with you this way. As I suggested, you're better off writing about relevant topics nobody has written about before (based on reliable sources), than trying to change content that you disagree with while not knowing how to do so properly, and getting into conflict with other users. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help[edit]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I see a lot of biased and ideological cancellations and editing from User:Mellk but I don't know how properly bring it up for discussion, and complain about it. Bodia1406 (talk) 22:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The appropriate venue for complaining about another editor's conduct is WP:ANI. Bear in mind that your conduct may be scrutinized as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Bodia1406 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My block was not just, and falsified by other Ukrainophobic and biased user who harrased me, and declined all my edits, even absolutely neutral and the most objective. I demand to unlock my profile. Bodia1406 (talk) 12:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We don't respond to demands, nor do we respond to requests that only talk about the behavior of others. See WP:NOTTHEM. You need to discuss only your actions. 331dot (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

My actions were not as strong violative to rules to ban me forever. It is me who was harassed. It is me who was abused. But only me is banned. It's not okay. While Russians genociding Ukrainians in real life. Russian user do the same in virtual reality, by abusing rules and manipulating with rules. I am did edits. User who complained on me, canceled litterly each edits, part of them without any reasons. Oh, sorry, I know reason, it wasn't in favor of Russian propaganda.

"Ban me forever" is not what happened to you. A ban is different from a block; you are blocked. The block is not "forever", it is "indefinite", meaning it will end when you convince an administrator to remove it. Unless you have actual hard evidence of other editors being Russian agents or using Russian propaganda, I suggest that you stick to discussing your own actions. The terrible war against your country does not justify bad behavior here. If the war prevents you from editing without making personal attacks and unsupported accustations, then perhaps you should not request unblock until the war has ended. 331dot (talk) 13:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Bodia1406 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please unblock me. Bodia1406 (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.