:User talk:SaintPaulOfTarsus

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nikolai Gogol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nikolai.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Commons-emblem-notice.svg You have recently made edits related to the Balkans or Eastern Europe. This is a standard message to inform you that the Balkans or Eastern Europe is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. --TylerBurden (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for the message! SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

While we have agreed on many things I would disagree on the course of action here. It sets out a proposed course affecting the naming of the two main articles and a proposed split of the invasion article but that is not the purpose of an RM and, while the premise of the RM is to discuss the initial move of only one article in isolation from the greater context, that is not how it is progressing. Article names are incidental to content in that they are a label that serves as a repository for the content. The scope of an article in relation to other articles that deal with a sequence of related events is by far, more important. If we were writing about an historical event, a methodical writer would use a top-down approach to writing the article. But that isn't what happens for major contemporary events on WP. It is more like the shark tank at feeding time and a mad-rush competition for editors to make their mark by adding as much as they can before anybody else. Instead of a well planned city, we get a shanty town. In short, it is more important to agree on a plan of how articles should be related to each other. The RM is assuming a plan and renaming this article is putting the cart before the horse. The correct process would be to gain consensus for a process "in principle" and then to implement the process "in detail". I will therefore oppose this move on the basis that it is "out of process", in a robust but collegiate manner.

For my part, I would think that Russo-Ukraine War should cover the period 2014-2022 and should be wound back to something like its pre-invasion state - much like we have treated war in Donbas. I do not believe we need an overarching article to cover 2014-present. If the consensus is that we do, then it should (IMO) be little more than an abstract. There is no need for three very large articles to replace two very large articles. Splitting the invasion article on the notion that the initial events were an invasion that is now a war is fraught with issues of OR. Who says this happened? Who says when this happened? Some thoughts. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

:I did not suggest a split of the invasion article; that has been proposed by a few editors (CapLiber, Basque, and Yeoutie, who concedes that it is a discussion that should be saved for a later day), but their ideas have not really been engaged with, and I believe the consensus is still broadly in favor of retaining the status quo of a 2014–present article and a 2022–present article. My view, which I believe is shared by the majority of the users who support a move, is that Russian invasion of Ukraine becomes a redirect page.

:It was naïve of me to expect that editors would not turn the discussion into one about multiple articles. I suppose that was inevitable no matter how many warnings I included.

:I agree with your stance on an overarching 2014–present article being unnecessary, and I would not oppose making it a 2014–2022 article. At that point, it would become little more than a content fork of war in Donbas interspersed with a few paragraphs on Crimea, but that is a bridge to be crossed when/if we come to it – and would still be an improvement.

:Regarding invasion: there are sources which consider all events from 2022 until now to be the invasion. There are some which would imply that the invasion was a single event which took place only on that day. The third position, which may seem, for some editors, natural and consistent with historical precedent, is to use invasion to refer to February–April 2022. I have seen practically no sources supporting this. If they exist, they are certainly outnumbered by those which refer to a three-year ongoing invasion. Assigning an end date to the invasion at this point is OR, as you have said.

:But in my view, the question on whether or not an invasion is still necessarily ongoing is also ambiguous. The sources which call 2022–2025 an invasion are themselves outnumbered by the sources which call it a three-year war, which is the basis for my opposition to the current title. All the best SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 12:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

::I was in error regarding the split being part of your proposal. Cheers. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

::Where I have referred to the process being disruptive, there is no intent that the comment be construed beyond applying to just the process. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

You seem to be at wp:3rr, you need to read wp:editwar. Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

File:Stop hand nuvola.svg Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. 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 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. Slatersteven (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:You are incorrect. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

:I would appreciate it if you would strike this through. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2025 (UTC)

I've noticed that you've edited the Russia-Ukraine war maps a few times, and I wanted to ask what software you use. The one I'm using, Paint.net, can't save or export files in SVG format Bukansatya (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:I have been using Inkscape which is free and open-source. Since it is a vector editor, it's a little different from programs like Paint.net, but it's not difficult to learn the simple tasks you need to make these sorts of maps. I'm still a beginner myself but if you have any questions feel free to ask anytime. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 20:42, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for your response🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻 Bukansatya (talk) 00:51, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

::Hey, do you know how to input different languages in SVG? I messed up by just copy-pasting from other text, which caused non-English languages to show up [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?lang=ru&title=File%3ASumy_incursion_2025_Map.svg empty—no text at all] or just turn into 'Sumy' like in the [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?lang=uk&title=File%3ABelgorod_incursion_2025_map.svg Belgorod incursion map] Bukansatya (talk) 18:08, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

:::This is something that I have not learned how to do yet. There are instructions at [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg#Common_issue:_Skill_needed_to_edit_the_map Commons/File talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.svg#Common issue: Skill needed to edit the map]. I'm going to try to implement this on my Kursk map and I'll respond later with an update. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 07:27, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::You can use https://svgtranslate.toolforge.org/File:Sumy_incursion_2025_Map.svg to create the translated text. It is actually much simpler than I expected. If you have any hidden text, that might cause problems. The only solution I know of at this point is to delete it. Happy to help with any trouble shooting. Best, SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2025 (UTC)

Hallo SaintPaulOfTarsus, i want to ask for your opinion about nomination of the articles for deletion Luhansk Oblast Campaign Order of Battle . I’m not asking you to agree to keep or delete it. I just want your honest take—if you think the page deserves to be deleted, that’s totally fine. If not, no problem either Bukansatya (talk) 10:33, 26 April 2025 (UTC)