User talk:Slava570

Welcome to Wikipedia, Slava570! I'm I dream of horses, and I've been assigned as your mentor. Around 10% of new Wikipedia accounts receive a mentor randomly taken from a list of volunteers. It just means I'm here to help with anything you need! We need to have all kinds of people working together to create an online encyclopedia, so I'm glad you're here. Over time, you will figure out what you enjoy doing the most on Wikipedia.

You might have noticed that you have access to a tutorial and suggested edits. It's recommended that you take advantage of this, as it'll make learning how to edit Wikipedia easier.

If you need assistance with anything or have any questions, click on the "Get editing help" button on the bottom right corner of your screen. This will open up a module with links to help pages and a place to ask me questions. You can also ask me questions directly on my talk page, or go here to get help from the wider community.

Again, welcome to Wikipedia! I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 02:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you I dream of horses! Nice to meet you.

I made some more edits. I wasn't sure how to delete a message at the top of Coachman Insurance Company. It says the article reads like an advertisement, and I don't think it does.

Best,

Slava Slava570 (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You can just remove it. In source editing, you remove the {{advert}} template. In visual editor, you click on the template and hit backspace. I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 00:47, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! That worked now... Slava570 (talk) 01:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not constructive to repeat your belief over and over that legal definitions are the only thing that should matter, not reliable sources. (t · c) buIdhe 15:36, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

But I'm asking you to provide reliable sources that don't take the legal belief into account at all. Even if scholarly sources reject "intent," they still have to address the issue, making intent central to those sources' arguments, even if they reject it in the end. If you are claiming that the majority of scholarly sources don't include intent, I accept that (though I find it hard to believe). What I don't accept is that they ignore intent entirely. Either way, intent is central to the discussion. I'm also in no way claiming that ONLY legal definitions matter. I'm saying they matter enough, and there is enough consensus around them, to warrant a first line that says some form of: "legal definitions say XYZ, while scholarly definitions differ with regards to the issue of intent." Slava570 (talk) 15:56, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Even if scholarly sources reject "intent," they still have to address the issue This is a false assumption, why would scholars in non-legal fields even need to reference the criminal law? Criminal trials have to pin the blame on specific people and most crimes require a mental element (strict liability aside). Historians and social scientists are interested in events, what happened and why, but they are not prosecutors and many believe it's not possible to determine the internal mental state of historical figures, or they are not even interested in this question. The commonality between definitions is that genocide is selective in who it targets not the (arguably unprovable) mindset of the perpetrator. (t · c) buIdhe 18:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

If a scholarly work ignores the legal definition, then they are purely working in the realm of theory. While that is allowed, there is also plenty of scholarly work that is at least partially connected to the real world. Just like you said in a previous comment, the page is not "genocide (crime)" it is also not "genocide (academic theories)." I find it hard to believe that a majority of scholarly work completely ignores the issue of intent, without being shown evidence of this. In any case, even if all scholarly work ignored the legal definition, the legal sphere is one of the main spheres in which the definition of genocide is discussed and debated. I don't understand why, given the near unanimous definition in the legal field, that this cannot be reflected in the opening sentence, while also saying that other fields may have different definitions, and linking to the definitions page. It actually looks like bias against the legal field in favor of academia or maybe public perception. Another thing, I did not mean to badger anyone. Is there a way to delete my last comment on the other page to give other people a chance to respond, or are comments permanent? Slava570 (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

If a scholarly work ignores the legal definition, then they are purely working in the realm of theory.??? You're welcome to your own opinion but that doesn't justify rewriting articles accordingly.

You seem to be pretty ignorant about the field of genocide studies and don't appear willing to learn, so I'm not sure what else there is to say. (t · c) buIdhe 23:37, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

Even if I knew nothing about genocide studies, it's still a valid point that it is not the only field that deals with genocide. It is perfectly valid to say that the legal field should be given equal weight. Otherwise it's bias. For an editor who has won several Million awards on Wikipedia, it is completely inappropriate for you to attack me personally. I'm sorry if I badgered, but I'm also new to this. Given the perceived or real power imbalance between the two of us as editors, your unconstructive comment is more egregious. Slava570 (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

	The Civility Barnstar
	For your exceptional work at the Genocide talk page. Your insights have pointed me in the right direction for further research. Thoughtful and civil throughout. signed, Kvinnen (talk) 11:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I also want to clarify, (after your reading the comment above this). No comment of yours (here and at Talk:Genocide) can be construed as "Bludgeoning". Please keep up the good work. _signed, Kvinnen (talk) 11:38, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you!! I really appreciate that. Slava570 (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi @Slava570. In order to quote in green, you can type two opening curly brackets {{ then tq| then paste in the words you are quoting and then close with two closing curly brackets.

For example, if I wanted to quote your last sentence in the prior topic on this talk page, I'd write in the wikieditor I really appreciate that. <-- You will need to look at the source for this to see what I wrote (and not just the nice green result), and the easiest way to do that is to click "edit source" next to the title of this section.

You can read more about this useful template at Template:Talk quote inline.

Happy Wiki editing and contributing to talk page conversations. Coining (talk) 02:44, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, @Coining!! Slava570 (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Genocide. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Per WP:ONUS, please do not restore disputed content without a consensus to include it. Especially don't restore content when it fails verification and has numerous other issues. (t · c) buIdhe 01:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I made one good faith reversion of one good faith edit. I have also posted on the talk page. You are the sole editor who disagrees with my edit, and you made no good faith effort to fix any flaws you found. You are now bullying me by posting this on my talk page. If you have a problem with my edit, then you should explain it on the talk page. Slava570 (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Laura Fine, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I know we've had our disagreements elsewhere, but I wanted to say that the opening paragraph on this page is much improved. Nice work! Edittttor (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate that! Slava570 (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Also wanted to say that reverting the edits of others is a tool you appear to use frequently, but to others (including myself) it feels that you are rejecting their contributions, like how I suspect you felt when Buidhe was doing that to your edits. WP:RV is not policy, but it has some helpful tips about reverting the contributions of others: "Before performing a revert, carefully consider the consequences of dismissing another editor's contributions, as well as any subsequent edits linked to the original change. Assess the specific elements of the edit that are problematic and contemplate the editor's intentions. Rather than reverting entirely, consider improving the edit to enhance the article's quality. If only a portion of the edit is objectionable, a partial reversion may be more appropriate. Complete reversions should be used sparingly."

For example, your comment about "refer" is a good point. I missed that and that should be improved. But your comment "The tense is fine as is" is a perfect example of "Do not revert a change simply because you find it "unnecessary". This is a violation of the Wikipedia:Ownership of content policy. Revert a change only if you believe the change made the article worse." from WP:ROWN.

Normal etiquette would be to improve upon my edit to change the word "refer" to something that you are more comfortable with and also to remove the reference to the specific groups I added and provide a link to the talk page discussion on this. I did read through the talk page before making the edit, but it seemed to be mostly about inclusion of "intention" - though it's very possible that I missed this because there's a lot of posts there.

Anyway, I tried to salvage this interaction by complimenting your contributions that I thought were good improvements, defending you on the talk page when I thought someone else was giving incorrect information that could discourage your continued editing, and attempting to work collaboratively on a different article. Doesn't feel successful so I think it's best if I just withdraw and avoid interacting further. Edittttor (talk) 23:24, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I made you feel dismissed. Believe it or not nearly every single word of those three sentences has been discussed extensively, and there is very little wiggle room in terms of what changes can be made without making it unacceptable to at least one editor. I didn't want you to feel dismissed, which was why I left in your edit removing the word "many." You may think that's trivial, but it's not. We even discussed that word, because the idea is that of "as such" is that genocide is not about the killing of many individuals, but about killing the group itself, or the group "as such." A previous iteration also had "many separate individuals" or something like that. Despite that, I felt I needed to allow something, so I let that go. I don't want you to feel dismissed, so if you want, I'm also OK with your change of "and" to "or" in the third sentence. I should have not reverted that part.

You absolutely have the right to edit those sentences, but you need to be able to defend every single change you make, preferably with sources that confirm your edit because of WP:NOR. It can't be your own writing or opinion, but must be backed up by scholars. For the word intent, for example, I reviewed 27 out of the 30 definitions on the genocide definitions page, and others added a number of other sources as well. For example, you wanted to add the word "systematic." That is opening a huge can of worms. It doesn't say systematic in the convention language around preventing births. That word has specific legal and scholarly implications. Many scholars do use that word in their definition, but many don't. You will notice it only appears twice in the whole article. So if you want to add a word like that you need to be able to make a strong argument for it, and hopefully present evidence. There is another part of that article that I have been trying to change for weeks (purposive vs. knowledge-based intent). This one sentence did not have an RFC, yet my change was reverted, and I am forced to defend the change. I have looked through several sources, and posted my justification on the talk page, and I am still waiting to be able to make that change in the mainspace. You can review that section if interested to see an example of what I have had to do (and this is not the lead, which should have even stronger justification)

You are right that maybe I was too dismissive about your tense change. I could have worded that differently. Finally, I hope you know that I was messing with you about "and" vs "or." I hope that made you laugh. But if you want, I really am ok if you change that. Slava570 (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Laura Fine, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Quarterly West, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:18, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2026 United States House of Representatives elections in Illinois, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)