![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:VCFilipKonowalGrave.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed your signature doesn't use the standard timestamp. Wikipedia:Signatures says:
The timestamp must adhere to the system-generated format (
HH:MM, D MM YYYY (UTC)
) and must not be customized. This is necessary for clear communications and for archiving bots to function correctly. Timestamps that are customized may be considered disruptive and editors using them may be blocked accordingly.
See also this recent WP:ANI discussion that led to the addition of that text. Would you agree that your signature does not meet those requirements? Modulus12 ( talk) 00:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The naming convention is not relevant to "proper names of governments, organizations, companies, and sports teams", it is ONLY about references to the place itself. -- Khajidha ( talk) 19:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Another example is Mumbai, which officially changed its name from Bombay in 1995. Per Wikipedia's naming policy, our choice of name does not automatically follow the official or local form, but depends on that change having become predominant in common global usage. That can be assessed by reviewing up-to-date references to the place in a modern context in reliable, authoritative sources such as news media, other encyclopedias, atlases and academic publications as well as the official publications of major English-speaking countries, for example the CIA World Factbook.
Category:Orthography reform, which you created, has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Soumyabrata ( talk • subpages) 13:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect (phonetic) transcription. Since you had some involvement with the (phonetic) transcription redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 21:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Monobook.js. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Monobook.js redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — J947 [cont] 06:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I think your recent post may indicate that you misunderstand my intentions. My impression is that the coverage of the Ukrainian Crisis is far too reliant on the commercial news in general, not just the Ukrainian sources. It should make far greater use of the sociological research that is available on the topic. Please consider this post by Losduarte, with which I unfortunately now mostly agree: Talk:2014_Ukrainian_revolution#Questionable_competence. That being said, Ukrainian news media should be used with even greater caution because the conditions for independent journalism in that country leave a lot to be desired. Heptor ( talk) 09:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
You admit that you did not read any of Blum's texts. You have already admitted to not knowing who Noam Chomsky is. The claims that Blum is allegedly "not a professional historian" and "anti-usa" are uncritical thought and the shifting of attention from the lack of research in the wiki piece to shooting the messenger. The implication is that, if somehow the author of a book were a booster of a particular nation, you might read the book. The standard in scholarship is/are the citations to evidence in the text and the peer review testing the thesis and critical interpretations. See e.g. Theodore G. Vincent, independent researcher, "The Legacy of Vicente Guerrero, Mexico's First Black Indian President," https://muse.jhu.edu/article/7448/summary. Blum's research has been cited over 68 times by University reserchers and addressed in scores of University articles, with approval. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Killing-Hope%3A-U.S.-Military-and-CIA-Interventions-Blum/6b8e15b7636623b56df62bf7391c1770cdb45211. As for your Wiki piece, it contains zero (0) sociological or historical research to attempt to analyze the social historical origins of an event in Ukrainian history. losduarte user_talk:losduarte. —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi User:Mzajac, I recently took upon myself to do clerking duties and uncollapse the vote that you cast on July 2
diff, because the sysop who colappsed it said that it could be uncollapsed once RM discussion is unsuspended (which it is now). However, User:TaivoLinguist has reverted those clerking editing on my part
diff] with a comment You were not given permission to do this. Your idiosyncratic assumption that "you" when speaking to Mzajac means anyone who passes by is not supported. This move has not been sanctioned by anyone but you
. I am confused as I did not think that my clerking editing was in any way contentious, so asking for your advice here. I will fully understand if you do not wish to evaluate those edits (given that it is related to your own voting comment), so if that is the case, please let me know and I will ask for evaluating advice from a different enwiki sysop. Thank you,--
73.75.115.5 (
talk)
18:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it could be argued that using Kiev over Kyiv, et al, violates WP:Systemic bias. You might take a look at that page in preparation for the ARBCOM. This is something that the W?F takes seriously, especially in today's political climate. - BilCat ( talk) 22:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi User:Mzajac. I am asking for Wikipedia:Mentorship advice in relation to being able to constructively edit on Talk:Kiev: there is a discussion right now here User_talk:Barkeep49#IP's behaviour at Talk:Kiev, which resulted in sysop re-blocking me a 2nd time. I explained myself User_talk:73.75.115.5 to User:Barkeep49, but he has not replied; I know that on enwiki there are sometimes arrangement when one editor takes mentorship over another (and even sometimes takes on responsibility to guide an editor as a condition for allowing him to be unblock), therefore I ask for your comment and Mentorship in this discussion User_talk:Barkeep49#IP's behaviour at Talk:Kiev (I do fully understand that per unwritten rules of enwii adminship, only the sysop who blocked a user can unblock them, so my request is not about unblocking but about Wikipedia:Mentorship advice that would allow me to continue constructively contibuting to Talk:Kiev discussion.-- 73.75.115.5 ( talk) 18:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mzajac. Over the last six days or so, in what was already a very mature discussion, I count 14 substantial edits. This is an awful lot and I would suggest at this point that you've made your thinking clear and it would be best to take a step back to let other editors weigh in, without a chance of bludgeoning from some of the more active participants. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi User:Mzajac. I see your paths crossed with sysop Ymblanter
Talk:Territorial_evolution_of_Russia#Kyiv; word of advice (which you actually gave me recently!): just take a break from editing any Ukraine (or Kyiv-related) topics on Wikipeidia for a few days or better for a few months. Sysop Ymblanter would probably try to desysop (or even block) you if you continue editing Ukraine-related topics; and they already indirectly hinted at it here
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_Kyiv_disruption. After reading 15 pages of
Talk:Kyiv/naming (my analysis of it can be found here
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive324#Kiev/Kyiv) I came to a conclusion that sysop Ymblanter has a very strong opinion on Ukraine-related topics and usually editors who have an opposing opinion to his end up getting blocked (or in the case of
User:Roman Spinner silenced via the threats of being blocked). Best.--
73.75.115.5 (
talk)
19:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
p.s. as can be seen from Ymblanter's recent comments, they have very strong opinions about "Ukrainian propag@nda"/"Ukrainian prop@ganda government" etc. (i.e., their comments --
73.75.115.5 (
talk)
19:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Kiev was renamed from what Ukrainian propagandidts think was the Russian version [i.e., Kiev] to what they think is the Ukrainian version [i.e., Kyiv]
diff, [Odesa] - no f@cking way this is a common Emglish name.
diff, We just need to be very clear that we are now a Ukrainian government propaganda outlet
diff, the Ukrainian state propaganda does not seem to be interested in this one
diff), and when you come across people so passionate about a topic (in this case Ukraine), it is better to just get out of the way and let them do whatever they want to do.
Hi, you might want to change your opinion of the Sep 2020 Kiev/Kyiv RM based on this new evidence. An admin Ymblanter recently
found out that user who started the RM was later CU blocked as they turned out a logged out user who was topic-banned from all topics related to Ukraine
, and Ymblater later also found out that it was
most likely a user who was topic-banned by them earlier.
A friend already started a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 September#Kyiv - you might want to take a look at that discussion regarding reviewing that move.-- 172.58.140.238 ( talk) 23:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, this edit [1] removed a comment (together with clerking). One can argue that clerking was disruptive (although it wasn't), but removing a comment is against Wikipedia policies. Assuming good faith, it was probably a simple mistake on K.e.coffman's part, but regardless it should be reverted and the comment should be re-instate (clerking could remain reverted, but it is unclear who benefits from returning to having all those discussions that are all interconnected, to being all over the place).-- 172.58.139.74 ( talk) 20:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to assume good faith, but it is difficult when you go ahead and keep changing historical articles, when you know for a fact the matter is controversial and is being currently discussed at Talk:Kyiv. I'd suggest to please wait, or restrict your edits to modern material, until the matter is resolved. Walrasiad ( talk) 05:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure how many times I need to tell you that there is no consensus to change Kievan Rus to Kyivan Rus at this point, and you are perfectly aware of this because you participated in the move request at Talk:Kievan Rus', but you do not hear and continue this dusruptive activity [2]. Thisd is really unfortunate that an administrator demonstrates such behavior. An ordinary user would have already been blocked for this, and many indeed were. This behavior is unbecoming of administrator. Please stop.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 17:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I've fixed the lists and tagged the subcategories in your nominations at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 6. In future please can you list them in the form:
and also put the discussion notice on all subcategories you are proposing to be renamed.
The first is to make it clear what the name is and ease the task of the closing administrator and bot who process the outcome - when the list is in the standard format it simply needs to be copied and pasted onto the working page. If the administrator would have to create the list themselves there is a risk of error and also that they may opt to not close the discussion because of the workload involved.
Tagging the subcategories means that all editors watching them can see they're proposed for renaming. The WP:Article Alerts system is also reliant on the notices being there. This is not a mere bureaucratic procedure but an important part of ensuring the renaming discussion is flagged to all who wish to know. Hence why several editors are procedurally opposing the renames.
Timrollpickering ( talk) 21:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I sure hope that as an administrator you set a good example that when you update articles to Kiev (Kyiv) that you also update the other changed articles to Kyiv (Kiev). Just an observation. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 04:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The other nine do not, although a couple have general notes like (6) “the names of cities are cited following currently accepted official usage (e.g., Moscow, Odesa).” They all are:With the exception of “Ukraine,” which is not normally transliterated as Ukraine or Ukrayina, I follow the Ukrainian national system for geographical names. Thus, we have Kyiv instead of the Russian-based Kiev, and Dnipro for Kyiv’s river instead of Dnieper or Dnepr.
— Michael Z. 16:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Both of these guidelines ask us to mark context-specific exceptions to the modern name: so add “( Kyiv)” to explain any usage of, e.g., historical or foreign names like Kiev, Kief, Kijów, Kiovia, Kiow, Kiou, etcetera. I haven’t seen a guideline suggesting the converse.In general, other articles should refer to places by the names which are used in the articles on those places, according to the rules described at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). If a different name is appropriate in a given historical or other context, then that may be used instead, although it is normal to follow the first occurrence of such a name with the standard modern name in parentheses.
Hi Michael, I've looked on the Kyiv talk page, but can't find anything specifically about this issue, so I'm asking you here. Does the MOS currently address whether or not to use "Kiev" in historical contexts.this? A user has been changing "Kyiv" to "Kiev" in Igor Sikorsky, as shown here. Is this user correct? Thanks. BilCat ( talk) 02:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Do you speak Ukrainian? I need an advice about this. Can I write to you here in Ukrainian? AndriiDr ( talk) 04:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
This user focuses on the fact that I made 300 edits in one day. But my edits are simple and repetitive, not a big deal. Does Wikipedia have some "speed limit" and 300 edits in one day is wrong, or it is just pressure? Thanks a lot. -- AndriiDr ( talk) 01:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi @ Mzajac:. One user does tricky things. I reverted his edits, then he canceled my revert, i notified him here and revert him. And after this, immediately after a second or few seconds (looks like software), my edit was reverted by an account with one edit here. What should I do in this situation? If I revert again, will there be questions to me about the edit war? I have heard about sanctions on articles, when I can cancel as many times as I like. Does this work for this article? -- AndriiDr ( talk) 19:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Missed your edit comment [3], was just about to fix, after I saw your comment on the IS talk page, but just run into edit conflict with your reapply of the fix. TerraCyprus ( talk) 04:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Replaced since 6 Nov [4], tagged for speedy since 8 Nov - could you delete Template:Infobox Iceland municipality and subpages and incoming redirects? TerraCyprus ( talk) 05:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
Thank you for defending the correct spelling of the medieval state's name, which is a derivative from Kyiv. I appreciate Ukrainian Wikipedia's editors work for establishing and renewing the right image of Ukraine in the world. Dim.yttrium ( talk) 20:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC) |
I decided that the most direct way to proceed is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mzajac-- Ymblanter ( talk) 19:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I have closed the AE complaint by imposing the following topic ban on you: a one year prohibition against anything to do with Kyiv, broadly construed. I will note it in the log. Anyway, while I had originally intended to impose a ban which was more narrow in that it only involved a prohibition against changing Kiev-to-Kyiv, your rather inexplicable misconduct during the report itself, convinced myself and the other admins reviewing the complaint to go with a wider ban. Frankly, to me, it feels like you've taken advantage of my good nature, though I bear you no ill will. A word of caution, then: if you are to violate this ban, I estimate the chances of you ending up before the Committee to be great. In fact, there's a decent chance for that to happen regardless. A lot of folks out there already feel that sanctions are incompatible with advanced permissions (as a matter of competence or whatever), not to mention when inexplicable behaviour on the part of the admin facing the complaint takes place during the AE proceeding itself. In any case, I'm not going to be the one to launch any Arbitration proceeding against you (though I may comment if someone else does), but I still thought it worthwhile to make note of. Finally, I had detailed on the report in question the three avenues of appeal which are at your disposal. El_C 02:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:VCFilipKonowalGrave.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.
This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot ( talk) 01:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed your signature doesn't use the standard timestamp. Wikipedia:Signatures says:
The timestamp must adhere to the system-generated format (
HH:MM, D MM YYYY (UTC)
) and must not be customized. This is necessary for clear communications and for archiving bots to function correctly. Timestamps that are customized may be considered disruptive and editors using them may be blocked accordingly.
See also this recent WP:ANI discussion that led to the addition of that text. Would you agree that your signature does not meet those requirements? Modulus12 ( talk) 00:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
The naming convention is not relevant to "proper names of governments, organizations, companies, and sports teams", it is ONLY about references to the place itself. -- Khajidha ( talk) 19:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Another example is Mumbai, which officially changed its name from Bombay in 1995. Per Wikipedia's naming policy, our choice of name does not automatically follow the official or local form, but depends on that change having become predominant in common global usage. That can be assessed by reviewing up-to-date references to the place in a modern context in reliable, authoritative sources such as news media, other encyclopedias, atlases and academic publications as well as the official publications of major English-speaking countries, for example the CIA World Factbook.
Category:Orthography reform, which you created, has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Soumyabrata ( talk • subpages) 13:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect (phonetic) transcription. Since you had some involvement with the (phonetic) transcription redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 21:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Monobook.js. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Monobook.js redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — J947 [cont] 06:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
I think your recent post may indicate that you misunderstand my intentions. My impression is that the coverage of the Ukrainian Crisis is far too reliant on the commercial news in general, not just the Ukrainian sources. It should make far greater use of the sociological research that is available on the topic. Please consider this post by Losduarte, with which I unfortunately now mostly agree: Talk:2014_Ukrainian_revolution#Questionable_competence. That being said, Ukrainian news media should be used with even greater caution because the conditions for independent journalism in that country leave a lot to be desired. Heptor ( talk) 09:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
You admit that you did not read any of Blum's texts. You have already admitted to not knowing who Noam Chomsky is. The claims that Blum is allegedly "not a professional historian" and "anti-usa" are uncritical thought and the shifting of attention from the lack of research in the wiki piece to shooting the messenger. The implication is that, if somehow the author of a book were a booster of a particular nation, you might read the book. The standard in scholarship is/are the citations to evidence in the text and the peer review testing the thesis and critical interpretations. See e.g. Theodore G. Vincent, independent researcher, "The Legacy of Vicente Guerrero, Mexico's First Black Indian President," https://muse.jhu.edu/article/7448/summary. Blum's research has been cited over 68 times by University reserchers and addressed in scores of University articles, with approval. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Killing-Hope%3A-U.S.-Military-and-CIA-Interventions-Blum/6b8e15b7636623b56df62bf7391c1770cdb45211. As for your Wiki piece, it contains zero (0) sociological or historical research to attempt to analyze the social historical origins of an event in Ukrainian history. losduarte user_talk:losduarte. —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi User:Mzajac, I recently took upon myself to do clerking duties and uncollapse the vote that you cast on July 2
diff, because the sysop who colappsed it said that it could be uncollapsed once RM discussion is unsuspended (which it is now). However, User:TaivoLinguist has reverted those clerking editing on my part
diff] with a comment You were not given permission to do this. Your idiosyncratic assumption that "you" when speaking to Mzajac means anyone who passes by is not supported. This move has not been sanctioned by anyone but you
. I am confused as I did not think that my clerking editing was in any way contentious, so asking for your advice here. I will fully understand if you do not wish to evaluate those edits (given that it is related to your own voting comment), so if that is the case, please let me know and I will ask for evaluating advice from a different enwiki sysop. Thank you,--
73.75.115.5 (
talk)
18:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I think it could be argued that using Kiev over Kyiv, et al, violates WP:Systemic bias. You might take a look at that page in preparation for the ARBCOM. This is something that the W?F takes seriously, especially in today's political climate. - BilCat ( talk) 22:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi User:Mzajac. I am asking for Wikipedia:Mentorship advice in relation to being able to constructively edit on Talk:Kiev: there is a discussion right now here User_talk:Barkeep49#IP's behaviour at Talk:Kiev, which resulted in sysop re-blocking me a 2nd time. I explained myself User_talk:73.75.115.5 to User:Barkeep49, but he has not replied; I know that on enwiki there are sometimes arrangement when one editor takes mentorship over another (and even sometimes takes on responsibility to guide an editor as a condition for allowing him to be unblock), therefore I ask for your comment and Mentorship in this discussion User_talk:Barkeep49#IP's behaviour at Talk:Kiev (I do fully understand that per unwritten rules of enwii adminship, only the sysop who blocked a user can unblock them, so my request is not about unblocking but about Wikipedia:Mentorship advice that would allow me to continue constructively contibuting to Talk:Kiev discussion.-- 73.75.115.5 ( talk) 18:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Mzajac. Over the last six days or so, in what was already a very mature discussion, I count 14 substantial edits. This is an awful lot and I would suggest at this point that you've made your thinking clear and it would be best to take a step back to let other editors weigh in, without a chance of bludgeoning from some of the more active participants. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi User:Mzajac. I see your paths crossed with sysop Ymblanter
Talk:Territorial_evolution_of_Russia#Kyiv; word of advice (which you actually gave me recently!): just take a break from editing any Ukraine (or Kyiv-related) topics on Wikipeidia for a few days or better for a few months. Sysop Ymblanter would probably try to desysop (or even block) you if you continue editing Ukraine-related topics; and they already indirectly hinted at it here
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_Kyiv_disruption. After reading 15 pages of
Talk:Kyiv/naming (my analysis of it can be found here
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive324#Kiev/Kyiv) I came to a conclusion that sysop Ymblanter has a very strong opinion on Ukraine-related topics and usually editors who have an opposing opinion to his end up getting blocked (or in the case of
User:Roman Spinner silenced via the threats of being blocked). Best.--
73.75.115.5 (
talk)
19:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
p.s. as can be seen from Ymblanter's recent comments, they have very strong opinions about "Ukrainian propag@nda"/"Ukrainian prop@ganda government" etc. (i.e., their comments --
73.75.115.5 (
talk)
19:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Kiev was renamed from what Ukrainian propagandidts think was the Russian version [i.e., Kiev] to what they think is the Ukrainian version [i.e., Kyiv]
diff, [Odesa] - no f@cking way this is a common Emglish name.
diff, We just need to be very clear that we are now a Ukrainian government propaganda outlet
diff, the Ukrainian state propaganda does not seem to be interested in this one
diff), and when you come across people so passionate about a topic (in this case Ukraine), it is better to just get out of the way and let them do whatever they want to do.
Hi, you might want to change your opinion of the Sep 2020 Kiev/Kyiv RM based on this new evidence. An admin Ymblanter recently
found out that user who started the RM was later CU blocked as they turned out a logged out user who was topic-banned from all topics related to Ukraine
, and Ymblater later also found out that it was
most likely a user who was topic-banned by them earlier.
A friend already started a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 September#Kyiv - you might want to take a look at that discussion regarding reviewing that move.-- 172.58.140.238 ( talk) 23:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi, this edit [1] removed a comment (together with clerking). One can argue that clerking was disruptive (although it wasn't), but removing a comment is against Wikipedia policies. Assuming good faith, it was probably a simple mistake on K.e.coffman's part, but regardless it should be reverted and the comment should be re-instate (clerking could remain reverted, but it is unclear who benefits from returning to having all those discussions that are all interconnected, to being all over the place).-- 172.58.139.74 ( talk) 20:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to assume good faith, but it is difficult when you go ahead and keep changing historical articles, when you know for a fact the matter is controversial and is being currently discussed at Talk:Kyiv. I'd suggest to please wait, or restrict your edits to modern material, until the matter is resolved. Walrasiad ( talk) 05:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure how many times I need to tell you that there is no consensus to change Kievan Rus to Kyivan Rus at this point, and you are perfectly aware of this because you participated in the move request at Talk:Kievan Rus', but you do not hear and continue this dusruptive activity [2]. Thisd is really unfortunate that an administrator demonstrates such behavior. An ordinary user would have already been blocked for this, and many indeed were. This behavior is unbecoming of administrator. Please stop.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 17:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
I've fixed the lists and tagged the subcategories in your nominations at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 6. In future please can you list them in the form:
and also put the discussion notice on all subcategories you are proposing to be renamed.
The first is to make it clear what the name is and ease the task of the closing administrator and bot who process the outcome - when the list is in the standard format it simply needs to be copied and pasted onto the working page. If the administrator would have to create the list themselves there is a risk of error and also that they may opt to not close the discussion because of the workload involved.
Tagging the subcategories means that all editors watching them can see they're proposed for renaming. The WP:Article Alerts system is also reliant on the notices being there. This is not a mere bureaucratic procedure but an important part of ensuring the renaming discussion is flagged to all who wish to know. Hence why several editors are procedurally opposing the renames.
Timrollpickering ( talk) 21:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
I sure hope that as an administrator you set a good example that when you update articles to Kiev (Kyiv) that you also update the other changed articles to Kyiv (Kiev). Just an observation. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 04:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The other nine do not, although a couple have general notes like (6) “the names of cities are cited following currently accepted official usage (e.g., Moscow, Odesa).” They all are:With the exception of “Ukraine,” which is not normally transliterated as Ukraine or Ukrayina, I follow the Ukrainian national system for geographical names. Thus, we have Kyiv instead of the Russian-based Kiev, and Dnipro for Kyiv’s river instead of Dnieper or Dnepr.
— Michael Z. 16:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Both of these guidelines ask us to mark context-specific exceptions to the modern name: so add “( Kyiv)” to explain any usage of, e.g., historical or foreign names like Kiev, Kief, Kijów, Kiovia, Kiow, Kiou, etcetera. I haven’t seen a guideline suggesting the converse.In general, other articles should refer to places by the names which are used in the articles on those places, according to the rules described at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). If a different name is appropriate in a given historical or other context, then that may be used instead, although it is normal to follow the first occurrence of such a name with the standard modern name in parentheses.
Hi Michael, I've looked on the Kyiv talk page, but can't find anything specifically about this issue, so I'm asking you here. Does the MOS currently address whether or not to use "Kiev" in historical contexts.this? A user has been changing "Kyiv" to "Kiev" in Igor Sikorsky, as shown here. Is this user correct? Thanks. BilCat ( talk) 02:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Do you speak Ukrainian? I need an advice about this. Can I write to you here in Ukrainian? AndriiDr ( talk) 04:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
This user focuses on the fact that I made 300 edits in one day. But my edits are simple and repetitive, not a big deal. Does Wikipedia have some "speed limit" and 300 edits in one day is wrong, or it is just pressure? Thanks a lot. -- AndriiDr ( talk) 01:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi @ Mzajac:. One user does tricky things. I reverted his edits, then he canceled my revert, i notified him here and revert him. And after this, immediately after a second or few seconds (looks like software), my edit was reverted by an account with one edit here. What should I do in this situation? If I revert again, will there be questions to me about the edit war? I have heard about sanctions on articles, when I can cancel as many times as I like. Does this work for this article? -- AndriiDr ( talk) 19:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Missed your edit comment [3], was just about to fix, after I saw your comment on the IS talk page, but just run into edit conflict with your reapply of the fix. TerraCyprus ( talk) 04:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Replaced since 6 Nov [4], tagged for speedy since 8 Nov - could you delete Template:Infobox Iceland municipality and subpages and incoming redirects? TerraCyprus ( talk) 05:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
Thank you for defending the correct spelling of the medieval state's name, which is a derivative from Kyiv. I appreciate Ukrainian Wikipedia's editors work for establishing and renewing the right image of Ukraine in the world. Dim.yttrium ( talk) 20:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC) |
I decided that the most direct way to proceed is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mzajac-- Ymblanter ( talk) 19:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I have closed the AE complaint by imposing the following topic ban on you: a one year prohibition against anything to do with Kyiv, broadly construed. I will note it in the log. Anyway, while I had originally intended to impose a ban which was more narrow in that it only involved a prohibition against changing Kiev-to-Kyiv, your rather inexplicable misconduct during the report itself, convinced myself and the other admins reviewing the complaint to go with a wider ban. Frankly, to me, it feels like you've taken advantage of my good nature, though I bear you no ill will. A word of caution, then: if you are to violate this ban, I estimate the chances of you ending up before the Committee to be great. In fact, there's a decent chance for that to happen regardless. A lot of folks out there already feel that sanctions are incompatible with advanced permissions (as a matter of competence or whatever), not to mention when inexplicable behaviour on the part of the admin facing the complaint takes place during the AE proceeding itself. In any case, I'm not going to be the one to launch any Arbitration proceeding against you (though I may comment if someone else does), but I still thought it worthwhile to make note of. Finally, I had detailed on the report in question the three avenues of appeal which are at your disposal. El_C 02:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)