→September 2020: ditto |
Ds/aware EE |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Ds/aware|e-e}} |
|||
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
||
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |
Revision as of 05:22, 4 October 2020
/2004, /2005, /2006, /2007, /2008, /2009, /2010, /2011, /2012, /2013, /2014, /2015, /2016, /2017, /2018, /2019, /2020, /2021 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Wikipedia 15
Wikipedia is celebrating its 15th birthday on January 15, 2016. I have thought for a while that it would be neat to meet some local wikipedians. According to the wikipedians in Winnipeg or Wikipedians in Manitoba category you are one of us. I am contacting people in this category to say: Let's celebrate this milestone. If you know other wikipedians, please ask them to join in as well.
I am posting this to your talk page as a transclude so that any updates will show up automatically.
Hope to see you there! Tenbergen (talk) 04:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
One other Winnipeg Wikipedian showed up, in addition to a number of regular skullspace members. It was nice to actually talk to someone else who has worked with Mediawiki and actually "gets" transclusion. Cake was eaten! Tenbergen (talk) 06:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
- Aw, apparently I haven't logged in to Wikipedia in over 6 years and I totally missed this message and the event! I guessed I missed any 20 year celebration, too. Let me know if you end up doing a 25 year one. :) Clayton Rumley (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Yo Ho Ho
Talkback
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Systematic bias
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 @BilCat:, apologies for joining your conversation, but when I saw your comment above, I could not pass by without saying anything. If you yourself think that today the right way of spelling Ukraine's capital is Kyiv and not Kiev, and that the only reason some "old timers" cling to Kiev is because of WP:Systemic bias, then why would you not change your original Oppose vote to a Support vote?--73.75.115.5 (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Because it's not an argument for ignoring the guidelines in move discussions, but for getting the guidelines changed. I support the guidelines as long as they are the guidelines, and Kiev is still the common name. Sorry, but my !vote stays the same. BilCat (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- I have to voice my disagreement since you’re posting this here, BilCat. The guidelines, including WP:COMMONNAME, support using the name most common in up-to-date, reliable sources, not in some Google search results, or G Trends, or what you hear from Joe in the doughnut shop. That would be Kyiv. —Michael Z. 04:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
- Because it's not an argument for ignoring the guidelines in move discussions, but for getting the guidelines changed. I support the guidelines as long as they are the guidelines, and Kiev is still the common name. Sorry, but my !vote stays the same. BilCat (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Asking to evaluate the removal of my clerking on Talk:Kiev
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 am confused as I did not think that my clerking editing was in any way contentious" is disingenuous. The entire bottom half of the discussion at Procedural note on clerking is devoted exclusively to this question. He has been reverted by multiple editors both before and after his block and his block was partially as a result of his contentious editing on this very issue. If you, Mzajac, wish to reformat your comment you are free to do so, but no one else is. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Asking for Wikipedia:Mentorship in relation to being able to constructively edit on Talk:Kiev
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)
- Hey, 73.75.115.5 (does that link inform you of my edit here?). I’d be glad to mentor, although I don’t have much time to spend here these days. I’m pretty sure you understand and appreciate what got you blocked, and what to not do to avoid get blocked again. You’ve been a tireless contributor to changing the article name to conform to Wikipedia’s content guidelines, and you’ve done more than anyone else to correct the situation. But you’re still one of us many cogs in the encyclopedia, so don’t feel like it will all fall apart if you take a day off or if you don’t respond to just that one terrible comment. If you feel yourself clenching your jaw at some remark or unhelpful information, just put it aside for a day instead of posting, until you can see it as old news. Worst case: we revisit this again later, but I don’t think that’s going to be necessary. Thank you for all your efforts. Cheers. —Michael Z. 15:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hi User:Mzajac, the ping did not go through (I guess {{ping}} does not work for IPs). Thank you for your advice - I think your advice for me is timely and appropriate; I shall take time off from Talk:Kiev to ponder over topics raised there and will come back when I can view them as old news (which is likely to be Oct 1, or later, since that is the duration of the 2nd block that User:Barkeep49 has imposed upon me.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Talk:Kiev
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)
Word of advice: take a break from Wikipedia
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.
- Thank you. You’re right that a break now is a very good idea, of course. Maybe I’ll just wrap up one little RFC that’s been requested . . . —Michael Z. 19:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Reviewing Kiev/Kyiv RM based on newly found evidence from Ymblanter
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)
Removal of comment from Talk:Kyiv
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)
Please stop making edits in historical articles
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)
- Hi, Walrasiad, thanks. I have been mainly. I have some time now and I wanted to get some significant work done. But the vague “historical articles” is practically meaningless, and the only concrete suggestions of cutting it off at 1995 ridiculous. There seems to be no objection to using the current spelling in articles on Ukrainian topics, for example the extremely historical article History of Kyiv, so I am skeptical that “historical articles” is what this is about, but I am trying to assume good faith but still find what the real boundaries are. Was it unreasonable to get on a roll and update all of the articles about Ukrainian heads of state and heads of government from 2020 back to 1917? At which ones should I have stopped? Sincerely, —Michael Z. 14:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Also wondering if anyone intends to cite a reference as published in Kyiv in some articles but Kiev in others. A citation is not “historical” information, nor English writing style. It is akin to an ideally up-to-date library catalogue, and should probably be cited consistently and according to modern bibliographic standards. —Michael Z. 14:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Gosh, and I can’t help mention the irony: “Undid revision 980017384 by Mzajac (talk) Please don't introduce changes in historical articles currently under discussion.” The article explains how in 1907, Ukrainians were finally allowed to publish in their own language in the empire, and renamed their journal Ukraina. But here we are in 2020. I don’t expect Wikipedians to change our practices overnight, but the lack of sympathy and in some cases plain contempt shown by other editors for a nation still dealing with a colonial legacy creates a hostile environment to improve Wikipedia in. I have mentioned wp:bias in several conversations, and not once has an editor acknowledged the slightest respective for the important ideas in it. —Michael Z. 15:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Greetings
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)
- Сервус. I do, but English would be easier for me and more appropriate here. I will have a look and follow up at the Administators’ Notice Board later today. —Michael Z. 13:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
September 2020
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)
- Okay, I see, you don’t want the Kyivan Rus spelling in non-historical Ukrainian-topic articles. I suppose you think this change should get me banned too. —Michael Z. 17:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am not sure what is so difficult in the notion of "historical usage". According to the current proposal at Talk:Kyiv which may pass or may not pass, every usage of the name of the city by default is Ktiv after 1995 and Kiev before 1991. Everything else must be discussed individually, and I agree that History of Kyiv would require some care - which probably can not be achieved by any blanket replacement, it should be something like using Kyiv throughout the article and sometimes adding "at the time known as Kiev" or smth like this. However, I do not see how any of discussions held on Wikipedia can lead to a conclusion that it is ok to replace Kievan Rus' with Kyivan Rus' without discussion, in any context.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- Then I suggest that you consider that I made one mistake in judgment on this article, as I have been trying not to step on the anti-Kyiv editors’ toes, and I don’t agree on your assessment. This “historical context” phrasing is being used to extend discussions of article titles to put a chill on other editing that is simply disapproved of. There are articles which use Kyiv in a modern context, the noun and adjective Kyivan as in “the Kyivans” and “Kyivan prince,” as well as refer to Kyivan Rus. It is silly to ban these spellings commonly used in the field of Ukrainian history from individual uses where they are appropriate, and I don’t think anyone is proposing that we do. So please just relax a little or think twice before you accuse and threaten. Thanks. —Michael Z. 17:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
- I am not sure what is so difficult in the notion of "historical usage". According to the current proposal at Talk:Kyiv which may pass or may not pass, every usage of the name of the city by default is Ktiv after 1995 and Kiev before 1991. Everything else must be discussed individually, and I agree that History of Kyiv would require some care - which probably can not be achieved by any blanket replacement, it should be something like using Kyiv throughout the article and sometimes adding "at the time known as Kiev" or smth like this. However, I do not see how any of discussions held on Wikipedia can lead to a conclusion that it is ok to replace Kievan Rus' with Kyivan Rus' without discussion, in any context.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)