User talk:TaivoLinguist

New Start

Sadly, because some of my personal information was posted in an outside political forum, I've had to delete this whole page just in case there was personal information on it. I apologize to anyone who might be offended that I deleted their special post. (Taivo (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Removal of personal info

I saw your message at FPaS's talk page. See WP:OS for details on requesting the permanent deletion of the info. Mjroots (talk) 11:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. (Taivo (talk) 11:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

K??v

Hi - I've left a long comment at Talk:Kiev; I really can't see the point of running another classic WP:RM in the same format as all the others. The arguments have all been heard before, and nothing has changed with regard to any of them, except possibly the relative frequency of usage. I feel the only way to get anything profitable out of a re-run is to make it strictly an information-gathering exercise on relative usage - hence the formatting I introduced.

Feel free to run this as another run-of-the-mill WP:RM discussion and remove the formatting if you wish. If however you also think restricting this to evidence-gathering exercise is a good idea, then it will take some concerted effort to keep the discussion focused on the matter in hand. Editors will have to be asked to restrict the grandstanding and interminable raking over old ground, and irrelevant material removed. Just an idea, your call. All the best, Knepflerle (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The primary reason to start this at all again is that there was a serious meat puppet solicitation out there on a website that is actively campaigning with news organizations, etc. to change their policies. It just seems like a very cool, calm presentation of the facts as Wikipedia sees it and a presentation of Wikipedia's consensus on the issue is in order. (Taivo (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

(ec)That's unfortunate, but collecting usage statistics should keep things cooler than engaging in interminable discussions on transliteration and government dictat or emotive historical polemic, neither of which influence English speakers anyway!

My proposed approach is better for accountability too, because if we keep the discussion to collecting verifiable data, everyone can see exactly why we made the objective final decision we will make. And this approach negates the effect of another meatpuppet swarm - no matter how many people are invited from outside or created from sockpuppets, they can't change the objective raw facts of the English usage statistics, and they can't drown the discussion in polemic.

I really don't see what how we can lose overall, and I think it's at least worth the experiment to try and stop this discussion going the way of ther others. Knepflerle (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I like what you did at Talk:Kiev. I removed the survey and we can assemble the facts before going down the survey road. (Taivo (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC))

Edit-conflicted with you there! I've left the comment I'd written anyway, as it will give more explanation to anyone reading this later. Ok, many thanks for giving it a try. Let's hope it works! Knepflerle (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

For crying out loud - Talk:Kiev#Survey. It just takes one person, and so it begins... can we stop this now to give chance for the collection and discussion of evidence? Knepflerle (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

What other types of data do you think we should be getting? (Taivo (talk) 11:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

Kyiv Survey Comments

• Oppose per the reasoning provided in the last many previous renaming discussions, and the evidence provided below by the nominator showing that "Kiev" is the predominant form used. (as of the time of my signature) 70.29.209.91 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose The evidence provided seems to indicate that Kiev is by far the more common name (not that it matters, the article on Myanmar is located at it's former name of Burma). TJ Spyke 22:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I cannot see any reason why transliteration of Ukrainian language should have precedence over English language spelling on English wikipedia.--Toddy1 (talk) 23:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose this is a plain case of common sense. This is the English wiki and common English names are to be used (even if they are English translations). This wiki is written in the English language and read by the English-speaking world. Original and/or native names should NOT be used "here". Flamarande (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose considering the data, it has to remain Kiev. Preaching to me about "common English usage" while proposing this is gobsmackingly hypocritical. Izzedine (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(Last comment by Izzedine was a simple misunderstanding.) (Taivo (talk) 17:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC))

• Support Usage of Kiev seems outdated and conservative.--Andriy155 (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)