User talk:Vvolodymyr

September 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Kiev, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Kiev was changed by Vvolodymyr (u) (t) deleting 57954 characters on 2008-09-23T20:10:08+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 20:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Kiev, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev vs. Kyiv

If you want to move the page to Kyiv again, take it to requested moves. The way you're doing it was not the right way. Since Kyiv already exists as a redirect, you'd have to get consensus from the Wikipedia community (not just support from the article itself). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh

I though that was natural way of doing it. Put content on proper page and then put a redirect on the old page. Regarding requesting. Well - the consensus on the official name is there (although I find it silly that one would need consesus from someone if the name IS official anyways....) - so it is wrong to have it under wrong place.

I'm sorry to bother - but what to do if those people refuse to recognize the fact that the city is officially called Kyiv - meaning refusing to recognize the country's gov't as the source of the official name. Then what? then how is correct information to be brought to the public - if it is being denied unreasonably?

Vvolodymyr (talk) 20:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anyone is "ignoring" it. I think it may have to do with the fact that "Kiev" is the English name and this is the English Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a fact. Please review all the English sources (books, encyclopedias, newspapers, governments) that use Kyiv. Then tell them that Kyiv is not the English name. Its really not that simple. Ostap 03:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - I'm talking about that here Talk:Kiev/naming So does that mean that England government or some other English language authority in England decides what to call Ukrainian capital? Why not American, or Canadian, or Australian, or New Zealand's, or Indian or Singaporean??? What if those do not agree? What if English language is out of anyone's control? And those countries can only dictate the rules on their own territory? And not on international arena(like wikipedia)? Which they don't.

If they don't then noone else does. In that case - who the upper hand falls to - some random government, or just a group of random people on the internet - or maybe the government of the country in question?

Those are simple questions. --Vvolodymyr (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Report

Hello - this is regarding the "casual" editing of a naming policy - whithout any agreement, discussion or any prior mention.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism User:Pmanderson (→User-reported: rm Pmanderson, not vandalism, discuss the matter on the talk page) about change: [1]

Please revert this unauthorized change. And if the user still insists on making changes - he must address the issue first.

Interestingly - this happened when the SAME user was having a discussion here Talk:Kiev/naming So I guess just discussing wasn't enough and made a decision to just change the policy.

Is this acceptable here? Vvolodymyr (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?

I didn't say that the user's actions were OK, just that they were not blockable vandalism. Please revert yourself and/or discuss the issue on the talk page. If necessary, get a third opinion or use dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK - sorry about the messenger. Thanks - but the change was done to a protected page - so he must be some sort of administrator. But the change he made was not under discussion. and it was an established policy. Before anything it should be reverted - but I have no power to do it. Then - he can start a discussion etc. It's only fair and reasonable.

Again - how do I report this misuse of power - when an administrator having a discussion - simply changes the policy which tips the topic to his opinion.... You know what I mean. How can I talk and discuss with such person - following all the conventions and rules etc. - while he just wings it anyhow he likes. That just makes him do whatever.

So how do I ask/report/anything for some sort of intervention? Vvolodymyr (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Naming conventions is move-protected, which means that it can't be moved (renamed) except by an administrator, but it's still open to edit by anyone. You are therefore free to revert it and you are free in either case to open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions.

Pmanderson isn't an administrator. If you feel that he has misbehaved you can make a listing at WP:ANI. (But he hasn't, just so you know.)

I am just about to go offline so there is no point in replying further to me, unless you don't mind waiting 11 hours for your reply. Stifle (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works on the principle of being bold in editing — it's fine, and even recommended, to edit most pages and policies.

There is nothing stopping you, me, or any other user from reverting that page. You can't use the undo link because of subsequent edits, but to revert back to before he edited the page, just view the history, click the version below the one he edited (which is this one), click edit, enter an appropriate edit summary (like "reverting, please discuss on talk"), and click save page. Stifle (talk) 21:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I reverted. But I naturally prefer order. It's all too chaotic. And the rules still somehow prevent me from achieving simple things.... :(. Thank You again though. Vvolodymyr (talk) 21:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]