User talk:Andriy155

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Andriy155, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kyiv

Thanks for your contributions regarding Kiev/Kyiv. Currently Wikipedia uses "Kiev" as the name of the city, believing that it is the most common English usage. I gather that there is a campaign to change that; this is perfectly acceptable and if such a change occurs then the name can be changed everywhere. Meanwhile please adopt standard usage.

With most names like this usage is firmly fixed on one version - then there is a transition period in which both are used, and then the other becomes widely adopted. Until we can demonstrate that we are in the third phase, consistancy dictates we keep the previous use. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply has been posted on the users page. Andriy155 (talk) 21:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. In future, you can answer by posting on this page. Don't worry I will see that you have done it. I'm copying the reply you made to be below, and then I'll answer: DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message and your opinion regarding the name. Please provide me with the information explaining what kind of evidence is required to demonstrate that the usage of the word is wide enough to be changed on Wikipedia. What exactly do you mean by "when this change occurs" and who has the competence to state this? Is the usage of the word by newspapers like Canadian Globe and Mail as well as several governmental institutions (UK and USA governments in particular) enough of a prove that the change is occurring? Check out the CIA world factbook websiteAndriy155 (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The answers to your question will take a little time, so please bear with me. The simple and most important answer is that in order to change from Kiev to Kyiv you need to create a consensus among Wikipedia editors that this is the right thing to do. That's the way Wikipedia operates. Now you can set about persuading Wikipedia editors of your point of view, and there are a number of ways that you can do this. The best one, which you have already discovered, is to find references that show that Kyiv is the most common English usage. You've given a list above, which is good. I checked the CIA factbook and it does indeed use Kyiv - you will need to find actual URLs for the government usage you claim. However there are other organisations that use Kiev. The BBC is one [1] and CNN another [2].

The best place to hold this discussion is at Talk:Kiev. However I see from the talk page that there was such a discussion only a couple of months ago, and it's unlikely that there will have been a change of view in that time. You might like to wait a few months and try again. In the meantime, I suggest reading that discussion, if you haven't already.

I hope that was helpful. I would also recommend making some contributions in other parts of Wikipedia. It helps to get a sense of perspective. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:31, 20 May 2009 (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) 22:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three Revert Rule

Hi Andriy

Can I draw your attention to the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. In summary this means that you must not make the same change to any article more than three times within any twenty-four hour period. If you do so you can be automatically blocked from editing Wikipedia for twenty-four hours. You violated this rule in a number of places on 19th May; however I'm not going to block you since you clearly didn't know. The point of this rule is to make sure that changes are discussed, rather than fought over: see Wikipedia:Edit war. It is far preferable to not come anywhere close to making the same change three times. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kyiv / Kiev

Please explicitly state your position or renaming the "traditional" English name "Tallin" into "Tallinn" in the late 90-ies. After that explain how that is different from Kiev/Kyiv case.--Andriy155 (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the case of Tallinn, but it shouldn't be different from the case of Kiev. Whatever name the people of both cities & countries wish to use is mostly irrelevant. The only significant parallel questions to answer are:

What name would the greatest number of English speakers most easily recognize ?
What name is commonly used in English-language publications ?

Whatever the answer to those questions is, that decides what name is used in the English-language Wikipedia (at least until our naming conventions policy is modified).

Remember that Wikipedia is descriptive of English usage, not prescriptive of what names should English-speakers use. We do not declare what an English usage should be or will be, only what it currently is.

Of course, languages change with the pass of time. Today we usually speak about Beijing instead of Peking. Perhaps the same thing will happen in the case of Kiev, and at some point the form Kyiv will become the one the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize. If/when that happens, the English-language Wikipedia should reflect that change, and use Kyiv. But not before; Wikipedia is not a venue to advocate the adoption of certain names by the English language. - Best, Ev (talk) 16:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How Wikipedia Works

Hi Andriy

I've decided to send you a message because some of the things you are saying at Talk:Kiev/naming have gone beyond a discussion of the name.

I understand that you haven't been editing at Wikipedia very long. Some people come to Wikipedia thinking it's a place where 'anything goes' and 'there are no rules'. I don't know if you thought that, but it is not the case. There are long-established ways of doing things here; they are enshrined in policies and guidelines.

The particular policies and guidelines I suggest you look at are Wikipedia:Consensus. Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion is another, and also Wikipedia:Naming conventions, especially Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). Some of the changes you are suggesting at the above page go counter to these guidelines. You are welcome to try to get the guidelines changed, but you should do that before talking about the Kyiv name specifically. I hope that helps. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DJ, and thanks for your explanation. To begin with, I did not come here thinking that anything goes, so please remove this comment, as I find it somewhat offensive. I believe that everyone is entitled to their opinion: and your opinion, DJ Clayworth, is not more important than opinion of anyone else on this site. I agree, however, that it is probably worth examining further the guidelines you are using further and perhaps propose change to them, if necessary. I have reviewed the logs of discussion regarding Kyiv/Kiev and it seems as though Wikipedia is getting a lot of requests for the name changes and it is always the same people who oppose it (just an observation). The reasons for not changing are always general and vague - this seems to be inappropriate for the encyclopaedic source. Again, just my opinion.

Again just to point out to you something you may have missed: "Consensus is fundamental to Wikipedia decision making". It's the way we do things here, and it has been that way since it started. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I again insist on removing the "anything goes" comment.--Andriy155 (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start Discussions on Talk Page first

By now it should be clear that changes in naming of articles and trying to shift the names of Ukrainian entities is something you need to talk about on the Talk Pages first. (Taivo (talk) 06:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

By now it should be clear that you have to examine the history of page changes before accusing me of doing something without consulting anyone. My revert was caused by another user reverting somebody else's move. So statements like "you are not the first one trying to get this changed" are not correct. You may recall our discussion on the Odesa page. I started that discussion, if you remember correctly. Also, you dropping patronising attitude would actually be appreciated on this end. Best of luck!--Andriy155 (talk) 07:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please merge your accounts in all Wikipedias

Hi,

I have noticed that you are using accounts Andriy155 in different Wikipedias but you have not merged them into a global account yet. Global accounts become mandatory since 15 April 2015, and all non-merged accounts will be renamed.

As of now, most likely you have accounts Andriy155 in other projects, notably in Ukrainian Wikipedia, which are not merged with your global account. Please click on Special:MergeAccount and finish the unification process. You can check the state of your account unification at Special:CentralAuth/Andriy155

If you don't merge your accounts by 15 April, your accounts (in Wikipedias other than English) can be renamed.

If you have questions you can ask them on my talk page. Best regards — NickK (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]