User talk:Ev/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Kyiv-Kiev

Kyiv is what the company writes on their pages. Google uses Kyiv together with Kiev in its services. And Wikipedia has long open discussion on that. And Wikipedia also says Kyiv on its page in the right top corner. Please reconsider your edition. Languages are alive and change. Please again reconsider Microsoft uses Kyiv http://www.bing.com/maps/ --Brainsteinko (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brainsteinko. :-) What you say is correct, but it's irrelevant for choosing which name to use in our articles. The names usted in the articles of the English-language Wikipedia are based on Wikipedia policy, which is clear on this issue (see the general naming conventions and the more specific naming conventions for geographic names). The third general guideline of the naming conventions for geographic names reads: "The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article" (my emphasis). — In other words, all articles mentioning the Ukrainian capital should consistently use the title of the Wikipedia article on said city. At the present time that means using Kiev. — If at some point in the future the form Kyiv becomes more common than Kiev in English-language publications, then our article on the Ukrainian capital will be renamed accordingly. At that point, and only then, will all other articles reflect the change and adopt the form Kyiv. But not before. — Since August 2007, the centralised place to discuss this larger issue is Talk:Kiev/naming. So, per Wikipedia policy, only when discussion there leads to a renaming of the article on the city from Kiev to Kyiv will this second form be used in other articles. — Regards, Ev (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

您打砸搶

據 UEFA.com clubname是“基輔阿森納”，所以題目必須是“基輔阿森納”，作為在標題寫著“基輔”，在文章中必須寫入“基輔”too.So停止改變基輔到基輔！ PS：你是哪裡人，為什麼你有興趣在不斷變化的基輔基輔????? 66.210.32.150 (talk) 18:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Google translates it as follows:

You vandalism

According to UEFA.com clubname is "Kiev Arsenal", so the title must be "Kiev Arsenal," as the title says "Kiev", must be written in the article "Kiev" too.So Kiev to Kiev to stop change!

PS: Where are you, why you are interested in changing Kiev Kiev ?????

Ev (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Your vandalism

According to UEFA.com clubname is "FC Arsenal Kyiv", so the title must be "FC Arsenal Kyiv".As in the title is written "Kyiv" ,in the article must be written "Kyiv" too.So stop changing Kyiv to Kiev!!! PS: Where are you from and why you are interested in changing Kyiv to Kiev????? — Alex (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

To which I answer:

I assume you are Alex95-Ukraine. The club name is one thing, references to the Ukrainian capital are another. Notice how I leave all instances of the club name with "Kyiv", and use "Kiev" only in references to the city itself.

I already explained to you at your talk page that the naming conventions for geographic names of the English-language Wikipedia indicate that, when referring to the capital of Ukraine, the form "Kiev" is to be used consistently in all articles of the English-language Wikipedia, without exception (see User talk:Alex95-Ukraine#Dynamo). — The form "Kyiv" will only be used in this manner if at some point in the future discussion at Talk:Kiev/naming results in a title change for the article on the city itself. Not before.

In short: all articles must use "Kiev", and all discussion proposing the use of "Kyiv" should take place at Talk:Kiev/naming.

If you don't understand the naming conventions for geographic names or my previous explanations at your talk page, I'll be happy to clarify your doubts. But let me be clear: do not continue to insert the form "Kyiv" in violation of the editorial conventions of the English-language Wikipedia, or I will block you (regardless of whether you use the Alex95-Ukraine and Alex1995-Ukraine accounts or IPs).

Regarding my reasons to change instances of "Kyiv" into "Kiev", I'm merely attempting to make our articles comply with existing Wikipedia policy (namely, the general naming conventions and the specific ones for geographic names). The issue is a simple one of editorial policy. It has no relation whatsoever with any sort of sentiments towards the Ukraine (be it animosity, sympathy or something else). — The same editorial policy is valid for articles related to Spain (diff.), Albania (diff.), Poland (diff.) or the Middle East (diff.).

One final detail: for Wikipedia purposes, the word "vandalism" implies a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Notice that my edits are the exact opposite of "vandalism": they make our articles comply with existing Wikipedia policy. — Best, Ev (talk) 19:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

1.You didnt answer where are you from.Its secret?

2.How you will block me?? You are not admin. And its not my IP.

PS:I am from Kyiv. — Alex (talk) 19:36, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

1. It's not relevant, but I am Argentine.

2. I am an administrator (see for yourself). I'm sorry for assuming that the IP was yours. My apologies.

PS: You live in a beautiful city, with an exceptional cultural and historical heritage. — Best, Ev (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

OK.I wont change Kiev to Kyiv (when dont referrer to club name). Alex (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Glad to hear that, Alex. I don't follow sport competitions, and know little to nothing about clubs and their names. So, I don't know why some club names retain the local names of cities, while others adopt the English ones. Some examples of those that retain the local names in our articles:

Dynamo Kyiv, in Kiev. — 1. FC Köln, in Cologne. — Gwardia Warszawa, in Warsaw. — SK Rapid Wien, in Vienna. — OFK Beograd, in Belgrade.

In those articles, in the names of the clubs the local forms are used, but in all mentions of the cities themselves, the usual English forms are used, without exception.

Best, Ev (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

And why you returned hieroglyphics? It was a joke. I dont know chinese language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex95-Ukraine (talk • contribs) 21:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Because I found it helpful to show that Google translated everything into "Kiev" and not "Kyiv" ;-) Ev (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

"Province" vs. "Voivodeship"

You have previously taken an interest in the question of using "province" on Wikipedia in lieu of "voivodeship." The matter is again under discussion at "Talk:Voivodeships of Poland," in case you would like to participate. Regards, Nihil novi (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know, Nihil. By mere chance, three weeks ago I thought about our short exchange on the issue, and how I never came around to actually do anything. :-) Ev (talk) 19:33, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

As that unfortunate hybrid loanword "voi(e)vod(e)ship" has continued to vex me, I have borne in mind the generosity of spirit that you showed in April 2010. Thank you for again adding your voice to this discussion. Nihil novi (talk) 22:13, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't mention it. I should be the one thanking you, as you are the ones duing the bulk of the work here. Best, Ev (talk) 23:35, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Diacritic

Hello Ev - I thought you'd gone!!

Nice to see you've edited in recent days. Remember the diacritic issues? Your views wouldbe most welcome here, especially as you are not a native of the Balkan region. I hope to see your input soon! ;) Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Notification of pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next month. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Notification of imminent suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions will be removed pending your return if you do not return to activity within the next several days. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated should this occur, please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. MadmanBot (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity

Following a community discussion in June 2011, consensus was reached to provisionally suspend the administrative permissions of users who have been inactive for one year (i.e. administrators who have not made any edits or logged actions in over one year). As a result of this discussion, your administrative permissions have been removed pending your return. If you wish to have these permissions reinstated , please post to the Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard and the userright will be restored per the re-sysopping process (i.e., as long as the attending bureaucrats are reasonably satisfied that your account has not been compromised and that your inactivity did not have the effect of evading scrutiny of any actions which might have led to sanctions). This removal of access is procedural only, and not intended to reflect negatively upon you in any way. We wish you the best in future endeavors, and thank you for your past administrative efforts. WJBscribe (talk) 00:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of change

Hello. You are receiving this message because of a recent change to the administrator policy that alters what you were told at the time of your desysopping. The effect of the change is that if you are inactive for a continuous three year period, you will be unable to request return of the administrative user right. This includes inactive time prior to your desysopping if you were desysopped for inactivity and inactive time prior to the change in policy. Inactivity is defined as the absence of edits or logged actions. Until such time as you have been inactive for three years, you may request return of the tools at the bureaucrats' noticeboard. After you have been inactive for three years, you may seek return of the tools only through WP:RFA. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 00:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4