User talk:Imprevu

Welcome

Hello, Imprevu, 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 username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are interested in Ukraine-related themes, you may want to check out the Ukraine Portal, particularly the Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements and Portal:Ukraine/Ukraine-related Wikipedia notice board. The New article announcements board is probably the most important and the most attended one. Please don't forget to announce there the new articles you create. Adding both boards to your watchlist is probably a good idea.

Finally, in case you are interested, similar boards exist at Russia portal as many editors contribute to topics related to both countries. The respective boards there are: Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. Of course there are also many other portals at Wikipedia or you may just get right into editing.

Again, welcome! --Kuban Cossack 22:51, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My signature

My signature is my signature, I could not care less what people think about it, only an arbcom dicision would force me to change it. If you don't like it, tough. Although I do wonder just because the flag is not used anymore and archaic - that makes it not suitable for use as a signature. I mean I wonder if you extend that courtesy to those who use the GDR, USSR or even the old Belorussian flag... As for comments like "dress code" and "attire" then they actually qualify as Personal Attacks and any third person is going to have much more serious sanction against you than a someone using a historical flag in their signature. So if you want to play it out go on, AN, RfC or even an arbcom for all I care... Personally my advice to you is to do something constructive as the amount of edits since 10th of May that you have is anything but impressive, and let people take care of their own signatures, talk pages and userboxes. --Kuban Cossack 19:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC) (btw as this is your userpage - feel free to do anything you want with my comment or the signature for that fact).[reply]

WP:POINT, WP:NPA and particulary WP:HAR are much more serious offenses than an image in a signature, particulary since the image in neither racist, pornographic or deragotory in any shape and form. Also the tone at which one approaches me, plays a SIGNIFICANT role in the nature of my response. --Kuban Cossack 21:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement is your statement and I've not vandalized it as you did on your talk page with mine. But I did remove your little flag. That flag is an offensive symbol in par with nazi flag, not Belorussian or USSR. What makes it technically "unsuitable" is Wikipedia "dress code" Signature Rules: "Images of Any Kind Should Not be Used in Signatures". Very simple. Right? If not on common sense, got you on technicality though. Unless you have some exception to the rules granted to you by the man above. Otherwise you should care if you are rule abiding member of this organization.

As far as my synonymous word play on "rules" word, do you really feel offended? Oh, come on captain, be a man. You are in the army or, yeah it kind of army, and you do have a dress code too. And its a rule. Im sorry, the right word is 'uniform'. My bad. Unless its a new Rule that I need to use only one " correct" word to define my thought, I still have dozens to choose from in English Thesaurus. I guess it rubbed off to you from Ukrainian insistents on one and only "Kyiv". Be careful next time you use "Kiev". Somebody can take it as a "personal attack".

As far as my contribution to this site since May 10, we haven't had a "drink" together to indulge you in my personal affairs. Maybe next time Im in town we'll talk about my proud heritage of my forefathers contribution of all good, evil and constructive on earth.... WoW, you did it again on you talk page. Can you translate it in English your jargonic threat in "Edit Summary"? Is that something like you ready to "mochit' v sortire"?... Look, I dont edit your statements, you dont edit mine. As far as your image signature, take it to above, otherwise you're in violation of WiKi Rules. Have a goodnight.Imprevu 22:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images in sigs

From WP:SIG:

"This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia"

Now stop calling it a rule or a policy. Guideline are different then policies. Images in sigs are a bad idea for a number of reasons, but it isn't a policy to harass people who have them. It is NOT your privilege to repeatedly revert the owner of a talk page. He has the privilege to remove anything from his talk page with the exception of certain kinds of warnings.

I would like to encourage you to review the POLICY on no personal attacks and the POLICY on reverting other users. ---J.S (t|c) 22:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is his "privilege to remove anything from his talk page" is a rule or guideline? For one thing "Images in sigs are a bad idea" is because they might be offensive, like nazi symbols, Romanoff flag- symbol of pogroms etc.. And that's what constitute harassment. If you want to challenge me on wide open field of "Guideline", go ahead, I have no problem to prove that his action detrimental...

When is the last time you looked at definition of Guideline? Guideline - code of behavior, protocol, rules of conduct, etiquette, manners, social procedure, standard procedure. "A rule or principle that provides guidance to appropriate behavior". I didn't find anywhere it definition as "empty word".

If "Images in sigs are a bad idea" it means he in violation of behavioral code by default. It means he engaged in harassing behavior. His behavior is inappropriate not mine. And since when substituting "rules" with a "dress code" makes it a "personal attack"?

Im sorry J.S, I didn't find anything specific about talk page owners "privileges". You have to be more specific. What I did find though is Behavior That is Unacceptable: "Don't edit others' comments". And thats what Kuban Cossack did. Good Practice: "Use English". And thats what he didn't. He made insulting statement on his native language on "edit summary" on his talk page. He also called me a troll. Polices, rules, guidelines or common sense, whatever, its all the above qualify as a Personal Attack on me. Take a note of that. Imprevu 00:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, if you want to get persnickety about guidelines with me, they also say you should be indenting new responses. Doing that is a good idea and makes the entire conversation easier to read.

In addition,

"Most users treat their user talk pages like regular talk pages, and archive the contents periodically to a personal subpage — either when the page gets too large, on a regular schedule, or when they take a wikivacation. Others delete comments after they have responded to them." (from basic talkpage rules)

That implies that after he responded to your concerns on your talk page he had the option to do one of three things: a. Archive, b. nothing, or c. remove them. The guidelines for talk pages give the user much control over the content of there own user/talk pages. The only exception to this are particular types of policy-violation warnings and other similar notices.

I know your new around here, but there is a distinct difference between a "Guideline" and a "Policy". Guidelines are usually warnings, suggestions or firm reminders of conduct... and are rarely enforceable with banning. Policies on the other hand are like laws. Guidelines are flexible, policies are not.

The fact that Kuban is using a image in his signature is not an excuse to attack him on his talk page. The first time he refuses your request your next step is either to drop it or to take it to the dispute resolution processes. The first stop would be the Request for comment page. If your offended by his flag then feel free to take the dispute there. A lot gets solved on the RFC page.

Bad behavior in response to bad behavior is never acceptable. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA applies to everyone in a dispute. Reverting someone on there talk page over and over is a violation of WP:CIVIL even if his removal of that comment is also a violation of WP:CIVIL.

If you have any more questions, feel free to contact me. If you need to know more about the dispute resolution system I'd be willing to explain it to you or point you to the right places. ---J.S (t|c) 19:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

I ask you again to be civil when interacting with people in the project. Your behavior in WP:AN/I is not kosher. Slow down, re-read your posts, and I hope that you'll see why you're being admonished for incivility. If you continue in your current state, you will be blocked to protect the project from disruption. I sincerely hope it does not escalate to this, but the ball is squarely in your court. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick note, the reason you have not enjoyed the type of support you were expecting has less to do with edit counts and whatnot than with your perceived belligerance. For those of us in WP:AN/I who weren't involved in the discussion until it spilled onto our board, we saw one user being polite and civil and another that was... not. We are all volunteers, and we are human. For better luck in the future, spend a moment considering your audience and don't assume that everyone is 'keyed in' to the current status. Also, remember the old aphorism regarding honey, the catching of flies, and the efficacy of alternate techniques that substitute vinegar instead. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belligerence...Hmm..That was very civil, right? You know Chairboy, I don't appreciate your hasty generalizations. In my opinion your delivery lacks details, focus and too aggressive. You know more than I do and you want to teach me good manners. HighlnBC didn't agree with my approach either but he presented his thoughts appropriately, so does J.S. lately and that in turn resolved a lot of misunderstandings. What is the purpose of your accusing insertion in the middle of constructive exchange of comments now? You already created "Civil" topic, do it there. Well, Ill help you then to move it... And in regards of experts knowledge of what they are doing, I want to leave you with a little Seinfeld quotation " You know how to take the reservation, you just don't know how to *hold* the reservation.." Put some effort on your delivering technic, it will generate appropriate response then. Imprevu 22:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting and other Guidelines

I'd really like to encourage you to indent you comments when your responding to someone. It's really easy... just use a ":" for one indent or "::" for two indents, etc. There's actually a guideline suggesting you do this. (link to guideline) :) ---J.S (t|c) 08:12, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like that. I thought, by keeping some space between replies, not mingle them together would make it easy reading. OK, no problem, Ill try to keep that in mind. You see, that was constructive way to point to and how to make improvement. I'll respond to your other comments later. Thanks.

I would also encourage you to be fair and balanced and to suggest to the other fellow to follow "Signing Images" guideline so we can clear up that mess. There is no ambiguity or suggestion in "SHOULD NOT", it's bold instruction of what NOT to DO. No way you can interpret that one way or the other like some other guidelines. And its more than inconvenience... Why is my signature in red? Imprevu 15:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red links means there is no page at the location it points to, in this case your personal user page. Just follow the link, add something to it and it will turn blue.

I'd like to think I've been fair in interpreting how I feel the policies, rules and guidelines of wiki apply. I don't really have any authority to block/ban you, so no worries.

When we see someone no following a non-article guideline, all we can do is politely request them to correct the action. If they refuse to... then all we can do is let it go. Often ignoring guidelines will eventually lead to breaking of policies, and then, that's where forceful corrective action can be taken. This flag, you claim it's offencive.

Did you know: There is an admin who's had an image in his Sig for the entire time I've been here. There is currently another admin who has taken issue with it... so it will be interesting to see where that leads too. It's hard to tell what the arb-com would decide. ---J.S (t|c) 00:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WiKi guidelines for dispute resolution encourage first to have a talk (in this case it is suggestion) and that's what I tried to do (request and snub of it hardly constitute "talk"). Then you encouraged him (without checking all the previous comments, just based on his claims) not communicate with me. That wasn't helpful. And lately you encouraged me to talk to him directly about his grievances with me, conceiving that you don't understand them either. That was very confusing (?). Oh, almost forgot, you also recommended to take our issue off-site. Now you totally lost me there, because WiKi guidelines clearly do not recommend doing that.

I don't have anything personal against that person. AAMOF we had similar views on some of the issues in the past, may be for a different reasons though. I think that overenthusiasm and "in your face" approach is not healthy and that flag adds additional doubts on intention of the carrier. No flag, no problem. By his own admission he understands that sig images against guidelines and looking for encouragement in that direction for it removal. And that what I asked you to do. A lot of people would not accept any requests, proposals etc from another person, taking it as push around or violation of their freedom. But they'll do the opposite on request of others with a "better record". Who knows, some kind of mental barrier? Can you at least try it, since you already got involved yourself anyway?

Maybe Im preaching to the wrong person, because as I indicated before your philosophical approach for interpreting rules is a little bit too loosely for my taste. BTW Im not looking for a punishing "corrective action" but for the simple equality in respect to the dress code. Thanks for you time anyway. Imprevu 20:02, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I may be confusing... but that reflects a change in my overall understanding of whats going on. In some cases I was simply informing you of your options. I suggested "dispute resolution" as an alternative to a revert war. I only suggested taking the conversation off-site -if- you didn't want other people to reply to your comments.

I'd rather wait for a ArbCom ruling or a actual policy to evolve before I start requesting changes of clothing. :) I don't actually think an arbcom would ever come down like that and I'm fairly confident a policy proposal would never get enough support for consensus. ---J.S (t|c) 21:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of Image:Mishka_Dunny.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mishka_Dunny.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Street wear

Your practice of ignoring questions and reverting is not helpful and will not establish consensus, a central pillar of Wikipedia. Please respond to questions on the talk page. As has been repeatedly explained to you, surviving a deletion nomination is not a seal of approval on an article's current state, not the end to all discussion on problems about the article and not a reason why the article should not change and improve. It's not even a guarantee that it won't be nominated again. Your continual accusations are also a breach of Wikipedia guidelines on 'good faith', please stop them. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]