User talk:Kyiv citizen

Welcome!

Hi Kyiv citizen! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Please refrain from making mass Kiev -> Kyiv edits. The consensus is to not change such spellings in historical contexts. I have undone most of your changes as a result. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 08:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your undos. My changes were done for naming consistency in the text and has nothing to do with the historical context.

We can discuss each edit separately if you want. But not all your undos are even Kyiv->Kiev, you should be paying more attention to whatever you're undoing.

Thanks! Kyiv citizen (talk) 03:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was an WP:RfC on this and the consensus is not to change "Kiev" to "Kyiv". Your edits did not follow this consensus. For example, the article Vasily Sedlyar is clearly historical so changing "Kiev" to "Kyiv" is not following the consensus here. Please take a look at the policies when you have a chance. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 03:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep referring to WP:KYIV but failed to show how my edits violate the consensus.

Vasyl Sedliar article is biographical in its nature and not historical.

Also the same page you're referring to WP:KYIV clearly states that Ukrainian cities (other than Chernobyl) are to use Ukrainian spelling: do not use transliterations derived from Russian names for places in Ukraine. Inconsisten usage of both Ukrainian and non-Ukrainian spellings violates MOS:CONSISTENT. My edits are to fix this issue and seems to be disruptive to only you personally. Kyiv citizen (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, your changes are introducing anachronisms. Mellk (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mellk here. Can you give one example where your renaming was appropriate or where their reversion of you is wrong? Mellk has given two examples where your renaming was inappropriate Sedlyar and Mikhail Bulgakov. Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please at least take some time to review the page you're referring to, namely Mikhail Bulgakov. There's usage of both Kyiv along with Kiev in the same text which violates MOS:CONSISTENT. Kyiv citizen (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The advice at WP:KIEV would likely override consistency requirements where appropriate. As far as I see the only mention of Kyiv in article text before your changes was for a modern day building opened in 1991, so it may very well be appropriate to use Kyiv in reference to it; and a series shot in Kyiv in 2012 again even more reason why it might be fine to refer to it as Kyiv. The other use of Kyiv was in categories where again we probably only one one name for the category to cover all time periods so we will use Kyiv for all. If you feel the consistency requirement does override WP:KIEV since this is someone who died in 1940, then you should change all Kyiv to Kiev. Nil Einne (talk) 05:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another example is my edit of Kliment Red'ko it was completely new text with the reference included. What was the point of reverting my changes if they fixed the gaps/errors in his studies and added more details? Kyiv citizen (talk) 22:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have also changed spellings inappropriately. Firstly you did change Kiev to Kyiv and for someone who died in 1956. There isn't an excuse of "inconsistency" since there was no Kyiv spelling until you introduced it. Also while it doesn't deal with Kyiv in particular, the consensus for Kyiv is likely to apply to all historic spellings. Therefore it's likely inappropriate for you to change ~~Kholm to Chelm;~~ Odessa to Odesa etc. At the very least you'd need to show some sort of consensus if you're going to go around making these changes. If you introduce a bunch of bad edits along with a small number of good edits you shouldn't be surprised if your edit is reverted and it wasn't inappropriate. If you want to avoid that, don't make bad edits. Nil Einne (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look into the Chelm case before now so incorrectly assumed you were doing the same thing. This is a fairly different situation and perhaps the change to Chelm was appropriate I don't know. The Kyiv guidelines are largely irrelevant but perhaps there are some other guidelines which cover it. If there isn't I suggest you discuss it on the article talk page. One thing for sure, if you make such changes along with other clearly inappropriate changes like changing Kiev to Kyiv and likely inappropriate changes like Odessa to Odesa, you should expect to be reverted and that many will assume it's just more of the same nonsense from you. Nil Einne (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I opened two threads that deal with the various issues you raised at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places). I quite doubt there will be any agreement on using Kyiv exclusively in articles on people who lived so long ago but it should hopefully help clarify whether you should change all references in such articles from Kyiv to Kiev, along with confirm that Odesa should be treated the same as Kyiv. For the Chelm case, you'd need to seek feedback yourself if it's something that still interests you. Nil Einne (talk) 09:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for opening separate threads. Unfortunately, I do not see much activity there. So just wanted to get some feedback from you here, because it seems that using Ukrainian transliteration for Ukrainian cities is the right thing to do. What do you think? Kyiv citizen (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You see? There is no difference between Chełm and Odesa except the first city is in Poland while the second one - in Ukraine. Why it is ok to use Polish transliteration for Polish cities, but not ok to use Ukrainian transliteration for Ukrainian cities? Could you link any kind of rule/convention here on Wikipedia justifying this? Cause at this point it's just Melk's personal opinion. Kyiv citizen (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, we also use "Kholm" depending on the context, e.g. Kholm Governorate (Russian Empire) and Kholm Governorate (Ukraine). Mellk (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are not examples of referring to the city Chełm. These are historical administrative-territorial units derived from the city name. Do you feel the difference? Kyiv citizen (talk) 22:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:RUSUKR you may not discuss these issues, not even at your talk page. Ymblanter (talk) 22:47, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "these issues"? And please point to the exact place stating that "these issues" may not be discussed. Kyiv citizen (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Users with less than 30 day tenure and less than 500 edits may not make any edits related to Russian-Ukrainian conflict. The exact place is WP:RUSUKR. Ymblanter (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

and how exactly my edits are related to the war? Kyiv citizen (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did I say "war" anywhere? Ymblanter (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, perhaps by "Russian-Ukrainian conflict" you meant the general conflict between Russia and Ukraine that had many actual wars throughout history? I thought you were referring to the most recent one, see Russo-Ukrainian War Kyiv citizen (talk) 22:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Wassily Kandinsky, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complete lie here. The change on Wassily Kandinsky was done according to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places), namely The names of cities should be transliterated into Latin letters with the Ukrainian national system. So the correct spelling is Odesa, not Odessa Kyiv citizen (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Eugène Konopatzky. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. You have already been warned about WP:MOS regarding historical names. R0paire-wiki (talk) 04:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's some strong wording here. I would like to appeal your decision since I was following Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places) when making my change Kyiv citizen (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Kliment Red'ko, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. You have been told about the WP:MOS for historical names several times now R0paire-wiki (talk) 05:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@R0paire-wiki please elaborate on your claim that Kliment Red'ko edit was disruptive or inappropriate? It was a completely newly text added with the reference. Since I am new to your community, my formatting may be not perfect. So if you have any suggestions I am willing to learn. Kyiv citizen (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Mikhail Bulgakov. Please look at the talk page messages regarding the RfC on historical naming conventions. You've been warned multiple times, this is the final warning. R0paire-wiki (talk) 06:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Following MOS:CONSISTENCY the naming should be consistent. Having both Kiev and Kyiv in the text violates this WP:MOS. Please revert your decision Kyiv citizen (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Kyiv citizen. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 06:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Nyttend (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS, while this is an indefinite block, it's not necessarily a permanent block. At the administrators' noticeboard, I said the following: "If the user is willing to stop the contentious editing and willing to avoid any further personal attacks, another admin may unblock. I'd recommend some sort of topic ban to prevent the disruptive edits to mainspace". If you want to be unblocked, please don't hesitate to follow the unblock process given in the box in this section. Nyttend (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:00, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kyiv citizen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Not justified block under false pretense. The person that initiated the harrasment by reverting my changes never responded to my comments on their page. Kyiv citizen (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you:
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:43, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kyiv citizen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Admin, please review the reason for my block, looks like I was falsely accused of contentious editing and personal attacks, which was never my goal. My only purpose here was to make meaningful contributions and fix inconsistencies in the text.

Please take some time to review my edits as well which were mostly focused around East European avant-guard movement. Please revert the block so that I can continue my work on improving this field's knowledge which still has a lot of blind spots. I also promise to be considerate about remarks on my edits and try to avoid heated arguments.

Decline reason:

Nothing false about this block. Maybe it wasn't your goal, but the reason is nevertheless correct. I see no pathway to unblocking you without a topic ban of some form. 331dot (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Kyiv citizen (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Third time is a charm, maybe? Still not sure about the path for unblock here, since I am getting kinda conflicted info from my 2 recent appeal declines. Just to reiterate it here, I am willing to make useful contribution, do not intend to cause any damage or disruption and understand what I have been blocked for. The only thing I cannot agree with is that the initial block was justified - that's actually why I am appealing it here. I believe my third attempt at the very least should show my determination to keep the discussions I participate in civilized and under the rules. But I guess it's up for an admin to decide so why not try my luck again? Regarding so called "topic bans". Not sure what it means exactly, but I am fine with any topic ban, since the only field I am interested at the moment is East European avant-guard movement in arts. So you can ban me pretty much anywhere else, but please leave the field I am actually interested in available - that's the only thing I am asking for.

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Third time is a charm, maybe? Still not sure about the path for unblock here, since I am getting kinda conflicted info from my 2 recent appeal declines. 

Just to reiterate it here, I am willing to make useful contribution, do not intend to cause any damage or disruption and understand what I have been blocked for. The only thing I cannot agree with is that the initial block was justified - that's actually why I am appealing it here. I believe my third attempt at the very least should show my determination to keep the discussions I participate in civilized and under the rules. But I guess it's up for an admin to decide so why not try my luck again? Regarding so called "topic bans". Not sure what it means exactly, but I am fine with any topic ban, since the only field I am interested at the moment is East European avant-guard movement in arts. So you can ban me pretty much anywhere else, but please leave the field I am actually interested in available - that's the only thing I am asking for. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Third time is a charm, maybe? Still not sure about the path for unblock here, since I am getting kinda conflicted info from my 2 recent appeal declines. 

Just to reiterate it here, I am willing to make useful contribution, do not intend to cause any damage or disruption and understand what I have been blocked for. The only thing I cannot agree with is that the initial block was justified - that's actually why I am appealing it here. I believe my third attempt at the very least should show my determination to keep the discussions I participate in civilized and under the rules. But I guess it's up for an admin to decide so why not try my luck again? Regarding so called "topic bans". Not sure what it means exactly, but I am fine with any topic ban, since the only field I am interested at the moment is East European avant-guard movement in arts. So you can ban me pretty much anywhere else, but please leave the field I am actually interested in available - that's the only thing I am asking for. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Third time is a charm, maybe? Still not sure about the path for unblock here, since I am getting kinda conflicted info from my 2 recent appeal declines. 

Just to reiterate it here, I am willing to make useful contribution, do not intend to cause any damage or disruption and understand what I have been blocked for. The only thing I cannot agree with is that the initial block was justified - that's actually why I am appealing it here. I believe my third attempt at the very least should show my determination to keep the discussions I participate in civilized and under the rules. But I guess it's up for an admin to decide so why not try my luck again? Regarding so called "topic bans". Not sure what it means exactly, but I am fine with any topic ban, since the only field I am interested at the moment is East European avant-guard movement in arts. So you can ban me pretty much anywhere else, but please leave the field I am actually interested in available - that's the only thing I am asking for. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}