User talk:Ukr-Trident

English grammar

As a matter of fact, English is my first language. I mistakenly interpreted the conjuncts as complements of "must," as opposed to constituents of the relative clause. I see now that the wording is ambiguous, and either form is correct. My apologies. -- Æk (talk) 05:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Research & Branding Group

A tag has been placed on Research & Branding Group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Eeekster (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Research & Branding Group, a page you have created yourself. If you do not believe the page should be deleted, you can place a {{hangon}} tag on the page, under the existing speedy deletion tag (please do not remove the speedy deletion tag), and make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will look at your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 04:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you will notice that your assessment has not been supported by the facts. Please do not act in haste to remove information that is consistent with Wikipedia. I suggest in future you take a look at similar information and make a proper judgment and enter into discussion or get a job as a pedestrian lollipop man and dominate your crossing. Ukr-Trident (talk) 14:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vasily Protyvsih

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Vasily Protyvsih. Our verifiability policy requires that all content be cited to a reliable source. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already took a start with that, pity that these complete unknown nominate themselves and not celebrity's like Tina Karol; that would make research a lot easier :) — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 01:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is information on Pravda and Zik.com.ua but in Ukrainian

It is allowed to use Ukrainian sources (especially if there are no English sources available). — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 15:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serhiy Tihipko In Full Effect

What do you think of this poll placing Serhiy Tihipko in third position in the current presidential race?. I got a gut feeling that that can't be right... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 19:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it has no relevance as it is a phone poll and lacking detail and credibility. Latest R&B poll shows him on 4.4% which is about right. Remember under the first-past-the-post voting system only the top two candidates progress to the second poll. Yulia is still 10 percentage points ahead of Yatseniuk. If they head a preferential voting/ Instant run-off system then maybe the outcome would be different. 50 days out We are looking at a Yanukovych win thanks to Yushchenko who is the biggest loser. Ukr-Trident (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

electoral system Ukraine

There is a big difference (and I stand by it):

Plurality voting system (or first past the post) requires only one round. First majority, no matter how many votes it has wins. (Winner takes all.
Two-round system requires an absolute mayority (50% plus one vote) to win. If no one candidate has it in the first round, then a second one follows between the first two majorities.

--JorgeGG (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

both are systems using first-past-the-post voting they are not exclusive but inclusive. The two round voting system uses the first-past-the-post voting method Ukr-Trident (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK have it your way, but both system are exclusive. And the comparison with US primaries is wrong since its a method of selection within the parties, and not the official procedure to elect president by the nation. --JorgeGG (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a system yes but the method of voting is inclusive. You can have a two round ballot system has based on different methods of voting. A situation can exist where one candidate has 25% of the vote, another 22% a third 21% a forth 20% with the balance of 13% being others. ON the basis of a first-past-the-post voting method only the two highest polling candidates progress to the second round. Some two round systems use different methods of voting in determining who progresses to the second round. By clarify the method of voting we are providing more information. The wording has been altered to reflect this distinction and is appropriate, thanks for your contribution. Ukr-Trident (talk) 23:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For clarification I will follow The three-revert rule, because I recognized an IP I use when not logged in. However my edits cannot be defined has vandalism (has understood in Wikipedia, Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia). The issue was difference in the use of terminology and good faith in improving an article. Another thing is you don´t agree with my criteria and use of terminology. --JorgeGG (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will except that. Plurality voting system and first-past-the-post are not one and the same. This needs clarification. A first past the post voting method can include multiple candidates each one crossing the line in order of the number of votes. eg in a three member constituency the three highest polling candidates are elected. Or you can have a exhaustive counting system where one candidate is elected at a time until the number of vacancies are filled. The main distinction is being the highest vote. Wikipedia need to separate first-past-the-post voting method from Plurality voting system. Ukr-Trident (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TB

Hello, Ukr-Trident. You have new messages at Mariah-Yulia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 14:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate

I want you to know I appreciate all the work you put into Ukrainian presidential election, 2010. It's all parts of wikipedia that sometimes articles move into directions that sometimes look completely idiotic to you... but (not always do) after a while it does start to make sense. Because wikipedia is all virtual misunderstandings are likely to happen. However I do the best I can (my intends are not to make wikipedia a "Slava Yulia!" website ) to make "Ukrainian articles" of high encyclopaedic standards, I hope you forgive me if I sometimes mess up. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 17:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dint get me wring I am quiet supportive of Yuklia but I think Wikipedia needs to be an encyclopedia of facts not opinions. There is a lot of lies about what goes on in Ukraine. The allegations of election fraud for example. There was no substance behind them (At least not in the first round) Yes we need to be vigilant but not vigilante. I am interested in presenting facts. I think your doing a good job. Ukr-Trident (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ITN for Ukrainian presidential election, 2010

On 10 February 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Ukrainian presidential election, 2010, which you substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.

Thanks for all the work you put in - Dumelow (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2010 (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) 14:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]