User talk:Windyhead

June 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. HiDrNick! 13:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atheism article

I'm not sure the three links you provided necessarily qualify as personal attacks. However, the place to report them would be aT WP:AN/I. Granted one of the comments is mildly insulting at best, and that might qualify as a violation of WP:CIVILITY, but that's a bit shy of being a full attack. I'm going to review the discussion in question and see if I can contribute productively at all myself. John Carter (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Quit POV pushing and writing lies. You wrote-"stop RV - express your opinion in talks - also no sources" - What the hell are you talking about, again?

Source 112- Ukrainian broadcasters have criticised a government order banning national TV and radio programmes in Russian, which is spoken by most Ukrainians.
Source 113-They’ve travelled to the capital in protest at a Ukrainian law that bans films in Russian in Ukraine.--Miyokan (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Personal attacks"

Nice try.--Miyokan (talk) 07:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop trying to provoke other editors. Ostap 21:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Yawn*. Stop WP:Stalking me.--Miyokan (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a friend living in Ukraine

Moved to Talk:Ukrainization‎

3RR warnings

Ma'am, since you are new here, I should tell you that 3RR warnings these are given on the third revert by an admin. Since you are neither I will politely ask you to spare you time on wikispace by NOT spamming my talkpage, thank you. --Kuban Cossack (По-балакаем?) 09:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Unsourced political POVs with misleading comments

Hi there. As that editor's only made a couple of edits to the article, I suggest that you take it up with him/her on their talk page, and point out the relevant policies to help them understand the need to remain neutral. WP:NPOV is the best one to point out. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't template the regulars

WP:DTTR

Thanks. LokiiT (talk) 13:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rr warning

You've already broken the wp:3rr rule by making more than three reverts to an article in under 24 hours. Please stop or you'll be reported. LokiiT (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning, 3RR

It was discussed on the talk page and work was deleted without appropriate reason nor discussion. Matter Already discussed. Please do not revert that work. Sorry to be tough, but otherwise things get nowhere. Thank you.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2008 South Ossetia war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Unfortunately, that was User:Tananka who made four reverts today in this article.Biophys (talk) 03:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please provide me with diffs you are complaining on --windyhead (talk) 07:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing survey

Hi Windyhead. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University in the United States. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic current events articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at 2008 South Ossetia war that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below. An explanation of my project is included with the survey.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=kLMxj8dkk_2bls7yCBmNV7bg_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holodomor

Moved to: Talk:Holodomor#10 million

Non-UN member states

I'm not sure what exactly you're looking for when you do not wish Abkhazia and South O, to be referred to as states? I've always seen this as neutral in the past elsewhere on wikipedia, could you clarify for me please. Outback the koala (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there's no independent sources calling those entities "states" so let's settle on how it was before. --windyhead (talk) 15:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, do you dispute that Transnistria and the above are partially recognized states? It seems like you do, in your actions, but I want to be certain before we discuss this further. Outback the koala (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well your first question was to be referred to as states, that's different from what you question second. Abkhazia and South O are partially recognized , but calling them "states" is POV not everybody agrees with. And no source refers to Transnistria as "partially recognized state". --windyhead (talk) 10:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rusyn

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rusyn_language#Official_language_in_Slovakia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kprwiki (talk • contribs) 21:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rusyn on Slavic languages

I'd like to ask you about your insistence on wanting to explicitly say 'a language or a dialect of Ukrainian' about Rusyn while precisely this can be read in the first sentence on the Rusyn language article and while similar issues for e.g. Montegrin are not getting the same explicit attention in the article.
At the same time, I'd also like to acknowlegde that you might know things about Rusyn that I don't: then please, enlighten me. --JorisvS (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, one thing is that no source that talks about Slavic languages mentions Rusyn there. So we basically may completely remove Rusyn from the article. The unsaid compromise is to mention Rusyn, but to say about its disputed status. --windyhead (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This one mentions Rusyn: [1], with its own ISO 639-3 code. I don't know about the sources in the article, but what about those on Rusyn language? --JorisvS (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's kinda strange source, what's its reliability? I was mostly referring to encyclopedic articles on Slavic languages, found none mentioning Rusyn so far. --windyhead (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnologue? It sums up all/most languages of the world. While not 100% accurate, it should mostly be good (the most blatant mistake I could find is their info on Ossetian, which strangely omits Ossetian in Russia completely (thus most of it); don't ask me why). It is part of SIL International, [2], and thus has quite some weight. Most language codes in the language boxes here on Wikipedia (should) in fact link to Ethnologue.

Which are the sources you've seen? --JorisvS (talk) 19:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have a time for a long discussion now. I checked encyclopedias such as Britannica, Columbia (which says Rusyn is a language, but doesn't mention it talking about Slavic languages), and Soviet Enc. So here's the situation. Source (or POV) 1: Rusyn is not a dialect. Must be shown as an independent entry from Ukrainian. Source 2: Rusyn is a dialect. No mention about it in Slavic Languages article. How would you combine those POVs into one? --windyhead (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I don't know about Rusyn's lexical similarity or level of intelligibility with related variants (have you seen this anywhere?), which makes it hard to judge what's actually true. Also a note of caution: these do not seem to be sources that have actually studied it. I think it'll remain vague until someone can find some better info (primary sources?) and we must leave it at that. And I don't have the time to make in-depth searches or anything (either). --JorisvS (talk) 14:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rusyn is mutually understandable by Ukrainian speakers, and it does not take much effort to imitate it. It's vocabulary includes numerous Slovakism, Polonisms, Church-Slavonisms, and Germanism which are not used in the Literary form of Ukrainian. The the reflective is used somewhat different than in Central Ukraine but apart from that the grammar is almost identical. Previously on the site they had the Lord's prayer published in Rusyn. It was almost identical to the Western Ukrainian variant.

There are two variants of the Lord's prayer used by Ukrainian speakers. The Ukrainian orthodox version (c. 1918) which was done in contemporary literary Ukrainian and the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic one in common use since c.1961 which was a Ukrainianized version of the Church-Slavonic and contained many Church-Slavonicisms. --Bandurist (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ukrainians. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Spitfire19 (Talk) 12:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, please see page talk for that --windyhead (talk) 13:07, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Ukrainian language

You have been told multiple times at several places by several different editors and administrators to stop placing malicious tags at Ukrainian language until you actually have read the sources. I am reporting you for edit warring. --Taivo (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editing archive

I rolled back your edit to the archive page at the RS noticeboard, although looking at it again now, you are right, and Taivo and I edited the page not realising it had been archived. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked for a period of 24hrs for disruptive editing at Ukrainian language. Your persistent adding of patently unnecessary tags to question perfectly straightforward and legitimate sources was a display of tendentious editing and also constituted edit-warring (even if these edits were not technically reverts). Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure which of my edits resulted in block. Please advice, and suggest a better behavior. --windyhead (talk) 20:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(not Future Perfect, but...) The whole sequence of them. Continuing to place the tags despite multiple people telling you that the sources were there, were supporting the article's comments, and attempting to help you understand them.

You needed to stop tagging and editing the article until you understood the issue. Talking to people and listening to them on the talk page was appropriate. But ignoring them and just re-tagging on the article is not. If you do not understand a source or a particular claim you need to talk about it, not just assert a particular opinion on the article itself. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've not disputed that the sources are there, and the first person (except my opponent) saying the source supports article info appeared like 8 hours after my last edit to the page in question. Also I received no warning for my behavior being "disruptive editing". I also got accusations from Fut.Perf. of forum shopping but what I was doing was following this advice [3] . This is kind of strange. --windyhead (talk) 21:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did in fact get a warnings, and ~~they are~~ it is quite clearly still on this page. Please see the ~~two~~ one notices left for you above the notice just above this section. ~~They both were~~It was issued well before this block, and ~~both~~ discussed your edit waring, and disruptive editing.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 06:42, 31 July 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) 13:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]