Geohem

  Hello, I'm CodeCat. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Sevastopol seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. CodeCat (talk) 20:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply

As an admin on the Ukrainian Wikipedia, I'm sure you know that contentious edits need WP:CONSENSUS before implementation. Your edit on Ukraine are not consistent with the consensus from past RfCs. The use of "occupied" is not neutral. Also, your edit made the population estimates incorrect by flipping which numbers included Crimea. We use the English spelling "Kiev", not "Kyiv". Please use the talk page before making any other edits. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have replied to you at talk page of article, it was revert to version at 11 april . Hope you will not continue to do not consensus changes at infobox --Geohem (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

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) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. All sources cited in the references, such as the academic works by Davies, Kroll and Babulin, agree that the Russian army lost 4,679 men in total, a figure that has been proved by a recent study of 17th-century archive documents. It is not just one "Russian source", as you tried to brand it, but a conclusion of modern scholarship. These sources don't support your number, so don't place it before them to make it seem "sourced". Furthermore, the figure of 30,000 men has been criticized in detail and is now regarded by the leading experts in the field as a heavily exaggeratted number, which is not based on any credible evidence whatsoever. See the sources cited and the rest of the article. It shouldn't be placed above modern and more reliable estimates. SlavonicStudies (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

You are wrong, removing reliable source it is a WP:POV. Such scholar as Davies has written, that 4,679 it is estimate based on the Russian documents, otherwise exist another estimate - 30000. As I understand, you didn’t read this book? Geohem (talk) 13:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I guess it is you who should clearly read the sources instead of making disruptive edits and re-read my previous message, as you have failed to understand it. All the sources are critical towards the 30,000 figure, don't accept it and consider it a hugely inflated number. That old estimate has been criticized at length by modern scholars as unreliable, exaggerated, and not based on any credible evidence whatsoever. And again, I have to repeat that these sources don't support your number, so don't place it before them to make it seem "sourced". See the sources cited and the rest of the article. It shouldn't be placed above modern and more reliable estimates, though it can be mentioned somewhere in the 'Aftermath' section. Not to mention that all numbers in the infobox are from recent studies, whereas yours is an old one and has nothing to do with them. SlavonicStudies (talk) 14:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Can you quote where, for example, Davies are critical towards the 30,000 figure, don't accept it and consider it a hugely inflated number?Geohem (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Davies is just one of them and, as I have pointed out, he prefers the documentary evidence over the claim repeated by "some writers": "Although some writers repeat the claim that 30,000 Muscovites were killed or captured at Konotop, lists Trubetskoi submitted to the Ambassadors’ Chancellery report total losses of 4,769 men: 2,830 of L’vov’s and Pozharskii’s column sent across the Sosnovka, and 1,896 during the attacks upon Trubetskoi’s withdrawing wagenburg. Soloviev’s judgment that “the flower of the Russian cavalry had perished in one day” is true only in the sense that at least 259 of those killed or captured were officers or men of Moscow rank (zhilets and above)." Only 259 officers lost, documentary evidence over claims repeated by some writers. He also adds that the Russian army "numbered about 15–20,000 men, the maximum that could have been spared at the time from the Belgorod Line, when it had entered Ukraine in November". Needless to say, 15,000-20,000 men could not lose 30,000. If you have any problems with understanding his text, you can always reach him by email and he will tell you exactly the same thing and prove he doesn't accept the old estimate. SlavonicStudies (talk) 15:17, 3 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

He represent the number of 4,769, as submitted in lists Trubetskoi. But he didn't prove this figures, as you told. Geohem (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

He doesn't need to, as other historians have already done it in great detail, and documentary evidence checked by a state commission is (regarded by historians and Davies in particular as) more reliable than claims made out of thin air and not based on anything worth of consideration. For the detailed criticism of those claims see other works cited in the article; the criticism has also been supported by Kroll, and no scholar to date has come up with any rational argument to counter it. SlavonicStudies (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I was just wondering if you could help us come to a consensus on the Taras Bulba-Borovets page. The user Nicolijaus seems to have his own ideas as to what should be on the page and keeps deleting sourced sentances. If you could come to the talk page and help make the consensus clear I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you very much. 71.121.248.91 (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I reverted your edits where you changed the article's text without changing the source. The source cited does not say "Kyiv". Please. refrain such steps in future, because that is a violation of our policy.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, could you please, provide where you have seen word "Kiev" in Праславянский лексический фонд / Под ред. О.Н. Трубачёва — М.: Наука, 1987. — Вып. 13. — С. 256-257. There is no Latin form.--Geohem (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Page 256-257. According to majority of English dictionaries, "Kiev" is the English name of the city Киев/Киiв. "Kyiv" is a secondary name. Just familiarize yourself with the sources cited in the "Kiev" article. (I am writing "Kiev", because my spell checker says "Kyiv" is a typo).

The references to the last RM do not work, because Wikipedia is not a source for itself. Please, refrain from reintroducing your misinterpretation of sources. The article is under DS.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

There is no "Kiev" on page 256-257, please provide any proves that such latin word exist there. As well, I recommend to use Britannica for extension of your knowledge about this theme.--Geohem (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yes, there is no "Kiev" there, because it is an etymology dictionary written in Russian. It explains the etymology of the word "Киев", and is used for that purpose in the Wikipedia article about Kiev's name. However, the word "Киев" is written in English as "Kiev", and "Kyiv" is an just a spelling of the Ukrainian word. That is what the cited sources say, and the fact that one Wikipedia article has been recently renamed does not change that fact that "Kiev" is the primary name in English. Wikoipedia's own text editor underlines "Kyiv" as a typo. All English dictionaries define "Kiev" as the only or a primary name of the city. Yes, Britannica changed the title of its article. That may be an indication of some trend that may make "Kyiv" a predomnant word in English. However, that hasn't happened yet. It is equally likely that the burst of usage of "Kyiv" will end soon, and the previous status quo will be restored. Wikipedia is not a magic crystal. Let's wait.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Talk:Kyiv did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing →   Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:45, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an 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.

Mellk (talk) 02:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please see usage on Kiev/Kyiv. It should not be changed in historical topics. Mellk (talk) 02:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi! You are wrong, there is not such restriction. There is: "In all cases, name changes must follow the WP:BRD cycle". −Geohem (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

It says do not change existing content, with 1991/1995 as a rule of thumb. BRD means you should not especially edit war over it. Others have been blocked for ignoring this and continuing to make changes in historical contexts after being warned. Mellk (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

that's right, be bold dear Geohem ☺️ our dear Mellk seems to be acting as a strict Kyiv --> Kiev ukrainian naming convention policy enforcer, and evidently is also willing to make an implicit threat of a block. we've had a similar discussion before, and i suspect the topic wont go away and on-the-contrary may be becoming more and more debated in the english language (¿and other languages too?) in-light-of the war, the re-interpretation of russian culture, and the ennobling of ukrainian culture. these trends might possibly eventually catalyze a more extensive policy change about ukrainian naming conventions, for example from Kiev to Kyiv. is it a more accurate representation of the sound of the word both now and in the past? i'm not sure cuz i'm not an expert.

i thank you for your edits dear Geohem. remember,

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. 😉 [emphasis in original]

~ Johnfreez (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

 

A tag has been placed on Hlukhiv (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. NmWTfs85lXusaybq (talk) 11:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply