User talk:Mzajac/2020

File:VCFilipKonowalGrave.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:VCFilipKonowalGrave.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Your signature

Hello, I noticed your signature doesn't use the standard timestamp. Wikipedia:Signatures says:

The timestamp must adhere to the system-generated format (HH:MM, D MM YYYY (UTC)) and must not be customized. This is necessary for clear communications and for archiving bots to function correctly. Timestamps that are customized may be considered disruptive and editors using them may be blocked accordingly.

See also this recent WP:ANI discussion that led to the addition of that text. Would you agree that your signature does not meet those requirements? Modulus12 (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Wow, really, user:Modulus12? Someone’s argument around a regulation against blinking and scrolling text lead you to threaten me with blocking because I made my timestamp conform to ISO 8601, literally the international standard date-time format? You want me to use something that comes out of UNIX and no one in my country actually uses?

I suggest you change the rules so they use a standard standard, not something that’s easy because some engineer in 1970 set it up that way. This is systemic bias against people who think. It annoys me, and according to the rule you cite, it could get you blocked.

Well, I’ll try out a sig that conforms to the rules and maybe will improve Wikipedia in some way, but I don’ promise to stick to it. User:Mzajac

(1) I did not threaten to block you; I don't even have the power to do that. (2) It's not my job to change the rules to match your preferences. The guideline/policy says that a non-standard timestamp prevents the archive bots from working correctly, and the linked discussion shows the community consensus that this is considered disruptive. I was just giving you a heads-up. One solution might be to follow the advice in Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing how you see your signature and add some script code to User:Mzajac/common.css that modifies your signature (and everyone else's too if you want) to look exactly how you want without changing what everyone else sees. Modulus12 (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, but I don’t believe CSS can be used to alter content, e.g. to rearrange the components of the date to the standard’s order or transform a month name into a figure. I am sure I used the same Wikipedia guidelines and help to format my sig when I did it years ago. User:Mzajac

Hmm, yeah, you're probably right. I guess scripts like I'm thinking of would go in User:Mzajac/common.js and be coded in Javascript, which is how most things on Wikipedia:User scripts/List seem to work. Modulus12 (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Naming Conventions (Ukrainian places)

The naming convention is not relevant to "proper names of governments, organizations, companies, and sports teams", it is ONLY about references to the place itself. --Khajidha (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

User:Khajidha that’s confusing at best, but sounds like doublespeak to me. The name “Kyiv” as part of another proper name is precisely a reference to the place itself. The Kyiv Boryspil Express is a train from Kyiv to Boryspil, not some detached abstract name. Let’s revert to the consensus version and discuss on the relevant talk page.

Your added note about other usage is not specific to Kyiv and belongs at the top of the page, and should probably refer to relevant general Wikipedia style guides. Your text is inaccurate, because, for example, Kyiv is part of the name of Kyiv’s own government organizations, and not one of “other entities,” and the phrasing “most commonly used” is dubious here. —Michael Z. 2020-03-08 19:47 z

How is it confusing? The place is the place. These other things are other things. What the place is called in English may be completely unrelated to what these other things (even government agencies) are called in English. So, in English, it is quite normal to say that the Kyiv Boryspil Express connects Kiev to Boryspil. --Khajidha (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, “completely unrelated.” That argument is bunk. —Michael Z. 2020-03-08 20:08 z

I am referring only to what they are called in English, not what the derivation of the names is. As is quite clear from my phrasing.--Khajidha (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

You can spell the city’s name any way you like, but when the English-language media writes Kyiv they are referring to Kyiv. “completely unrelated” is plain bunk. I’m not even trying to rename the article, but all you anti-renamers’ arguments and tactics sound increasingly out of touch with reality as you pretend that English usage is not continuing to change. —Michael Z. 2020-03-08 20:18 z

You misunderstand the point. As a non-Ukrainian example, the fact that the general English usage for the German region is Bavaria has no bearing on the fact that the soccer team named for that region is called Bayern Munich. Or vice versa. --Khajidha (talk) 20:22, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Do you misunderstand the facts, or are you trying to bait me? Kyiv and Kiev are both English spellings, and the former is currently displacing the latter. Every up-to-date (English-language) style guide recommends the spelling Kyiv. (English-language) Britannica’s entry is titled “Kyiv,” and the (English-language) OED (3rd ed., 2019) lists the etymology “Kiev (now also Kyiv; Ukrainian Kyjiv), the name of the capital city of Ukraine.” —Michael Z. 2020-03-08 22:52 z

Neither. And I'm not even disputing that Kyiv is seeing increased usage. I don't think it has reached the point of being the predominent usage, but that is neither here nor there. The point is that the name of the place and the names of things named for that place do not necessarily use the same forms in English language usage. Government agencies, companies, sports teams, etc follow their own naming guidelines, not the naming guidelines for places. If the common English usage for the place is one spelling, but the common English usage for a government agency in that place is another spelling, we can, should, and will use different forms in the two articles. --Khajidha (talk) 23:00, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Which specific guidelines are you referring to? —Michael Z. 2020-03-08 23:19 z

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sports teams) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation) immediately spring to mind. Neither of which mention matching the spelling to that used for the place itself. Not to mention the general guideline to follow common English usage (WP:Use English and WP:Common names), which are applied to each article individually. And Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places) says that it applies to Ukrainian places. It does not claim that things named for Ukrainian places have to follow the spellings used for the places they are named after. --Khajidha (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The naming conventions are about article titles only. They don’t restrict what we have to call things. And now that you mention it, “Ukrainian places” should be edited to conform to the other guidelines. —Michael Z. 2020-03-08 23:59 z

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) explicitly says that "within articles, places should generally be referred to by the same name as is used in their article title" and that it "describes conventions for determining the titles of Wikipedia articles on places, and for the use of place names in Wikipedia articles.", and I assume other naming guidelines make similar statements. So, what we title each article does restrict what we call things. But, again, the name of a place does not restrict the names used for things named for that place. And I don't see how you think Ukrainian places does not conform to the other guidelines. --Khajidha (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes, “should generally.” But there are many exceptions. In articles on the pre-1917 Russian empire, for example, Ukrainian place names are often given in Russian (although I don’t know why Wikipedia should let a long-dead empire dictate our English style). WWII history articles often use, for example, Kharkov, that the military history buffs are used to reading in their old books, and not Kharkiv. —Michael Z. 2020-03-09 00:16 z

Wikipedia isn't letting "a long-dead empire dictate our English style", we are following the English language sources and uses. English sources about the Russian Empire or WWII use those spellings, so we use those spellings. It isn't about what Russia wants, or what Ukraine wants, or what any other country anywhere on Earth now or in the past wants. It is solely about what is actually used in English. --Khajidha (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Well you’re saying it’s solely about what is actually used in English sometimes, but other times it’s about what is used in English in certain sources. That’s why we have two different spellings.

That’s exactly why I would like to revert your deletion of the word usually in the consensus version of the guideline: “For this reason, usually write Kiev, which is the common English form . . .” Because such guidelines apply only usually (and because naming conventions are not style guides). —Michael Z. 2020-03-09 00:35 z

Given that the Ukrainian places guideline is subordinate to the general geographic place names guidelines, I have no objection to your last edit of the Ukrainian place conventions. --Khajidha (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Great! How about restoring that “usually,” to allow for the normal guidelines to apply?

And looking through these guidelines reminds me of another specific organization name. Would you object to moving Kiev City State Administration to the official name on the organization’s letterhead Kyiv City State Administration, as per WP:NCGAL? —Michael Z. 2020-03-09 01:00 z

The "usually" is redundant to the notice " Remember to take into account Wikipedia policies and guidelines when applying this guidance, especially WP:Article titles and WP:Naming conventions (geographic names). " As for the City State Administration, that would depend on what English usage for that body is. Not its own English usage, but general English usage. I have no opinion on what that usage is and would not object to a move request, but not a unilateral move without discussion. --Khajidha (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I’ve explained the rationale on Talk:Kiev City State Administration#Name, including search results that meet your requirements. If you’ve no specific objection, I’ll just move it. —Michael Z. 2020-03-09 15:04 z

I object to your moving it without discussion. Open an official move request. --Khajidha (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, interesting to read the section #Use modern names that gives advice on how to evaluate name changes:

Another example is Mumbai, which officially changed its name from Bombay in 1995. Per Wikipedia's naming policy, our choice of name does not automatically follow the official or local form, but depends on that change having become predominant in common global usage. That can be assessed by reviewing up-to-date references to the place in a modern context in reliable, authoritative sources such as news media, other encyclopedias, atlases and academic publications as well as the official publications of major English-speaking countries, for example the CIA World Factbook.

 —Michael Z. 2020-03-09 00:20 z

And? Those tests showed that general usage had changed from Bombay to Mumbai. What's your point? --Khajidha (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Category:Orthography reform has been nominated for merging

Category:Orthography reform, which you created, has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 13:22, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

"(phonetic) transcription" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect (phonetic) transcription. Since you had some involvement with the (phonetic) transcription redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:Monobook.js" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Monobook.js. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Monobook.js redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. — J947 ^[cont] 06:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

News Media

I think your recent post may indicate that you misunderstand my intentions. My impression is that the coverage of the Ukrainian Crisis is far too reliant on the commercial news in general, not just the Ukrainian sources. It should make far greater use of the sociological research that is available on the topic. Please consider this post by Losduarte, with which I unfortunately now mostly agree: Talk:2014_Ukrainian_revolution#Questionable_competence. That being said, Ukrainian news media should be used with even greater caution because the conditions for independent journalism in that country leave a lot to be desired. Heptor (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I wasn’t familiar with Blum, so I looked at his website. He was not a professional historian, with only a bachelor’s degree in accounting. He appears to be an “anti-globalist” activist, meaning anti-USA, and one of those willing to uncritically repeat the kind of anti-Ukrainian conspiracy theories that I think even the Russian state media won’t publish on its official websites. I see he was a regular at Global Research.ca. Definitely not a reliable source on the subject. —Michael Z. 17:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You admit that you did not read any of Blum's texts. You have already admitted to not knowing who Noam Chomsky is. The claims that Blum is allegedly "not a professional historian" and "anti-usa" are uncritical thought and the shifting of attention from the lack of research in the wiki piece to shooting the messenger. The implication is that, if somehow the author of a book were a booster of a particular nation, you might read the book. The standard in scholarship is/are the citations to evidence in the text and the peer review testing the thesis and critical interpretations. See e.g. Theodore G. Vincent, independent researcher, "The Legacy of Vicente Guerrero, Mexico's First Black Indian President," https://muse.jhu.edu/article/7448/summary. Blum's research has been cited over 68 times by University reserchers and addressed in scores of University articles, with approval. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Killing-Hope%3A-U.S.-Military-and-CIA-Interventions-Blum/6b8e15b7636623b56df62bf7391c1770cdb45211. As for your Wiki piece, it contains zero (0) sociological or historical research to attempt to analyze the social historical origins of an event in Ukrainian history. losduarte user_talk:losduarte. —Preceding undated comment added 19:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Oh, hello. And welcome to Wikipedia.

I’m not sure what you mean by “your wiki piece.”

I certainly have known who Chomsky is for a very long time. I’ve now read some of Blum’s editorials on his blog and on Global Research. None of them are really about Ukraine, on which subject he uncritically refers to or repeats Russian propaganda tropes, without the most basic fact-checking (e.g, on MH17, “I’d guess that it was the Ukranian government behind the shootdown, mistaking it for Putin’s plane that reportedly was in the area,” and on the Maidan revolution, Nuland “spoke of 5 billion (sic) dollars given to aid the protesters who were soon to overthrow the govt”). But that’s just decoration for articles which are all about his favourite subject. It seems to be important to him that Ukraine was “overthrown” by the United States, but he only supports that notion by referring to the same anecdotal “evidence” found in conspiracy-theory forums. Maybe I missed the good stuff. Had he authored any articles in peer-reviewed journals?

Sorry, I don’t understand how Anna’s book review is relevant. The writer appears to be a professional scholar.

Anyway, please don’t work too hard formulating more “implications” about me. —Michael Z. 20:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Asking to evaluate the removal of my clerking on Talk:Kiev

Hi User:Mzajac, I recently took upon myself to do clerking duties and uncollapse the vote that you cast on July 2 diff, because the sysop who colappsed it said that it could be uncollapsed once RM discussion is unsuspended (which it is now). However, User:TaivoLinguist has reverted those clerking editing on my part diff] with a comment You were not given permission to do this. Your idiosyncratic assumption that "you" when speaking to Mzajac means anyone who passes by is not supported. This move has not been sanctioned by anyone but you. I am confused as I did not think that my clerking editing was in any way contentious, so asking for your advice here. I will fully understand if you do not wish to evaluate those edits (given that it is related to your own voting comment), so if that is the case, please let me know and I will ask for evaluating advice from a different enwiki sysop. Thank you,--73.75.115.5 (talk) 18:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

"I am confused as I did not think that my clerking editing was in any way contentious" is disingenuous. The entire bottom half of the discussion at Procedural note on clerking is devoted exclusively to this question. He has been reverted by multiple editors both before and after his block and his block was partially as a result of his contentious editing on this very issue. If you, Mzajac, wish to reformat your comment you are free to do so, but no one else is. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 18:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. I’ve been busy, but I will add a separate vote under the RM soon. —Michael Z. 20:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Systematic bias

I think it could be argued that using Kiev over Kyiv, et al, violates WP:Systemic bias. You might take a look at that page in preparation for the ARBCOM. This is something that the W?F takes seriously, especially in today's political climate. - BilCat (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. That’s occasionally occurred to me, but I haven’t yet stopped to think about how to frame this argument. Will keep it in mind.  —Michael Z. 00:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @BilCat:, apologies for joining your conversation, but when I saw your comment above, I could not pass by without saying anything. If you yourself think that today the right way of spelling Ukraine's capital is Kyiv and not Kiev, and that the only reason some "old timers" cling to Kiev is because of WP:Systemic bias, then why would you not change your original Oppose vote to a Support vote?--73.75.115.5 (talk) 03:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Because it's not an argument for ignoring the guidelines in move discussions, but for getting the guidelines changed. I support the guidelines as long as they are the guidelines, and Kiev is still the common name. Sorry, but my !vote stays the same. BilCat (talk) 03:57, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I have to voice my disagreement since you’re posting this here, BilCat. The guidelines, including WP:COMMONNAME, support using the name most common in up-to-date, reliable sources, not in some Google search results, or G Trends, or what you hear from Joe in the doughnut shop. That would be Kyiv. —Michael Z. 04:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Michael, I being nice and answering their question. If I'd known you'd see it as yet another opportunity to relitigate the RM, I'd have just been rude and ignored it! Sheesh! Can't you ease up for one minute? BilCat (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Asking for Wikipedia:Mentorship in relation to being able to constructively edit on Talk:Kiev

Hi User:Mzajac. I am asking for Wikipedia:Mentorship advice in relation to being able to constructively edit on Talk:Kiev: there is a discussion right now here User_talk:Barkeep49#IP's behaviour at Talk:Kiev, which resulted in sysop re-blocking me a 2nd time. I explained myself User_talk:73.75.115.5 to User:Barkeep49, but he has not replied; I know that on enwiki there are sometimes arrangement when one editor takes mentorship over another (and even sometimes takes on responsibility to guide an editor as a condition for allowing him to be unblock), therefore I ask for your comment and Mentorship in this discussion User_talk:Barkeep49#IP's behaviour at Talk:Kiev (I do fully understand that per unwritten rules of enwii adminship, only the sysop who blocked a user can unblock them, so my request is not about unblocking but about Wikipedia:Mentorship advice that would allow me to continue constructively contibuting to Talk:Kiev discussion.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, 73.75.115.5 (does that link inform you of my edit here?). I’d be glad to mentor, although I don’t have much time to spend here these days. I’m pretty sure you understand and appreciate what got you blocked, and what to not do to avoid get blocked again. You’ve been a tireless contributor to changing the article name to conform to Wikipedia’s content guidelines, and you’ve done more than anyone else to correct the situation. But you’re still one of us many cogs in the encyclopedia, so don’t feel like it will all fall apart if you take a day off or if you don’t respond to just that one terrible comment. If you feel yourself clenching your jaw at some remark or unhelpful information, just put it aside for a day instead of posting, until you can see it as old news. Worst case: we revisit this again later, but I don’t think that’s going to be necessary. Thank you for all your efforts. Cheers. —Michael Z. 15:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi User:Mzajac, the ping did not go through (I guess {{ping}} does not work for IPs). Thank you for your advice - I think your advice for me is timely and appropriate; I shall take time off from Talk:Kiev to ponder over topics raised there and will come back when I can view them as old news (which is likely to be Oct 1, or later, since that is the duration of the 2nd block that User:Barkeep49 has imposed upon me.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Kiev

Hi Mzajac. Over the last six days or so, in what was already a very mature discussion, I count 14 substantial edits. This is an awful lot and I would suggest at this point that you've made your thinking clear and it would be best to take a step back to let other editors weigh in, without a chance of bludgeoning from some of the more active participants. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I’ll wind it up. —Michael Z. 02:34, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Word of advice: take a break from Wikipedia

Hi User:Mzajac. I see your paths crossed with sysop Ymblanter Talk:Territorial_evolution_of_Russia#Kyiv; word of advice (which you actually gave me recently!): just take a break from editing any Ukraine (or Kyiv-related) topics on Wikipeidia for a few days or better for a few months. Sysop Ymblanter would probably try to desysop (or even block) you if you continue editing Ukraine-related topics; and they already indirectly hinted at it here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_Kyiv_disruption. After reading 15 pages of Talk:Kyiv/naming (my analysis of it can be found here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive324#Kiev/Kyiv) I came to a conclusion that sysop Ymblanter has a very strong opinion on Ukraine-related topics and usually editors who have an opposing opinion to his end up getting blocked (or in the case of User:Roman Spinner silenced via the threats of being blocked). Best.--73.75.115.5 (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

p.s. as can be seen from Ymblanter's recent comments, they have very strong opinions about "Ukrainian propag@nda"/"Ukrainian prop@ganda government" etc. (i.e., their comments Kiev was renamed from what Ukrainian propagandidts think was the Russian version [i.e., Kiev] to what they think is the Ukrainian version [i.e., Kyiv] diff, [Odesa] - no f@cking way this is a common Emglish name. diff, We just need to be very clear that we are now a Ukrainian government propaganda outlet diff, the Ukrainian state propaganda does not seem to be interested in this one diff), and when you come across people so passionate about a topic (in this case Ukraine), it is better to just get out of the way and let them do whatever they want to do. --73.75.115.5 (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. You’re right that a break now is a very good idea, of course. Maybe I’ll just wrap up one little RFC that’s been requested . . .  —Michael Z. 19:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing Kiev/Kyiv RM based on newly found evidence from Ymblanter

Hi, you might want to change your opinion of the Sep 2020 Kiev/Kyiv RM based on this new evidence. An admin Ymblanter recently found out that user who started the RM was later CU blocked as they turned out a logged out user who was topic-banned from all topics related to Ukraine, and Ymblater later also found out that it was most likely a user who was topic-banned by them earlier.

A friend already started a discussion at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2020 September#Kyiv - you might want to take a look at that discussion regarding reviewing that move.--172.58.140.238 (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Removal of comment from Talk:Kyiv

Hi, this edit [1] removed a comment (together with clerking). One can argue that clerking was disruptive (although it wasn't), but removing a comment is against Wikipedia policies. Assuming good faith, it was probably a simple mistake on K.e.coffman's part, but regardless it should be reverted and the comment should be re-instate (clerking could remain reverted, but it is unclear who benefits from returning to having all those discussions that are all interconnected, to being all over the place).--172.58.139.74 (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Please stop making edits in historical articles

I'd like to assume good faith, but it is difficult when you go ahead and keep changing historical articles, when you know for a fact the matter is controversial and is being currently discussed at Talk:Kyiv. I'd suggest to please wait, or restrict your edits to modern material, until the matter is resolved. Walrasiad (talk) 05:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Walrasiad, thanks. I have been mainly. I have some time now and I wanted to get some significant work done. But the vague “historical articles” is practically meaningless, and the only concrete suggestions of cutting it off at 1995 ridiculous. There seems to be no objection to using the current spelling in articles on Ukrainian topics, for example the extremely historical article History of Kyiv, so I am skeptical that “historical articles” is what this is about, but I am trying to assume good faith but still find what the real boundaries are. Was it unreasonable to get on a roll and update all of the articles about Ukrainian heads of state and heads of government from 2020 back to 1917? At which ones should I have stopped? Sincerely, —Michael Z. 14:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Also wondering if anyone intends to cite a reference as published in Kyiv in some articles but Kiev in others. A citation is not “historical” information, nor English writing style. It is akin to an ideally up-to-date library catalogue, and should probably be cited consistently and according to modern bibliographic standards. —Michael Z. 14:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Gosh, and I can’t help mention the irony: “Undid revision 980017384 by Mzajac (talk) Please don't introduce changes in historical articles currently under discussion.” The article explains how in 1907, Ukrainians were finally allowed to publish in their own language in the empire, and renamed their journal Ukraina. But here we are in 2020. I don’t expect Wikipedians to change our practices overnight, but the lack of sympathy and in some cases plain contempt shown by other editors for a nation still dealing with a colonial legacy creates a hostile environment to improve Wikipedia in. I have mentioned wp:bias in several conversations, and not once has an editor acknowledged the slightest respective for the important ideas in it. —Michael Z. 15:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

I am not sure how many times I need to tell you that there is no consensus to change Kievan Rus to Kyivan Rus at this point, and you are perfectly aware of this because you participated in the move request at Talk:Kievan Rus', but you do not hear and continue this dusruptive activity [2]. Thisd is really unfortunate that an administrator demonstrates such behavior. An ordinary user would have already been blocked for this, and many indeed were. This behavior is unbecoming of administrator. Please stop.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I see, you don’t want the Kyivan Rus spelling in non-historical Ukrainian-topic articles. I suppose you think this change should get me banned too. —Michael Z. 17:25, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what is so difficult in the notion of "historical usage". According to the current proposal at Talk:Kyiv which may pass or may not pass, every usage of the name of the city by default is Ktiv after 1995 and Kiev before 1991. Everything else must be discussed individually, and I agree that History of Kyiv would require some care - which probably can not be achieved by any blanket replacement, it should be something like using Kyiv throughout the article and sometimes adding "at the time known as Kiev" or smth like this. However, I do not see how any of discussions held on Wikipedia can lead to a conclusion that it is ok to replace Kievan Rus' with Kyivan Rus' without discussion, in any context.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Then I suggest that you consider that I made one mistake in judgment on this article, as I have been trying not to step on the anti-Kyiv editors’ toes, and I don’t agree on your assessment. This “historical context” phrasing is being used to extend discussions of article titles to put a chill on other editing that is simply disapproved of. There are articles which use Kyiv in a modern context, the noun and adjective Kyivan as in “the Kyivans” and “Kyivan prince,” as well as refer to Kyivan Rus. It is silly to ban these spellings commonly used in the field of Ukrainian history from individual uses where they are appropriate, and I don’t think anyone is proposing that we do. So please just relax a little or think twice before you accuse and threaten. Thanks. —Michael Z. 17:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I indeed need a break from Wikipedia. It became too stressful for me. I have other things to do.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I sympathize. —Michael Z. 18:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

CFD nominations

I've fixed the lists and tagged the subcategories in your nominations at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 6. In future please can you list them in the form:

• Category:OLD CATEGORY NAME to Category:NEW CATEGORY NAME

and also put the discussion notice on all subcategories you are proposing to be renamed.

The first is to make it clear what the name is and ease the task of the closing administrator and bot who process the outcome - when the list is in the standard format it simply needs to be copied and pasted onto the working page. If the administrator would have to create the list themselves there is a risk of error and also that they may opt to not close the discussion because of the workload involved.

Tagging the subcategories means that all editors watching them can see they're proposed for renaming. The WP:Article Alerts system is also reliant on the notices being there. This is not a mere bureaucratic procedure but an important part of ensuring the renaming discussion is flagged to all who wish to know. Hence why several editors are procedurally opposing the renames.

Timrollpickering (talk) 21:05, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, @Timrollpickering:. I probably would have got around to it. Maybe I’ll try to improve the text at CFD, because the requirement was not at all clear to me from the instructions. —Michael Z. 00:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Kiev (Kyiv)

I sure hope that as an administrator you set a good example that when you update articles to Kiev (Kyiv) that you also update the other changed articles to Kyiv (Kiev). Just an observation. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

You’re speaking from an assumption without referring to any rationale (see WP:BIAS).

I am updating based on 1. the specific advice of our guideline, as I’ve explained in two other places, 2. the good example of many, many reliable sources (see below), and 3. after soliciting comments at talk:Kyiv#First use of Kiev accompanied by explanatory (Kyiv) (thank you for your support there, and to the community’s credit, only one Wikipedian told me to take a flying leap without even addressing my suggestion).

As for me, I might follow your suggestion, if I read a more convincing argument than framing this as a battleground where every use of of the reviled Kyiv must be balanced by a good addition or there’s something wrong with me. But for now, sorry. This is a wp:volunteer project, and I don’t think it’s fair to tell me how you’d like me to spend my time. I see you’ve labelled some edits with “Per WP:PLACE,” although strictly they are not. A good example?

As a very unscientific snapshot on professional practice, I did look at the very first five accessible results for "Kyiv" history in each of Google Scholar and Google Books. The result is a fascinating selection of subjects. Only one explicitly mentions Kiev by way of example, in “A Note about Transliteration,” in (source no. 7):

With the exception of “Ukraine,” which is not normally transliterated as Ukraine or Ukrayina, I follow the Ukrainian national system for geographical names. Thus, we have Kyiv instead of the Russian-based Kiev, and Dnipro for Kyiv’s river instead of Dnieper or Dnepr.

The other nine do not, although a couple have general notes like (6) “the names of cities are cited following currently accepted official usage (e.g., Moscow, Odesa).” They all are:

1. Pavlenko (2010), “Linguistic Landscape of Kyiv, Ukraine: A Diachronic Study.”
2. Kuzio (2005), “Nation Building, History Writing and Competition over the Legacy of Kyiv Rus in Ukraine.”
3. Gerasimenko and Rousseau (2008), “Stratigraphy and Paleoenvironments of the Last Pleniglacial in the Kyiv Loess Region (Ukraine).”
4. Bilenky (2018), Imperial Urbanism on the Borderlands: Kyiv 1800–1905.
5. Churyumov (2002), “History of Cometary Exploration at Kyiv University.”
6. Makaryk and Tkacz (2010), Modernism in Kyiv: Kiev/Kyïv/Kiev/Kijów/ק̣ייעוו: Jubilant Experimentation.
7. Cybriwsky (2014), Kyiv, Ukraine: The City of Domes and Demons from the Collapse of Socialism to the Mass Uprising of 2013–2014.
8. Partkevich (1998), Between Kyiv and Constantinople: Oleksander Lototsky and the Quest for Ukrainian Autocephaly.
9. Soroka (2019), 100 Key Events in Ukrainian History.
10. Sacher-Masoch and Haivoronskyi, transl. Chornomorets (2016), Bloody Wedding in Kyiv: Two Tales of Olha, Kniahynia of Kyivan Rus.

One could also cite articles in today’s press, as well, where the first five sources with results on the same search, the Atlantic Council, ESPN, Kyiv Post, RFE/RL, and BBC Sport use Kyiv without any parenthetic (as do, I expect, practically all of the tens of thousands that follow).

For a counter-example to support your argument, see Britannica Online, which has started to use the Kyiv spelling in updates to articles on Ukraine (with a section on “Kyivan (Kievan) Rus”), Kyiv, Yaroslav the Wise, and possibly others, although there’s not enough to see a consistent editorial policy yet.

 —Michael Z. 16:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

For the sake of completeness, I’ll add to my argument that:

The consensus decision on Kyiv stated there are two widely used spellings, and chose the one we use for the modern place name. WP:PLACE only refers to usage in the same article, where “historical name (modern name)” might be required, for example, “Kiev (Kyiv).” But MOS:CAPS refers to usage in other articles:

In general, other articles should refer to places by the names which are used in the articles on those places, according to the rules described at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names). If a different name is appropriate in a given historical or other context, then that may be used instead, although it is normal to follow the first occurrence of such a name with the standard modern name in parentheses.

Both of these guidelines ask us to mark context-specific exceptions to the modern name: so add “(Kyiv)” to explain any usage of, e.g., historical or foreign names like Kiev, Kief, Kijów, Kiovia, Kiow, Kiou, etcetera. I haven’t seen a guideline suggesting the converse.

The normal way to introduce a modern name, throughout Wikipedia, is just to link it to the its article. —Michael Z. 17:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Kiev vs Kyiv in historical contexts

Hi Michael, I've looked on the Kyiv talk page, but can't find anything specifically about this issue, so I'm asking you here. Does the MOS currently address whether or not to use "Kiev" in historical contexts.this? A user has been changing "Kyiv" to "Kiev" in Igor Sikorsky, as shown here. Is this user correct? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hey, BilCat. It’s about perceived consensus among editors who are now paying attention. You’ll get grief if you change the spelling of Kiev in “unambiguously historical topics” and “edge cases,” per the RFC in progress. I initially updated articles on Ukrainian topics, but then started avoiding editing articles about people who died before 1991 after complaints and reverts. This would apply to changing things to either spelling, in theory.

So sad, too bad. There’s plenty to update that is relatively uncontroversial. Most anti-Kyivans are acting in good faith. Sooner or later it will become obvious that the Ukrainian “historical” articles so many of us lived through are tone-deaf in using the dated spelling, and that will change too. —Michael Z. 15:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I just won't change it one way or the other, and stay out of it altogether until such time as a clear consensus is reached on it. BilCat (talk) 21:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

But don’t just go away and remove your voice from the consensus-forming community. Thanks. —Michael Z. 22:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Some battles are tiresome and emotionally draining. I'm learning to chose my battles, and this isn't really one I'm interested in fighting at this time. BilCat (talk) 04:57, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Greetings

Hi. Do you speak Ukrainian? I need an advice about this. Can I write to you here in Ukrainian? AndriiDr (talk) 04:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Сервус. I do, but English would be easier for me and more appropriate here. I will have a look and follow up at the Administators’ Notice Board later today. —Michael Z. 13:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

This user focuses on the fact that I made 300 edits in one day. But my edits are simple and repetitive, not a big deal. Does Wikipedia have some "speed limit" and 300 edits in one day is wrong, or it is just pressure? Thanks a lot. --AndriiDr (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

AndriiDr, I think I know who you mean. Ignore them. Some of the loudest complainers are not voicing any valid complaints. You’re not a “bot,” so try not to worry that some clown labels you a bot, or worse. Do a good job on your edits, and go to discussion if someone reverts because they have a genuine concern, or just move on. There are plenty of uncontroversial edits to make, even though some editors may try to raise controversy about them. Leave the “historical” articles for later. I think it will become more self-evident to more editors how impractical the proposals are to resist the move of the main article.

And try to be sympathetic. Some of these folks are still in the first, second, or third stage, and are reinforcing each others’ refusal to face reality. They may be grateful for your support and understanding later, once they’ve worked through it.

До роботи! —Michael Z. 02:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Mzajac:. One user does tricky things. I reverted his edits, then he canceled my revert, i notified him here and revert him. And after this, immediately after a second or few seconds (looks like software), my edit was reverted by an account with one edit here. What should I do in this situation? If I revert again, will there be questions to me about the edit war? I have heard about sanctions on articles, when I can cancel as many times as I like. Does this work for this article? --AndriiDr (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

It's okay, account was blocked. --AndriiDr (talk) 20:16, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Bilohirsk sorry

Missed your edit comment [3], was just about to fix, after I saw your comment on the IS talk page, but just run into edit conflict with your reapply of the fix. TerraCyprus (talk) 04:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, and thanks. Go ahead and edit, and we can discuss there later. —Michael Z. 04:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Iceland municipality

Replaced since 6 Nov [4], tagged for speedy since 8 Nov - could you delete Template:Infobox Iceland municipality and subpages and incoming redirects? TerraCyprus (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like someone already got to this. I will also delete the redirect Template:Infobox Icelandic municipality. —Michael Z. 16:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Deleted, with the talk page. —Michael Z. 16:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Thank you for defending the correct spelling of the medieval state's name, which is a derivative from Kyiv. I appreciate Ukrainian Wikipedia's editors work for establishing and renewing the right image of Ukraine in the world. Dim.yttrium (talk) 20:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:AE topic

I decided that the most direct way to proceed is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Mzajac--Ymblanter (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

AE result

I have closed the AE complaint by imposing the following topic ban on you: a one year prohibition against anything to do with Kyiv, broadly construed. I will note it in the log. Anyway, while I had originally intended to impose a ban which was more narrow in that it only involved a prohibition against changing Kiev-to-Kyiv, your rather inexplicable misconduct during the report itself, convinced myself and the other admins reviewing the complaint to go with a wider ban. Frankly, to me, it feels like you've taken advantage of my good nature, though I bear you no ill will. A word of caution, then: if you are to violate this ban, I estimate the chances of you ending up before the Committee to be great. In fact, there's a decent chance for that to happen regardless. A lot of folks out there already feel that sanctions are incompatible with advanced permissions (as a matter of competence or whatever), not to mention when inexplicable behaviour on the part of the admin facing the complaint takes place during the AE proceeding itself. In any case, I'm not going to be the one to launch any Arbitration proceeding against you (though I may comment if someone else does), but I still thought it worthwhile to make note of. Finally, I had detailed on the report in question the three avenues of appeal which are at your disposal. El_C 02:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

El_C, I am sorry that I wasn’t able to submit my response before the closing (to be clear, my comment meant that I was working on it, along with a couple of questions about the changing procedure, but I had not finished writing with the intention to submit). I take responsibility for my own very long and unfortunately abortive delay.

However, I may appeal. Most of the complaints against me were content disagreements, and I believe extensive discussion in the final day swayed your opinion regarding “disruptive editing” (for example, for consistency with consensus spelling on the same line and throughout the rest of the article, including at least one identical mention).

Anyway, thanks for taking the time and for your generous patience. —Michael Z. 16:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)