User talk:Geohem

As an admin on the Ukrainian Wikipedia, I'm sure you know that contentious edits need

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

Hello, Geohem. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (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.

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.

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.

talk) 16:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, Geohem. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 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]

Hello, Geohem. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Geohem. You have new messages at MartinezMD's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

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

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

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

 → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks!

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

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]

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]

Speedy deletion nomination of Hlukhiv (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard

to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on

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

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

talk) 11:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]