User talk:Kyrylo Schwydkyj

Notice about Wikipedia conventions regarding Ukrainian place names

Whilst Kiev has been the customary English name of the city with special status, the modern transliteration of the Ukrainian name Kyiv has recently become more commonly used in English. "Kiev" was the longstanding title of Wikipedia's article on the subject. However, a move discussion closed on 16 September 2020 resulted in that article being moved to the title "Kyiv", following a documented shift in usage in English-language media.

An RfC closed on 11 November 2020 discussion established the following guidance for whether to use Kyiv or Kiev in an article:

• For unambiguously current/ongoing topics (e.g. Kyiv Metro), Kyiv is preferred.
• For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Principality of Kiev), do not change existing content.
• For any edge cases, or in case of doubt or dispute, an RfC or move request debate is recommended.
• In all cases, name changes must follow the WP:BRD cycle.

The following rule of thumb for determining what is current or historical was also established:

• From October 1995 (Resolution of the Ukrainian Commission for Legal Terminology No. 5), Kyiv is presumptively appropriate subject to specifics of the article.
• From 24 August 1991 (Ukrainian independence), Kyiv is likely to be appropriate, but proceed with caution.

Please read Wikipedia conventions regarding Ukrainian names for further information.  // Timothy :: talk  13:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)  // Timothy :: talk  13:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

February 2024

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tollens (talk) 09:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. Fine. I'll do it. But I want to ask a question. I know it may sound stupid, but I can't find button that would let me send my message to the talk page. If you could, would you like to say how do I leave a message? Kyrylo Schwydkyj (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

You should be able to click the "Add topic" (possibly "New section" depending on your settings) near the very top right of the talk page to start a new section. If you're looking instead to reply to an existing comment, there should be a "Reply" button next to the end of each comment. Just in case you still have trouble finding the button, this link will take you straight to a box to start a new section. Don't worry, it's certainly not stupid – the interface is a bit complicated and can take some getting used to (I also had some trouble learning how to do some fairly common tasks!). I'm sorry that one of your first experiences editing Wikipedia is a dispute. It looks like this has been the topic of a fair amount of discussion over the years.

So you're aware (because it doesn't look like anyone really explained, apologies on everyone's behalf), the reason for the reverts were likely because Wikipedia uses the common name in English sources, even if there is potentially a more correct name. It appears that there has been some discussion on the talk page about this previously, you may wish to read the archived discussions from that talk page as well if you have not done so already. In order to convince others that moving the page is appropriate, you will likely need to provide evidence that English-language sources actually use the spelling you would prefer the article use more commonly than the current spelling.

As simply an observation based on other similar disputes I have seen (which you are of course free to disregard), I believe you would likely have more success suggesting the "Name" section of the article be expanded, or, even better, proposing the specific expansion that you'd prefer, rather than proposing that the spelling across the entire article be changed. This would be far less contentious (because it wouldn't even require discussion of the common name policy at all), and it might accomplish what I assume is your goal of providing the more accurate name in the article in addition to the common name.

I'd be happy to do my best to answer any questions you might still have about how naming usually works on Wikipedia, if you'd prefer to ask them before posting at the talk page. Tollens (talk) 12:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

The name Vladimir was created by russians in order to portrait him as part of their history. But this is obviously wrong, even if we judge by the fact of whose history Kyivan prince belongs to, then it would be Volodymyr, as in Ukrainian. Kyrylo Schwydkyj (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)