User talk:Brainsteinko

I'm very much aware of the PocketBook models, since my name is all over the PocketBook Reader edit history. I was interested in purchasing one of their devices, so I did a major overhaul of their article, but I didn't buy one, nor purchased any ebook reader yet. The only reason I changed the 301 to 902 was because any newer model was better than the 301 in the tables of Comparison of e-book readers. You are more than welcome to add the others. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 22:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your continued work to resolving our dispute. Because you haven't done much editing, you may not be very familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines. The most important from my experience are Dispute resolution, Consensus, and Talk page guidelines. Hope you find them helpful. --Ronz (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please choose a place where the tag issue may be discussed--Brainsteinko (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 16:13, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I write mostly to PocketBook page doesn't mean I'm affiliated with this organization. And I'm telling you straightforward - I'm not howsoever connected with PocketBook company: I'm not employed there, nor have I received any money from them for any kind of reason. Real 'thanks' for another deletion. You cannot imagine how I wish the discussion with you is over asap. I'm still waiting for your arguments about the tag and will delete it on Thursday for the satisfaction of both of us. Good luck.--Brainsteinko (talk) 18:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I won't mention it again, unless there's new evidence. --Ronz (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that our discussions are moving along better, I've removed the last comment [1] I had made on the talk page in the section about the tags. I hope discussions will be going along more smoothly from now on. --Ronz (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the instructions at the top of my talk page. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:38, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I still don't understand what you're claiming the lesen.net reference is [2] [3]. If you think it's a reliable source, then we need to have an idea why you think so. --Ronz (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a big and popular German site with lots of services. What can I say else. You may as well state citations from the guidelines proving the contrary. --Brainsteinko (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note when we're discussing reliable sources, we're referring to WP:RS. --Ronz (talk) 21:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. [4] [5] --Ronz (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Continuing to remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia without resolving the problem that the template refers to may be considered disruptive editing. Further edits of this type may result in your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. [6] --Ronz (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[7] --Ronz (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what's your point ? Thanks for your collaboration, but it's time to finish discussion and not going in circles. --Brainsteinko (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to remove maintenance templates in this manner, you may be blocked. --Ronz (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By whom ? By you ?--Brainsteinko (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:BLOCK, which is lined above. --Ronz (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you need to chill out, including myself. "Brainsteinko" you need to be more careful about the wikipedia rules and NOT to take everything personally because someone disagrees with you, and "Ronz" needs to be more patient with the new users and remember WP:DONTBITE which means that if you don't want to help the new users then you need to hand this over entirely over to someone else. When I first started, I almost quit editing because people were hammering on me so hard, but I pushed past it and now close to 10K edits in 8.5 months. I still have a lot to learn, but also I've learned a lot too. We all need to get past these issues and make the article better!!! • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is critical that you cite references, otherwise other people will delete your edits. I currently don't have time to help that Pocketbook article, and really need to spend more time editing 70 or so city articles in my state. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 02:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brainsteinko,

This is an automated friendly notification to inform you that you have been reported for Violation of the Edit warring policy at the Administrators' noticeboard.
If you feel that this report has been made in error, please reply as soon as possible on the noticeboard. However, before contesting an Edit warring report, please review the respective policies to ensure you are not in violation of them. ~ NekoBot (MeowTalk) 23:05, 10 June 2011 (UTC) (False positive? Report it!)[reply]

Well, the report was declined. There were actually two disputes with the user, I think they may be saved for history.--Brainsteinko (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kyiv is what the company writes on their pages. Google uses Kyiv together with Kiev in its services. And Wikipedia has long open discussion on that. And Wikipedia also says Kyiv on its page in the right top corner. Please reconsider your edition. Languages are alive and change. Please again reconsider Microsoft uses Kyiv http://www.bing.com/maps/ --Brainsteinko (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brainsteinko. :-) What you say is correct, but it's irrelevant for choosing which name to use in our articles. The names usted in the articles of the English-language Wikipedia are based on Wikipedia policy, which is clear on this issue (see the general naming conventions and the more specific naming conventions for geographic names). The third general guideline of the naming conventions for geographic names reads: "The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article" (my emphasis). — In other words, all articles mentioning the Ukrainian capital should consistently use the title of the Wikipedia article on said city. At the present time that means using Kiev. — If at some point in the future the form Kyiv becomes more common than Kiev in English-language publications, then our article on the Ukrainian capital will be renamed accordingly. At that point, and only then, will all other articles reflect the change and adopt the form Kyiv. But not before. — Since August 2007, the centralised place to discuss this larger issue is Talk:Kiev/naming. So, per Wikipedia policy, only when discussion there leads to a renaming of the article on the city from Kiev to Kyiv will this second form be used in other articles. — Regards, Ev (talk) 18:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia says: "Kiev or Kyiv" (see the page) !! Unless you are Russian I don't know what you are fighting for--Brainsteinko (talk) 19:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article's first sentence says "Kiev or Kyiv [...] is the capital and...", but for our purposes it's not the first sentence but the article's title what matters. The third general guideline of the naming conventions for geographic names reads: "The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article" (my emphasis). Title, not first sentence. In our case, that means "Kiev", not "Kiev or Kyiv".

There are two main ideas behind this convention. First, to aim for internal consistency within Wikipedia. Second, to avoid discussing the exact same issue in hundreds of different articles, and have one single centralised discussion instead (in our case, at Talk:Kiev/naming). — As far as I know, I have no Slavic ancestors, and I'm not fighting for anything. I'm merely attempting to make our articles comply with existing Wikipedia policy. :-) Best, Ev (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not calling you smth in slightest manner but please read this WP:TRIFECTA as for rules. There may not be two different titles/articles for Kiev and Kyiv, but the Wikipedia says clearly: both titles have the right for existence. Kyiv used to be the title which is now redirected. Kiev is used just because Russians told so. Similar history with Ivory Coast. In common sense if I say I'm Brainsteinko you call me Brainsteinko. If Aztecs say we live in Tenochtitlan you say Tenochtitlan with pronunciation difference. Is it hard for Englishman to say Kyiv ? ;)

As for your arguments. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY as for consistency. For second argument. This article has been with Kyiv for almost a year and you are the first person starting discussion here. I expect more discussions over here if "Kiev" is left. Regards,--Brainsteinko (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trifecta. — The Trifecta is very clear: "Rules are fine when they're helpful." I'm afraid that precisely this kind of cases where national sensitivities take precedence are among those where following clear rules is most helpful to avoid the otherwise endless & unsolvable discussions that tend to plague Wikipedia. — Instead of arguing for months about perceptions and sentiments, we simply apply clearly established and objective rules. :-)

Wikipedia says clearly: both titles have the right for existence. — Nowhere does any Wikipedia policy say that both Kiev and Kyiv have a "right for existence" in the articles of the English-language Wikipedia. The opposite is the case. The naming conventions for geographic names indicate very clearly that when referring to the capital of Ukraine, "Kiev" is to be used consistently in all articles of the English-language Wikipedia, without exception.

Kyiv used to be the title which is now redirected. — Whatever the title of that article may have been in the past, for our policies the only significant issue is what title it uses now, what title was agreed to in the last discussion on the issue.

Kiev is used just because Russians told so. — How the form "Kiev" entered English usage is also irrelevant. For our purposes, the only thing that matters is that most anglophones are much more familiar with the form "Kiev" than with "Kyiv", regardless of their etymologies.

Common sense. — Muscovites say they live in Moskva, but English speakers say "Moscow". Some Germans say they live in Nürnberg, but anglophones say "Nuremberg". Some Portuguese say that they live in Lisboa, but we say "Lisbon". Italians say Roma, we say "Rome". Ukrainian-speaking Kievans say Kyiv or Kyyiv, but most anglophones say (and write) "Kiev". — The first general guideline of the naming conventions for geographic names reads: "When a widely accepted English name, in a modern context, exists for a place, we should use it. This often will be a local name, or one of them; but not always." "Kiev" happens to be the name most anglophones use when referring to the Ukrainian capital.

The fact that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy does in no way imply that we shouldn't aim for internal consistency. The fact that an article hasn't complied with Wikipedia policies for a long time does not mean that it ceased to be bound by said policies. An editorial mistake has to be corrected, no matter how long it has stood untouched.

In this case, Wikipedia policy is very simple. There's is really nothing to argue about. When referring to the Ukrainian capital, all articles must use the form "Kiev", without exception, until the article on the city itself is renamed to something else (or until our naming conventions policy is modified). Best, Ev (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ev :) You must be a Jew then since Ukraine had only two major invaders - Russians and Jews. You forget that's all that is in the past, especially about Jews and Ukrainians as enemies. --Brainsteinko (talk) 02:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brainsteinko, the issue is a simple one of editorial policy. It has no relation whatsoever with any sort of sentiments towards the Ukraine (be it animosity, sympathy or something else). — The same editorial policy is valid for articles related to Spain (diff.), Albania (diff.), Poland (diff.) or the Middle East (diff.). — Best, Ev (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2011 (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) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Brainsteinko. 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 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 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]