User talk:Kirils

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello Kirils, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  BlankVerse 02:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Gay and Lesbian Kingdom of the Coral Sea

Kirils, I will mostly restore your version of the article. However, I will correct some statements concerning:

  • Gay and Lesbian Republic of the Coral Sea (such a thing never existed!) There is an informal group called "Gay and Lesbian Republic" but this group has nothing to do with Coral Sea or any particular territory.
  • The group you mean, is the Gay and Lesbian Commonwealth Kingdom, reportedly a Duarchy with one Lesbian Monarch and an (still to be appointed) Gay Monarch.

Hugs, Vanrozenheim 19:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know much about that thing. I was only reverting vandalism (blanking), until at last someone claimed that it's all lies and provided a new, shorter article. Kirils 16:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

  • OK, thanks for the answer. Спасибо за информацию. :) What shall happen with this passage on your talk side now? I am not familiar with rules concerning the clarified points... Vanrozenheim 17:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chuckle

Hi! Funny user page! Especially like the "de-0" template. You're alright! Krankman 20:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

danke! ;))) Kirils 22:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Template:SSM

Do not edit war over {{SSM}}. This shows a consolidated list of articles on Same-sex marriage. Since there is an article Same-sex marriage in Latvia, it makes sense for it to appear there. If you dispute the contents of Same-sex marriage in Latvia, please discuss this on Talk:Same-sex marriage in Latvia. Thank you, Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anti-vandalism discussion

It is unfortunate you were unwilling to compromise in light of my numerous attempts to keep your contribution in the article, even though it was unprofessional, inappropriate, and already removed once by another contributor. I am willing to discuss this further if you wish, but such discussion is better suited for a user talk page. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 03:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Nice to hear you are willing to discuss that. As far as I can see it was removed by mistake the previous time, because it was overseen as an unneeded element, but vandalims levels peaked after that. And I already explained twice, why it is more appropriate to have an unofficial type of disclaimer this time, so I'm not going to that again. The "Before adding any sort of content, ask yourself what would a reader expect to find in an encyclopedia." is irrelevant, because it can be seen only by editors, not readers: and YES that IS the sort of content and editor would expect to find here.
I respectfully disagree. Moreover, you have repeatedly forwarded claims with zero substantiation, and all of the significant claims can actually be interpreted as *undermining* your apparent stance on this issue.
For example:
  • 0) Every editor is a reader and every reader is a potential editor, and every vandal is an editor (malicious), therefore the policy is indeed relevant, and you have provided no substantiation or cite to indicate why certain articles are "exempt" from policy;
  • 1) You claimed that the "cutesy" comment stopped vandalism. Even a cursory review of the edit history proves this is incorrect. Moreover, even if vandalism had stopped, correlation does not prove causation.
  • 1.5) You have provided zero substantiation for the claim that a warning is supposed to "stop" vandalism, or even decrease it.
  • 1.5.1) You have not demonstrated how CutesyCmmt does anything to discourage someone hell-bent on vandalism, you invoked psychologists and yet you provide zero cites, zero case studies, and no substantiation.
  • 1.5.2) Absent proof or cites, it's all just a matter of opinion, and consensus opinion would indicate that CutesyCmmt is disfavored (or at least ignored) by *at least* two contributors to WP.
  • 2) You claimed that "people don't read" the 8 word caution, and instead do read a wordy 48 word cutesy comment, I suggest the exact opposite is probably true (both may be true), which is why I added the header in the first place, so that people could quickly scan and figure out what you were getting at (as a courteous attempt to compromise instead of just removing the inappropriate CutesyCmmt outright). Moreover, you have provided zero substantiation for your claim in the first place.
  • 3) In support of (2) above note the edit summary (when first removed) called it "random crap in html comments..." indicating the editor/reader i)did not even bother to read what was there; OR ii) did read it, and considered it inappropriate. Either way, on that basis alone, it undermines both appropriateness and effectiveness.
  • 4) too long (48 words) and had irrelevant stuff that people had to be motivated to even look at, let alone read, much easier to bypass and claim ignorance;
  • 5) the "cutesy" and unprofessional tone exactly mimics some of the vandalism that it supposedly was added to combat, some could call this hypocritical;
  • 6) the "cutesy" tone is inconsistent with encyclopedic content
  • 7) the CutesyCmmt did not even address "malicious" vandalism (e.g., "love stinks"). On this basis alone, the 48 word CutesyCmmt was inadequate and incomplete;
  • 8) 'have a happy life' how is that relevant to a wikipedia article? How does that convey professionalism? That sounds like personal correspondence or an advertising slogan and is more suited for a user talk page;
  • 9) You haven't provided a single citation, or authority to support the inclusion of cutesy, loving notes inside a WP article. How can anyone make a good faith effort to assess the validity of your claims when you provide zero support for them? It's completely indistinguishable from personal opinion. Which you are entitled to, but let's keep it to the talk pages.
Even if it is just a comment, it's what potential editors and vandals see and it sets the tone for the encyclopedia. The goal was to keep the comment in, despite the *many* shortcomings, but the refusal to compromise by allowing a simple 1-sentence header to make the content more scannable and professional has made it necessary to elaborate on all these deficiencies. dr.ef.tymac 04:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: Hi User:Kirils, I notice you re-added content that was previously removed, but did not address any of the deficiencies with it, nor provide discussion, cites, and follow-up. This may be a pit problemmatic. For example, as alluded to in points (1 and 1.5.1) above, a vandal added a very offensive slur (not sure if in direct response to your re-add) right after your edit. This shows some of the points I mentioned are relevant issues. Also, by addressing outstanding issues, you help prevent interpretation by others that your re-addition was done to be disruptive. Thanks! dr.ef.tymac 16:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Canning this for later: We know, it's amazing to love and be loved, but please express your love by helping Wikipedia to improve, not by telling all the world here in this article how much you love your significant other. The edit will be removed in seconds anyway. Have a happy life!

Follow-up: Hi again, made some more modifications. Don't know if you haven't yet had a chance to respond, or what. It would be helpful to see some support for some of the points you forwarded, since it could be put to good use once reviewed and verified. Interestingly, it seems at least one person created an account for the specific purpose of vandalizing the article. user edit ... (this relates back to points 1.5 and 1.5.1 above). Anyway, just an observation, c-ya! :) dr.ef.tymac 08:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 13256278887989457651018865901401704640

Please do not create redirects for articles for things NOBODY will ever type into the search box. The HD-DVD controversy is over, continuing to spam the number makes no sense. -N 19:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Furthermore, I am 100% sure that for the remainder of the year at least ten people per day will type this number into google, which in turn might effectively link to wikipedia. If only we had a paged named like that. Kirils 21:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC) *Please do not re-create deleted content, as you did at Talk:13256278887989457651018865901401704640. This is considered vandalism. Take it to Wikipedia:Deletion Review if you disagree. -N 22:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Hello there. Re-creating a deletion discussion that has been deleted just minutes after creation can not be considered wandalism, furthermore I did not restore the discussion. Kirils 22:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes I was wrong. -N 22:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edit to Image:Yuri Gagarin official portrait.jpg

Please note this image is NOT PD-old, as that requires 100 years from publication IN THE MINIMUM. Please read a template before you use it. -N 22:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:User wikipedia/Dunno-Administrator

A tag has been placed on Template:User wikipedia/Dunno-Administrator requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)