Welcome!
Hello, Constantinehuk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place ((helpme))
before the question. Again, welcome!
Ϫ 02:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Посмотрите статью - там в качестве источников указаны книги исследователей русских анекдотов и тому подобное. Если бы в статье просто перечислялись анекдоты, или даже темы анекдотов - она бы быстро превратилась в огромную беспорядочную свалку информации. Кроме того, статья посвящена русским анекдотам. Я не уверен, что англичан считают чопорными и сдержанными только в России. Тем более мне сомнительно, что причиной такого восприятия англичан у нас стал один единственный фильм. И, наконец, в статье перечислены только наиболее значимые и популярные темы анекдотов. По сравнению с темой чукчей, тема англичан практически не освоена в русском национальном юморе. --Kovani (talk) 06:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
of Folklore Research
Hello. I have reverted your latest edits since you moved other editor's comments around, changing the sequence of comments, which you shouldn't do. If you want to readd the new comment of yours that was also reverted, feel free to do so, but do not touch comments made by others. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 19:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
At your service.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Constantinehuk, this is a formal warning: Wikipedia operates on the consensus model of decision-making. Editing against consensus is tendentious and disruptive. If you continue pushing this Kyiv/Kiev point against consensus, you will be blocked. My personal suggestion is to devote your energy on this matter to persuading major English language newspapers, press agencies and news magazines to change their usage. Wikipedia follows such sources and does not lead them. Please take this warning seriously. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 18:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Here we go again: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Constantinehuk: trolling continues, plus vandalism--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Let me add: continuing to push the Kiev/Kyiv dispute does not help the encyclopedia; Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech; edits here are meant to help articles and the encyclopedia, not simply waste people's time with continuing disputes that go nowhere. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Constantinehuk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
So I was blocked. Let's address the issues mentioned.
-
"I looked at about every edit they've made, and they are either relating to continuing wasting time/trolling in the Kiev/Kyiv naming dispute (which they started from their very second edit)"
No pretension to the very first edit, that is good. Discussions are useful, are not they? If discussion for Kiev/Kyiv naming dispute is not useful, prohibit it explicitly.
-
"or other talk page edits like [1] which can hardly be called helpful."
I was providing a list of reliable sources to clear confusion. What's wrong with that? Nothing.
-
"In article space, they're either adding Ukraine to various lists,"
No example is given. But if so, what's wrong with that? Nothing.
-
"or making either clearly unhelpful edits that Ymblanter points out above,"
"In April, I presented the user at this very forum: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#User:Constantinehuk, because all of their contribution consisted of trolling. They got a fairly strong warning [2], but managed to escape a block. They are not extremely active in the project, however, they continued trolling here (note that they denied they have been warned)"
I just stand for open and fair discussion, that is all. Without personal attacks instead of answering (my) direct questions by Ymblanter - so controlling themself be always useful: 1, 2, 3.
-
", here. Note that this discussion of Kiev vs Kyiv is a sensitive topic which always attracts attention among some editors and leads to some useless discussions."
But my question was truly new - or not? And when people draw their opinions as facts even when given exact numerical numbers: 1, 2 , suppressing any other thought - is it good? No.
-
"In addition, they developed an interest to editing of articles: borderline vandalism,"
There were no explicit information what Calory (from a capital "C") means worldwide. I cleared that confusion.
-
"vandalism, restoring vandalism. This is pretty much all of their contribution since April. May be it is time to re-evaluate their usefulness for the project. Thank you for consideration.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)"
Yes, my mistake. Please be merciful.
-
"or mildly/borderline helpful edits in articles;"
Thank you for "mildly/borderline helpful edits".
-
"an inability to correctly fix a typo sort of sealed the deal regarding their ability to be constructive on the Encylopedia."
Yes, that typo was mine, I acknowledge that also.
-
"also, I'm quite perturbed regarding this edit)"
Why not 10 000 000 Jews? Or 1 000 Jews? It can be either way. I just asked for a source of the information, what's wrong with that? Nothing.
-
Maybe instead of listening to your buddy Ymblanter you would listen to your conscience - and reason too? People are not supposed to be blocked because of (two) typos (or being not very active lately in Wikipedia, for that matter).
So, please be convinced:
P. S. I ask for independent opinions too. There are plenty of honest people against few well-organized persons from the oppressive state of Russia.
P. P. S. And please give people time to discuss this issue. The attack on Kiev/Kyiv naming page and me was organized in a lightning-fast fashion - at least appeal can stand active a bit longer, maybe for several days.
P. P. P. S. Just phrases:
Constantinehuk (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline; this request is far too long to review. Please make a short, concise request focusing on your own behavior. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Constantinehuk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I was blamed for typos, inactivity, and discussions (as well as asking for sources). I acknowledge my guilt. Constantinehuk (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were not blocked for "typos, inactivity, and discussions (as well as asking for sources)". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the ((unblock)) template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.