User talk:Farwest1

Sockpuppet investigation

I have listed this account as a sockpuppet in a current sockpuppet investigation. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC) Why? I'm a real person and this is my only account. Farwest1 (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Hello, I'm Andrew nyr. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Tom Cotton, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 23:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Your recent editing history at All-Russian nation 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Mellk (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have very clearly linked to you the WP policy on consensus (WP:CONSENSUS) and this consensus on naming (Talk:Kyiv/Archive_9#RfC:_Kyiv/Kiev_in_other_articles) where it states For unambiguously historical topics (e.g. Kiev Offensive), do not change existing content and In all cases, name changes must follow the WP:BRD cycle. There is no excuse in ignoring this and edit warring. Don't get yourself blocked over this, use the talk page if you have questions. Mellk (talk) 12:41, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I think this is a point of legitimate dispute and I disagree with the Wikipedia consensus on this issue, but I respect your opinion and have stopped reverting your changes. I have, however, filed a dispute since I think this is still a legitimate source of conflict. The issue as I see it is that in a post regarding Russian Imperialism and the idea of a Greater Russia, one tool Russia has used is to insist on the "russification" of Ukraine through the use of Russian (rather than Ukrainian) spellings. So the post itself becomes a tool for Russian politics and the idea of a Greater Russia. The correct use would be to acknowledge the contemporary Ukrainian spelling of Kyiv, while using the Russian spelling only in the context of citation of historical texts and documents. FWIW, I am a frequent user of WP but only an infrequent editor—so I may not understand fully the dispute protocols.Farwest1 (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]