User talk:Stephen J Sharpe

Click here to leave a new message.

RSA stuff

I see you fact checking my source but I'd just like to tell you that if something is supported by one source but missing another tidbit not in it, I probably got it from the Kyiv Post daily log and just forgot to cite it. I'm sure the 'governor escaped' stuff is somewhere, virtually all of the text I've added has been facts taken verbatim from the sources I consult. --Львівське (говорити) 01:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'm new to Wikipedia so I'm sorry if I go about things the wrong way. I'll try to get your input before making any significant changes. I've found some useful information from [Free Europe Radio Liberty] that could be incorporated into the article. Regarding Ivano-Frankivsk Oblast, it reads, "On January 24, about 1,000 protesters held a vigil outside the building and demanded that the governor, Vasily Chudnova, resign, but he has thus far refused." which seems to imply that the governor was still in the regional administration building as of 24 January. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

before removing content outright, add a tag or something to the sentence - that way other editors (ie, me) can double check it. I added all the content myself but its possible that I read 2 sources that were similar and inserted the one that missed the point you're looking for. I'll try to double check the statements you're finding issues with to see where I got that info so that it's properly sourced. The entire reason I made the article was for my own edification in keeping track of all the news and sources, so, we're both in this for accuracy (and I for sure didn't make anything up) --Львівське (говорити) 01:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll be sure to make use of tags in the future. Thanks for the advice. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 01:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The [citation given] does state, "According to some, Chudnov fled through the back door of his office." which is what I thought the claim of escape was based on. I just didn't think it was strong enough support and I couldn't find any other sources on the matter. Perhaps the English translation was imperfect? Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Is the head of a Regional State Administration always a governor? Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

i believe so. also, ive added to the talk page, it appears things have changed but i havent seen it in the news over the past few days so its a bit crossed up where the stuff currently stands. --Львівське (говорити) 05:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)--Львівське (говорити) 05:47, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Crimean referendum, 2014

Stephen, please have a look at Talk:Crimean referendum, 2014#Reason for not dispatching OSCE monitors. — Petr Matas 17:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

With respect to the same article, I do not understand your reason for reverting my edit [1]. What I meant was that some votes were already visible before putting the ballot into the box, since some people did not fold their ballots so that their vote was readily visible to bystanders (as shown in several of the images of the Mashable source). This has little to do with the transparent boxes, but I think it's an important fact to add that secret voting was only optional, since it (unlike the boxes) contradicts democratic standards as I know them. (Also, the voting cabins were semi-transparent, apparently, further reducing secrecy.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

If voting cabins were semi-transparent that should be added, no question. If some people did not fold their ballots that is their own choice. If envelopes had been available and some voters just chose not to use them it wouldn't be notable either. It sounded like the edit was belabouring the point. On the other hand, I wouldn't be opposed to an edit that noted how the ballot boxes were visible to bystanders during voting if that can be sourced. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 19:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if my edit wasn't clear. Semi-transparent cabins are shown in the Mashable images at two of the three polling stations shown (the third seems to have nontransparent ones). FWIW, I don't agree that "if some people did not fold their ballots that is their own choice". It can put significant societal pressure on any dissenters to "prove" they voted the "right" way; e.g. in the GDR people were "expected" not to use the voting cabins, thereby removing the secrecy of the vote. At least in Germany, it IS forbidden to show your vote to anyone; I would have thought this was common in democratic countries. (But maybe we should discuss this at the article talk page...) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

In Czech Republic (my country), you will not be allowed to vote if you don't use a cabin, and a ballot, which is not in the official pre-stamped envelope, is invalid. (It would be nice to move this entire discussion to the article's talk page.) — Petr Matas 20:58, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I see what you guys are getting at. In Canada things are a bit more relaxed but thats probably because we have a less . . . interesting . . . political history. Even so, without a source that reports on concerns of 'societal pressure' as a result of the voting procedure/environment it is original research on our part to speculate about how Crimean voters might have felt. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I can understand that in an "unendangered" democracy this enforcement may seem unnecessary; so showing your marked ballot is allowed/tolerated in Canada?

I don't want to add the "pressure" part to the article without a source, only the fact that several people voted openly, for which we have a (photographic) source. People can draw their own conclusions from this fact, which may be as different as ours here... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

As requested by Petr Matas, I'll copy this discussion to the article talk page if you don't mind. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. (Feel free to revert if you prefer to keep it here.) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

nickname

The nickname field exists for the politicians infobox. Please explain where it's not supposed to be used and this isn't a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. --Львівське (говорити) 19:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

It's very uncommon (I've never seen a nickname field for a politician) so it should be well-sourced and notable. I think you'll find that most sources that mention it consider it an alleged nickname. Aksyonov himself disputes the nickname, arguing it was fabricated along with the criminal allegations by opposition politicians. Even if it was a nickname he had in the past, it is not a nickname now; being only used by his opponents. All things considered, it seems inappropriate to have it in the infobox. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RR and Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions

You violated WP:3RR rule on March 20, and once again on March 21. For example, all these your five non-sequential edits during just a few hours on March 21 were reverts: 1, 2 3 4 5. This can be reported not only on WP:3RR noticeboard, but also on WP:AE because these subjects are covered by Discretionary sanctions on Eastern Europe. Note that WP:BRD is not a policy and therefore can not be used as an excuse. Also note that last edit you reverted was not vandalism 6. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The former two reverts are unrelated to each other and are unrelated to the latter three. Regarding 3, I judged the edit to be irrelevant and requested discussion on the talk page in the edit summary and on the author's talk page. 85.140.218.205 reinserted the edit but later agreed to discuss so, after informing him, I subsequently reverted his edit 4. Later I added a supporting source with 5 which was an edit and not a revert. This was all discussed on the article talk page where I later proposed a solution which correctly attributed the claims to the appropriate body. This solution was accepted and added to the article with this edit and is how the article currently stands. Given that the article was featured on the home page, I figured it prudent to revert the problematic edits and add related information with appropriate attribution and sourcing as per consensus on the talk page. Thank you for your concern. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 21:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding 6, I considered the phrase "pseudo-referendum", its unsourced description as "illegal", and the insertion of scare quotes around "referendum" as vandalism. Further, an identical previous edit had been reverted by another editor with the description "childish POV'. I thought "childish POV" was a bit generous for the second time. How would you characterize his edit? Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RR is very clear about this. It does not matter if your reverts (undoing work by other editors) are related to each other ("whether involving the same or different material"). It does not matter if you consider your revert supported by others or consistent with discussion on article talk page. Yes, I agree that your last edit was good. However, insertion of unsourced information is not vandalism, unless this is something like an obvious obscenity, and therefore is not exempt from 3RR. Happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

For some reason I thought WP:3RR prohibited making the same revert three times. Thanks for pointing that out me. I now realize that I also broke WP:3RR over at Svoboda recently so I'll refrain from making any reverts there for a while. And perhaps I was overzealous in describing the last revert as vandalism. But surely at some point an obvious POV edit becomes vandalism, right? If the same edit is made a fourth or fifth time, can I consider it vandalism? I'll keep what you said in mind. Stephen J Sharpe (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Please see here. No, simply "POV" is never vandalism, even though edits made by this IP are so obviously improper. However, making a comment like "vandalism" in edit summary can be interpreted as WP:NPA on your part. It's better never make such comments. They do not help if this is obvious vandalism like placing obscenities. If you see obvious vandalism just "undo" their edits and make a warning. If this continues, report them on WP:AVI. My very best wishes (talk) 04:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Another move request regarding Ukraine and Crimea

Hello, you participated in a previous move request regarding Crimea and Ukraine, so I thought you might be interested in this new request that is intended to address objections to the previous one. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions apply to pages relating to Eastern Europe

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)