User talk:Sanya3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome![edit]

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 talk 23:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

History of Ukraine[edit]

Hi

Is there any chance you can quote a reference for that "fact" you added? If not it might get deleted. I know that Ukranians were the largest group of people to have domesticated woolly-mammoths ! There was a find where they found huts made from mammoth tusks and bones as well as various other implements for herding them [1], [2] and [3] Chaosdruid (talk) 07:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the info is available on the Domestication of the horse page on Wikipedia. I will try to provide a link.-- Sanya3 (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

History of Kiev's name in English[edit]

Thank you for the information you added to the article on Kiev regarding an internal debate in some of publications (notably in The Economist) on whether and when to switch from Kiev to Kyiv. How do you know this? Please could you add a citation to the article on the source(s) for this information.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This was stated by the CEO of The Economist Group, Andrew Rashbass, on The Economist Facebook page. Here's a direct quote from him: "Indeed, there is a noisy minority of journalists at The Economist who think we should use Kyiv." http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=6013004059&topic=6698 --Sanya3 (talk) 06:28, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks--Toddy1 (talk) 06:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Some guy removed it claiming that "Facebook is not a reliable source." #1. It was stated by the CEO of the entire The Economist Group. #2. It was stated on the official The Economist page. So, I have added it back on.--Sanya3 (talk) 07:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Some guy" is me and Facebook is not a reliable source. If that CEO stated such in a newspaper or some other source, then you can add that information, but a chat on Facebook is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. There is no way to know that the person claiming to be the CEO on Facebook is actually a CEO or is a child molester in St. Louis pretending to be a CEO. If you have a real source, fine, but until then just asserting that there is a debate within the Economist based on a Facebook chat is not going to pass muster.

--Taivo (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

  1. 1. This is an official The Economist page. #2. It is not a chat. It is a discussion taking place on an official the Economist page. #3. Since it is the official The Economist page, it would be highly unlikely for anyone to claim to be the CEO of the said group if they are not. #4. Pretty much all major organizations have established official pages on Facebook, which they use to communicate with the public. #5. It's highly unlikely someone is ever going to publish an official article on internal debates in a news organization in regards to a spelling of a city name, so this source is as good as it is going to get.--Sanya3 (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You also need to review the process of WP:BRD. If you post something and it is reverted, you do not just post it again, but you take it to the Talk Page and get a consensus first. --Taivo (talk) 07:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I read in the Wikipedia guide that before deleting information, unless it's completely spurious, you need to first do a discussion, instead of randomly going around and deleting people's edits. So far all I can tell is that you have an anti-Ukrainian agenda and are forcing it on Ukrainian pages, such as deleting any Ukrainian-language transliteration into English.--Sanya3 (talk) 08:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sanya3. Please assume good faith. The statement you made about Taivo above is the complete opposite of the truth. You should be ashamed of yourself for making such a statement. Wanting to have the normal English spelling of place names on English language Wikipedia is not unreasonable. You should also remember that everyone in Eastern and Central Ukraine speaks and writes in Russian, so it is very unhelpful to English-speakers if foreigners delete the Russian-language spellings (indeed it is anti-Ukrainian to do so).
Sanya3, Taivo. Please could both of you read Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources.
The The Economist website has a link to its Facebook page. So there is no doubt that the page is genuine. If the posting had been made by a fantasist, we can safely assume that the Economist staff would have removed it. Therefore "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity".
The citation is only used to back up the claim that the Economist has considered the other spelling and rejected it. Therefore "it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)".
In my opinion, in this case, the citation from the Economist's Facebook page is an acceptable self-published source for the purpose for which it has been used.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Toddy, thanks for your support on the second issue. On the first issue, you have misunderstood my statement. I am not deleting any Russian-language spellings. It is Taivo who keeps deleting the Ukrainian-language transliteration from the Kiev/Kyiv Pechersk Lavra page, and more generally on other Ukraine-related pages on Wikipedia Ukraine portal.

You are also incorrect about "everyone in central and eastern Ukraine" speaking and writing in Russian. I was born and raised in Kyiv, central-north Ukraine, and I am fluent in both Ukrainian and Russian. My father is from Cherkasy, central Ukraine, and he speaks Ukrainian as his primary language. My mother was born and raised in Donetsk, East Ukraine. She primarily speaks Russian, but is also fully fluent in Ukrainian. Try not to make one-sided absolute claims. I am not a nationalist, but neither do I appreciate Taivo's anti-Ukrainian activism on what should be a neutral, reliable source. Deleting perfectly good Ukrainian-language transliterations is vandalism, as far as I can tell by Wikipedia rules. I would appreciate your understanding.--Sanya3 (talk) 09:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I merely said that they speak and write in Russian. I am perfectly well aware that in Dnepropetrovsk many people also speak and write Belarussian, Ukrainian, and Hebrew.
My opinion is that you are a reasonable person. But please try to tone down your language when talking about other editors. You are causing offence. You do not need to; indeed you are more likely to succeed if you do not. If you continue to cause offence, you will get blocked. I don't want that - but rules are rules.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Toddy, I will try to be more careful with the language. But you also need to see my point. There is absolutely no reason why a Russian and a Ukrainian transliteration cannot coexist on a Ukraine portal wikipedia page, just like Russian and Ukrainian languages coexist in real life in Ukraine.

When you say "everyone speaks and writes Russian", you can just as easily say "everyone speaks and writes Ukrainian" - because anyone who lives in Ukraine has gone through the Ukrainian education system, where learning Ukrainian is a requirement for graduation, regardless of where they live. So, anywhere you go in Ukraine, people are going to be able to understand/speak/write Ukrainian, even if their primary language is Russian, Polish, Hungarian, or Romanian. (Heck, the prime minister of Ukraine - Mykola Azarov - was born and raised in Russia and never studied Ukrainian, and even he manages to speak it in his official capacity, albeit with a terrible accent.) By the way, I also have an aunt who lives in Dnipropetrovsk. She speaks primarily Russian and her husband speaks primarily Ukrainian. Oh, and practially no one speaks Belarusian in Ukraine, although most would understand it, because it's so close to Ukrainian. Even in Belarus, only 10% of Belarusians speak Belarusian as their primary language, according to recent surveys. I recently visited Belarus, both East and West, as well as the capital, and I can attest that this is true. Most Jews in Ukraine speak Russian as a primary language, although in recent years many have been switching to Ukrainian.--Sanya3 (talk) 10:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Your generalization about the prevalence of Ukrainian usage in eastern Ukraine is quite naive. Only people in their 20s and younger learned Ukrainian in school, but even though they may speak Ukrainian in school doesn't mean they use it in their daily lives, even when speaking to their classmates during lunch. Anyone over 30 went to school in the Soviet Union, not in Ukraine and they did not learn Ukrainian in that school system. Indeed, Ukrainian did not become required in all Ukrainian schools until the middle of the first decade of the 21st century. Wander the streets of Dnipropetrovsk or Donetsk or Odessa, or especially the Crimea, for a while and you will see very, very few signs written in Ukrainian. The only businesses that have Ukrainian signs are franchises of companies that have a national presence. Most local businesses have signage in Russian. In western Ukraine you see Хліб everywhere. In eastern Ukraine it is Хлеб. Claiming simplistically that "Ukrainians speak Ukrainian now" is neither encyclopedic nor accurate. Language use in eastern Ukraine still favors Russian. There is a cline from Kyiv to Lugansk, with Kyiv being on the edge of predominate Ukrainian usage to Lugansk, where, except for official usage, Russian is the first language. And, yes, virtually all people in Ukraine who speak Russian as a first language can understand Ukrainian, it is not because they have made a choice, it is because Russian and Ukrainian are very closely related and are mutually intelligible. With only a little exposure, Russian speakers can understand Ukrainian without taking classes. But they still speak, read, and write Russian.--Taivo (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Taivo, why do you feel the need to put people down, calling me naive, or misrepresent my arguments by attacking straw men? You are simply incorrect in your claims. I was born and raised in Kyiv, Ukrainian SSR. I am 30 and went to school in the Soviet Union and I studied Ukrainian beginning in second grade, in a Russian language school. (Ukrainian-language schools only started appearing in Kyiv during Perestroika in the 80s.) Ukrainian and Russian languages were given equal teaching time, except that Russian language got a one year head start. Russian was my first language (spoken by my mother in the home), but I knew Ukrainian well-enough by 7th grade to be able to translate German poetry into Ukrainian rhyme for my German class, and my German teacher was perfectly fine with that, by the way. Ukrainian was required in all Ukrainian schools during the Soviet period, just like other minority languages were required in their respective ethnic republics. Even in the Russian "autonomous republics", those minority languages were required second languages in school. I have a Russian friend who grew up in Maikop, the capital of the Republic of Adygea in Russia, and he had to study the Adyghe language as his second language in school. My mother grew up in Donetsk area, Eastern Ukraine, and she knows Ukrainian quite fluently, even though Russian was spoken in their home. My Russian-born grandfather told me that he fell in love with the Ukrainian language after he went to a parent-teacher meeting at his Donetsk-area school and heard a teacher talk to the parents in "beautiful, perfect Ukrainian." (By the way, I've seen other reports, even on Russia Today, about people who made the switch to Ukrainian because "it's beautiful.") The Ukrainization/Russification of society is a separate subject from schooling. After Ukrainian independence, the center of Ukraine underwent significant natural re-Ukrainization (up to 15-20% was added to "primarily speaking Ukrainian" category in central regions in the first 10 years of independence), as did the Odesa, Dnipropetrovsk and Kharkiv regions, although the latter to a lesser extent. However, Donetsk was already 50% Russified at the time of independence and in the post-independence period it became increasingly Russified, with something like 80% speaking primarily Russian now. Part of this is the closeness to Russia and the presence of a large ethnic Russian minority (about 30%). The other part is industrialization and urbanization of the region. Since during Czarist and Soviet times the villages were the repositories of Ukrainian language, villages were the source of the resurgence of Ukrainian language in the post-Soviet period in Central Ukraine and Kyiv, as urbanization brought Ukrainian speakers into the Russified cities and they did not switch to Russian, as they would have done in Soviet times. Today in Kyiv Ukrainian is heard much more often than in the 90s, and this has especially been noticable in the last couple years. However, by 1990, most of the villages in heavily-industrialized and urbanized Donbass were gone, with most village population having already moved into the Russified cities and having become Russified themselves and either becoming Russian speakers of speaking surzhyk, an ungainly mixture of Russian and Ukrainian. Crimea was over 70% ethnic Russian during Soviet times, but the proportion of Russians has decreased to about 50% today. In addition, Crimea has seen recent Ukrainization as Western Ukrainians have been moving there, and Crimean Tatars have also been learning Ukrainian and have begun to identify increasingly as "Crimean Ukrainians" and voting for pro-Ukrainian parties, since their history with Russia was horrible and their greatest persecutor today is still the "Russian community" of Crimea. (Refusing to return any stolen Crimean Tatar property to returnees and when the Tatars start squatter towns in response, forcing them off that land, making for a very difficult adjustment for Crimean Tatar returnees from Uzbekistan and Siberia.) I never said that "Ukrainians speak Ukrainian now". I merely mentioned the fact that anyone who grew up in Ukrainian SSR or Ukraine, has studied Ukrainian in school in will have no trouble understanding it. And most will switch to Ukrainian when necessary, unless they are so Russified that they have developed a personal antipathy to the Ukrainian language. (Most of those are arrogant ethnic Russians, who still think they are the majority and act likewise.) Ukraine's former Defense Minister Hrytsenko, who runs his own party "Civil Position", recently spoke in the Donetsk region and said that a lot of people showed up to hear his anti-Yanukovych speech, delivered completely in Ukrainian. And most were in agreement when he said that life has not become better under Yanukovych, with the most pro-Yanukovych comment being "it was just as bad under the opposition." http://www.grytsenko.com.ua/blog/view-donbas-prokydajet-sja.html He specifically mentions in that post that he communicated only in Ukrainian with the people, and everyone understood it and no one had a problem with it. Russian and Ukrainian are not nearly as close as many Ukrainians think (because they have known both their entire lives). Russians who have never studied Ukrainian cannot understand it. A typical comment is something like, "A lot of the words sound familiar, but I can't understand what the speaker is saying." Russians who move to Ukraine to study in universities have to actually go through a course of Ukrainian to be able to conduct their studies in Ukrainian. Belarusian is a different story. It is sufficiently close to Ukrainian to be mutually intelligible. For example, a bus stop will be "zupynka" in Ukrainian and "prypynka" in Belarusian and a completely different "ostanovka" in Russian. Another example, danger is "nebezbeka" in Ukrainian and "nebyazpeka" in Belarusian and completely different "opasnost'" in Russian. The word for language in Ukrainian and Belarusian is the same "mova" and a completely different "yazyk" in Russian. And there is a sea of examples like that. The reason is that Ukrainian and Belarusian languages were split much more recently than either did from the Russian, which developed as a separate dialect in Vladimir-Suzdal (much more influenced by Church-Slavonic/Bulgarian than the Ruthenian tongue) and then was further influenced by the Mongol Tatar vocabulary (e.g. Russian word for horse is a Tatar "loshad", the word for money is a Tatar "dengi" and so forth). Oh, and by the way, judging the level of Russification by business language or store signs is not a good idea, since business is the most Russified sphere of life in Ukraine, with business often being conducted in Russian even in Ukrainian-speaking regions. I think the biggest reason for this is the level of economic integration and business ties with Russia, especially in the East. Business is conducted in Ukrainian mostly in Western Ukraine. My guess is that the business sphere is probably going to be the last area in Ukraine to switch to Ukrainian (with the first being politics and education). So, you will get a skewed perspective on the level of Ukrainization if you try to judge it by business language.--Sanya3 (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit confused here... People who lived in the USSR (even one from Crimea) told me that in the Ukrainian SSR "Ukrainian was teached in all Ukrainian schools in the Soviet Union", Or where those rules simply ignored by some schools (?), just like an Brussels where all children are supposed to get lessons in the Dutch language but schools teach there children English instead or Dutch lessons are of inferior quality. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

They were widely ignored until just within the last five years or so in eastern Ukraine. If the teachers in a school were Russian-speaking, then all courses were taught in Russian. "Ukrainian" classes were prioritized very low and if a school didn't have a Ukrainian teacher, it was just ignored entirely. Ukrainian courses in schools in eastern Ukraine that did have a Ukrainian teacher focused primarily on literature and reading and very little on speaking or daily use. Russian remained the primary language of teaching in eastern Ukraine until just a very few years ago.--Taivo (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sanya3 - please can you make appropriate comments on Talk:Kiev#Significance.--Toddy1 (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Kyiv Pechersk Lavra[edit]

I have provided references for Kyiv Pechersk Lavra being the correct English transliteration from Ukrainian. Please stop deleting it without discussion. Sanya3 (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

This is English language Wikipedia, not transliteration from Ukrainian Wikipedia. Transliterating a Ukrainian word into Latin script does not make a better English word than the native English word. As far as I know, the Government in Kiev does not rule any English-speaking territories, so their opinion on how to spell in English, is only a rule for their employees.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection to the article starting: Kiev Pechersk Lavra or Kyiv Pechersk Lavra.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Toddy. --Sanya3 (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

By the way, the reason I think he is biased is that he has stated on his talk page that he automatically deletes Kyiv anytime he sees it on Wikipedia and replaces it with Kiev. That's clearly biased and inappropriate behavior on a sensitive and disputed subject. He has also stated on his talk page that he does not speak Ukrainian, and yet he presumes to be an expert in Ukrainian linguistics and makes claims about what should or should not be a proper transliteration from Ukrainian. This, in spite of the fact, that very clear rules on transliteration from Ukrainian already exist. --Sanya3 (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sanya3, you don't know me, you don't know what my qualifications are, you don't know what I do and do not know about the Ukrainian language or about Ukraine, you don't know whether or not I have visited or lived there, you don't know my history on Wikipedia or my contributions. I suggest that you take your assumptions and keep them to yourself. --Taivo (talk) 14:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Taivo, you said on your talk page "I don't speak Ukrainian." And then you presume to make claims about proper transliteration from Ukrainian. How's that for being neutral? --Sanya3 (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

From personal dealings with Taivo I can honestly say he is not a "anti-Ukrainian activist"; it's not his fault that English media and scholars prefers Kiev over Kyiv... he is just enforcing wiki-rules... Besides Ukrainian nationalists have not much reason to complain about the English language; in the Dutch language must Ukrainian cities kept there "Russian name" while in English only Kyiv and Odesa stayed ‘’Russian named’’… furthermore most Dutch newspapers write Julia Timosjenko instead of Yulia Tymoshenko, there really hopeless in Holland you know... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 19:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Mariah-Yulia, Wikipedia guidelines state that if there are competing transliterations from different languages, then the compromise solution is to list both of them. Taivo keeps deleting the Ukrainian transliteration. How's that for compromise? That's not enforcing rules. That's inflammatory behavior. Someone even uploaded a picture and listed Kyiv in the title and Taivo went in and changed that to Kiev. How in the world is this neutral behavior?
Also, it doesn't matter that Ukrainian cities are spelled in Russian transliteration in Dutch, German or any other langage. What matters is how it is spelled in English, since this is the de facto language of international communication. I don't think the Chinese care that the Russians still spell Bejing as Pekin. But they very much cared about making this change in the English transliteration. --Sanya3 (talk) 06:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, switching to Kyiv is not made more difficult by the existence of international "Kiev" terms, such as "Chicken Kiev". For example, even though Peking has changed to Bejing, Peking Duck is still known as such. So, I see no reason to change "Chicken Kiev" to "Chicken Kyiv", as some people would push for. --Sanya3 (talk) 07:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
By the way, Mariah, this is how the Dutch spell Kyiv - Kiëv. http://en.bab.la/dictionary/english-dutch/kiev Although I am not exactly sure how they pronounce it. -- Sanya3 (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Please refrain from having a go at Taivo just because he is enforcing the rules. He has spent a long time defending Ukrainian pages and furthering Ukraine and its culture on this wiki. Do me a favour please and type here the first three words of the Kiev article? Chaosdruid (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
Chaosdruid, I just had a problem with him deleting my edits without discussion. That's all. But your point is well taken. What do you mean about the first three words? --Sanya3 (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
The first three words on the Kiev article are "Kiev or Kyiv". Here we are saying that they are both equally correct. To be honest this is not entirely within wiki's MoS as in actuality it should probably read "Kiev (also known as Kyiv)". We (Ukraine project people) would always defend this use vehemently as a "50/50" argument but in reality we would probably be told to follow MoS - obviously this is one of those very rare cases for WP:IAR and that argument would also be made.
Clearly Taivo is not deleting all the references for Kyiv was my other point :¬) as he, and we in general, have vehemently defended the first three words on many occasions.
I am hoping that you can see now that we are infact very pro-Kyiv, but also very pro-MoS and Wikipolicy Chaosdruid (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
One of the Wikipedia guides, though, states that if there are competing ethnic transliterations available, the compromise solution is to list them all, to avoid edit warring. --Sanya3 (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
^^ --Taivo (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Bot war?[edit]

I am curious about what is going on here: Sanya3 / WikianvirBot and then WikianvirBot / Luckas-bot?

I am not exactly sure what that's all about. --Sanya3 (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Leontovych[edit]

Hey, I've significantly expanded the article on Mykola Leontovych over the past few months. Thought (maybe more of "hoped") you might be interested in expanding, correcting it, or editing in general to help bring it to good, or even featured status. :-)
--BoguslavM 03:15, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi[edit]

If you feel like it please join the Anastasiya Sienina AfD discussion.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


Speedy deletion nomination of Brooklyn Tabernacle[edit]

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

A tag has been placed on Brooklyn Tabernacle requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the notability of the subject, Speedy delete contest button.png. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 23:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jim Cymbala[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jim Cymbala requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. JohnHWiki talk - 00:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

Hi, I deleted your recent Jim Cymbala article because it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts or show that it meets the notability guidelines. It is now wikipedia policy that biographical articles about living people must have references. Although you gave a reference, it was just uncritically quoting his talk, therefore not independent. The text is problematic, claimed that the tabernacle has 10,000 members, no independent sources for that. "Ambitious mission" is spammy. Being married to Carol doesn't make him notable, we are told that he is a best-selling author, but just given a list of books with no source for them being major sellers.

Same with the church, no independent evidence that it has 10,000 members, spammy unsourced claim that it "a major institution in the borough." The fact that Carol is notable doesn't make the church "famous", as above, more spam.

Same with the choir, claims without sources. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I think that the idea is that if you write an article, you do the research and find the refs, not me. There are thousands of biographical articles on Wikipedia, some being FAs, so it's not that impossible Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I did look at the NYT article, it's not exactly cutting-edge journalism, and is obviously a lazy review parroting the facts it has been given in an over-the-top way, more like an advertisement than a proper newspaper article. Nevertheless, I've restored for now. Do not remove the deletion tag, a bot will flag up if you do. Instead, press the button on the tag to set up a contested deletion page. Also, I'd suggest you add better sources than that "review" and remove the word "famous" (pov) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Military rape[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Military rape has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a dictionary - WP:NOTDICTIONARY

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Inks.LWC (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Form perception[edit]

Hey there. Just wondering, are you going to add content to the article, as it currently only contains categories, and is deleteable under WP:CSD#A3? Thanks. Cheers, mc10 (t/c) 04:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks, working on it now. --Sanya3 (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

uk:Буревій[edit]

Hi,

You did an interwiki link to blowing snow to this ukrainian article. When I looked at the article, I was surprised to see that the image was about a thunderstorm, so by using Google translation, I found that the ukrainian article seems to be about the force of wind in storms, hurricane, etc... and has nothing to do with blowing snow. So I did reverse the interwiki in all the languages.

I hope that you just did a wrong assumption on the meaning of the ukranian and not vandalism.

Pierre cb (talk) 04:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

August 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Intelligent design‎. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 08:21, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Haeckel-embryos-weeks4-6.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Haeckel-embryos-weeks4-6.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Avicennasis @ 20:09, 17 Av 5771 / 20:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Haeckel Anthropogenie 1874.jpg[edit]

A tag has been placed on File:Haeckel Anthropogenie 1874.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Avicennasis @ 20:09, 17 Av 5771 / 20:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Jewish film producers[edit]

Category:Jewish film producers, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Spelling[edit]

Dear Sanya3,
I reverted this edit of yours which changed the word 'practise' into 'practice'. As you may or may not know, practise is the correct spelling of the verb in British English, see American and British English spelling differences#-ce.2C_-se. WP:ENGVAR prohibits changing the spelling in articles from British to American and vice versa. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That's not a problem. I just thought that a lot more people who read the English Wikipedia are used to American English, so it would be more convenient for the readers if it's switched to American style. --Sanya3 (talk) 23:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Linking[edit]

Please become more accustomed with the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking. We are not supposed to link redirects, like you did at Sexual intercourse. They take us right back to the article, which is why linking them is not beneficial. We also are not supposed to include links in a "See also" section when they are already found in the article. You can read about this at WP:SEEALSO.
You seem a bit new. I am too, and have recently learned this stuff. JacobTrue (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Looking above, I realize that you have been around for two years. I apologize for saying you seem new. It's more that you are still unfamiliar with some of the guidelines. JacobTrue (talk) 17:45, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I make those changes temporarily to see if there is a need to create redirects to the main article title. And linking redirects doesn't do anything negative to the article either. It just makes the linked phrase bold, if there is already an existing redirect. As far as guidelines, most of what I have learned is by observing what others do and copying it, not by reading guidelines. Although I have found that sometimes it's a good idea to go through them in case of a dispute. In either case, thanks for your comments. --Sanya3 (talk) 23:54, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Linking redirects doesn't affect articles in a hugely negative way. But it does affect them negatively enough. It makes people click on links to articles that don't exist; it's extremely frustrating/annoying to click on a link only to be taken back to the same page. If it's a circular link that takes the reader to a different part of the article, that's different and is allowed if helpful.
I understand learning by copying what others do. That's generally how we all learn. But copying what others do is not always a good thing, obviously, and it doesn't help you understand Wikipedia in the complete way that you should. The guidelines and policies are there for us to follow. We are supposed to follow them. Some editors are doing their own things, in conflict with guidelines and policies, when they edit, which is why it is not good to only copy others. You have to balance out your pattern of learning by copying others with being familiar with and/or knowing the guidelines/policies (the way things are supposed to work), or editing here is going to be tougher for you than it has to be.
Just trying to help. Thank you for taking the time to discuss. JacobTrue (talk) 03:38, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Like I said before, those were meant as temporary changes to see if there is a need for redirects.--Sanya3 (talk) 04:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
Okay, then you should have removed them after checking. And if you didn't check right then, you should have. I'm going stop replying to this now, since I'm sure I'm annoying you. JacobTrue (talk) 08:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes your browser crashes and you can't find where you were, because you had so many windows open. It happens.--Sanya3 (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
hello can we talk on pakistan,s history
Qasimali11 (talk) 08:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Ukrainian opera composers[edit]

Category:Ukrainian opera composers, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kim Ostrenko[edit]

A tag has been placed on Kim Ostrenko requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Toddst1 (talk) 04:03, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Marshrutka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Project management plan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Financial Management (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Leon Trotsky[edit]

Hi, I don't assume you are wrong, but what 'article on Chered' are you speaking of - could you be more specific? You could add some text to the page, and append a reliable reference between <ref> and </ref>. Then add the category. Thanks, Hamamelis (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure. Done as requested.--Sanya3 (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
And quite an interesting addition too - thank you! Hamamelis (talk) 10:04, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome. :)--Sanya3 (talk) 10:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you really think that Bezbozhnik - A Soviet satirical propaganda magazine - can be cited as a reliable source for this? In any case, the quotation you provide doesn't state that anyone was excommunicated - it states that Zinoviev claims to have read it. I have removed this from the article, and suggest that you either find a more reliable source, or discuss this on the article talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Binghamton, New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Adding not existing categories with HotCat[edit]

Hi Sanya3, thanks for maintaining categories, that is a good thing. But I see that you sometimes add not existing categories, as you did for Construction engineering (and on February 1st on Reliability engineering), resulting in red links underneath the article. Please try to create the added category too, if you think this category is worthwhile to exist. I have reverted for now this revision on Construction engineering. Thanks, SchreyP (messages) 08:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. I usually add those when I intend to create them. It's just that I don't always get around to it. I think it's better to leave them in, in case someone else notices them and has a chance to create them.--Sanya3 (talk) 01:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
...or remove them. Creating a category is not that much work. Adding a single parent category is already enough to finish the job and helping other readers/editors to benifit from the addition you did. But the added value is only there when the actual category is also created. Now it looks like sloppy work. Thanks, SchreyP (messages) 06:51, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes your browser crashes and you never get back to that page.--Sanya3 (talk) 17:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Ded Moroz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moroz (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Non-English redirect categories[edit]

When you create redirects from non-English languages, instead of adding the redirect category directly, as you recently did for Епоха вікінгів, could you use {{R from alternative language}} (example)? Thanks! Gorobay (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I usually try to add the category on the bottom "Redirects from ... language". Is that not enough?--Sanya3 (talk) 14:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
The template automatically add the category. Using templates is preferable to using categories directly. Gorobay (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind me asking why. What difference does it make?--Sanya3 (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The simplest answer is that the style guide says to. Why? Two reasons:
  • The template includes text explaining the purpose of the redirect.
  • Templates are more forwards-compatible. There has been some disagreement in the past over how to name these categories; if consensus ever changes, they can be changed with a single edit to the template instead of thousands to the redirects. Gorobay (talk) 12:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
OK. I will try to do that. Thanks.--Sanya3 (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Binghamton University School of Management (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Public School
Rockwell Collins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to NLX

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Pooled Income Fund, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Quarter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Pooled income fund[edit]

Hi. I'm afraid the Pooled income fund article you wrote may be a problem under our copyright policies, since the text seems to both copy and very closely paraphrase from [4]. While facts are not copyrightable, creative elements of presentation – including both structure and language – are. As a website that is widely read and reused, Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously to protect the interests of the holders of copyright as well as those of the Wikimedia Foundation and our reusers. Wikipedia's copyright policies require that the content we take from non-free sources, aside from brief and clearly marked quotations, be rewritten from scratch.

The article has been replaced with a notice of these copyright concerns that includes directions for resolving them. If the material can be verified to be compatibly licensed or public domain or if permission is provided, we can use the original text with proper attribution. If you can resolve it that way, please let me know if you need assistance with those directions. Otherwise, so that we can be sure it does not constitute a derivative work, this article should be rewritten; there is a link to a temporary space for that purpose in the instructions which now appear in place of the article. The essay Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing contains some suggestions for rewriting that may help avoid these issues. The article Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-04-13/Dispatches, while about plagiarism rather than copyright concerns, also contains some suggestions for reusing material from sources that may be helpful, beginning under "Avoiding plagiarism".

Please let me know at my talk page if you have questions about this. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I have completely reworked the page and provided additional sources.--Sanya3 (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Anthroposophy/Steiner[edit]

These aren't within Eastern philosophy -- Steiner was Austrian -- or connected to spiritualism -- which is different than spirituality. The other categories you added seem closer to the theme. hgilbert (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

He promoted a belief in reincarnation, which is part of Eastern thought.--Sanya3 (talk) 16:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Is it? There are other Western philosophers who have also believed in reincarnation. Something frequently found in Eastern philosophy is not for that reason always part of Eastern philosophy. hgilbert (talk) 20:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Of course it is. Just because some Westerners believe in reincarnation doesn't mean that the belief itself changes its origin. According to Wikipedia's own article on reincarnation, this belief originated in the East, therefore it is appropriate to place it within traditional Eastern thought.--Sanya3 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Since Benjamin Franklin and Leibniz also believed in reincarnation, should we also include them in category Eastern philosophy? No more should anthroposophy or Steiner be included in this area, merely because they share a single element.
Set theoretically: granting your assumption that RC (reincarnation) is a subset of EP (Eastern philosophy), the fact that a complex entity A (anthroposophy) includes RC as a element does not mean that A is a subset of EP. hgilbert (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Sure, I agree with you. The entire philosophy cannot be classified as Eastern. Do you know if there is another way to categorize for such an element, or does the category have to include the entire page? I have seen a lot of categories that only partially cover the subject of the page, meaning they weren't exactly a subset of it, but partially fit into it.--Sanya3 (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
The appropriate thing in such a case is to include a See also link. This implies there is a distinct topic with some overlap. I'd agree that a link to Eastern philosophy in that section would be entirely appropriate. hgilbert (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Contact via Wikipedia:Embassy[edit]

Good afternoon, I got your name from the list of Ukrainian speaking ambassadors here, and I'm hoping you can help me. I was searching our new user logs this afternoon, and found a user whose name may not comply with our username policy, as it represents more than one person - I want to leave a warning to this effect, but I am not sure if the recipient intended, speaks English. I was wondering if you would be so kind as to leave a message for this user in Ukrainian, and advise them that they may wish to change their username, please. Thank you for your help.  BarkingFish  15:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure. I took care of that. I posted a notice in English and Ukrainian.--Sanya3 (talk) 01:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Philosophy of law[edit]

Thanks a lot for restoring the separate article "Philosophy of Law"/ Shake your hand.--Pierpietro (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. :)--Sanya3 (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia naming policy[edit]

Wikipedia policy is not to use "local official names". Wikipedia naming policy is to use most common English names for places. This goes for Ukraine as well as everywhere else in the world. Until you can prove with objective sources that "Chornobyl" is the most common English language usage for Chernobyl, then you cannot move the article per Wikipedia policy. Go to Talk:Chernobyl and make your case with a Request for Move nomination. --Taivo (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Nadezhda (given name) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Nadia
Xenia (name) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Aksana

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Request to rename page[edit]

Could you please change the name of the page "Accountancy" to "Accounting"? The latter is a significantly more widespread term according to the Search engine test. Thank you.--Sanya3 (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This should be discussed on the talk page of the article in question. --Stephen 03:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Krzysztof Kosiński, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ruthenian nobility (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Molotschna. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Walter, no need to try to scare me when you yourself behave unnecessarily aggressively. Why are you reverting the entirety of my edits if your only question is with the term? I did respond to the page's talk section to try to resolve this.--Sanya3 (talk) 05:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
This isn't a scare-tactic. It's a requirement to warn you before you can be blocked.
I didn't behave unnecessarily aggressively. If fixed an article according WP:BRD. I began the discussion and have ceased editing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
You made unfair reverts, reverting all my changes wholesale, even though your only question is about the term. That's aggressive behavior.--Sanya3 (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 20[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Patent aggregation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Acacia Technologies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ricoh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Monroe and Lanier
Gestetner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Lanier

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Of all Rus', you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Russian and Ruthenian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Discrete manufacturing[edit]

I would like to dispute your rollback. Discrete manufacturing characterized by producing separate units, e.g. cars, computers and even pens made by discrete manufacturers under a bill of materials and measured in units (5 cars, 100 computers, 1000 safety pins). It varies from a process manufacturing, which produces raw products, such as oil, salt, metals, produced under a recipes and measured in litres, tonnes, square meters. ru:Единичное производство is a non-mass or individual manufacturing, it is definitely discrete manufacturing, however, not all discrete manufacturing should be non-mass manufacturing. Just imagine ru:единичное производство of pens. So I believe the interwiki was incorrect, Bezik (talk) 16:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I see your point. I read through the different language versions before adding the interwikis and they seemed pretty close to me. But you certainly seem to be more knowledgeable in this area, so I will defer to you. Perhaps you could add additional explanations on the discrete manufacturing page or better yet, create a page or at least a stub for non-mass/ individual manufacturing that would better correspond to ru:единичное производство. I appreciate your input.--Sanya3 (talk) 06:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for understanding. I would not like to post a dumb stubs, because I do not have enough sources and knowledge to create a complete and proven article on this complex subject. May be I'll try to create ru:Дискретное производство and ru:Процессное производство (there are reliable sources on these subjects, including in Russian, and also I more familiar with classification discrete/process/project, this classification is closer to information systems, ERP etc. than single-unit/mass, used mostly in business and economics). Thus, I unlink interwikis until Russian articles still not written, Bezik (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
If you create those articles, I will gladly translate them into English. Just let me know when they are up. --Sanya3 (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Combined transport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Intermodal transport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:44, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Countries applying biometrics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Expiration date (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of surnames in Ukraine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yurchenko (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of islands in the Black Sea (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Swan Islands
List of people born in Ukraine (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Mongol language

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


Adding text[edit]

Hi Sanya3, please don't add text in way that makes it look like existing sources support it, as you did here. Thank you! Lova Falk talk 18:00, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the information is supported by sources. I have included a reference. I have also added other facts and provided references. Thanks.--Sanya3 (talk) 05:50, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
The important thing here is that you added information right in front of a source that does not support your statement. However, because you put it right in front, it looks like it is supported. But I am happy that you found a source for your statement! Thank you. Lova Falk talk 13:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
I thought it was better not to split the sentence up, but I see what you are saying.--Sanya3 (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Stub?[edit]

I'm sorry, I don't understand why you added {{candy-stub}} to Swedish fish. It's quite a substantial article, hardly a stub. (I've reverted.) Regards, Bishonen | talk 12:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC).

According to Wikipedia rules, an article under 10,000 bytes is a stub.--Sanya3 (talk) 03:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
What rules? A rule of thumb I use is the 250 words one, not that it's written down anywhere. But it fits the pattern, unlike the one you cite, which I have never ever heard. And I've been around :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
I can't find it right now, but I read an article recently on Wikipedia with guidelines as to article length and it said that roughly speaking a completed article is about 100,000 bytes and an article under 10,000 bytes is a stub. That's what I was putting up stub templates on the basis of.--Sanya3 (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
What I am finding now is that a 250 word rule of thumb is the absolute minimum. Other rules of thumb are at 500 words or at 1,500 words. Wikipedia:Stub#How_big_is_too_big--Sanya3 (talk) 03:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Category:Urban-type settlements in Kiev Oblast[edit]

I reverted your edits with the category from Kyiv >> Kiev because it was an undiscussed move. The article Kiev/Kiev Oblast have been stable at their respective titles for years and there is a consistency among wiki-related articles with those titles (Kiev versus Kyiv) (see talk page for previous discussions). Unilaterally changing every instance of Kiev >> Kyiv doesn't establish consensus to rename the articles/categories, which is why I reverted them in the first place. If you'd like to change them, please propose a move instead.. Cheers, Facebook like thumb.png DDima 07:17, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The name of the city of Kyiv/Kiev and the name of the Kyiv Oblast are separate questions. The search engine test clearly gives preference to Kiev for the city name, but Kyiv and Kiev are basically equivalent for the oblast. There is no reason why the spelling couldn't be different for the city and the oblast based on the search engine test.--Sanya3 (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Category:Review journals[edit]

Hi, I appreciate your efforts in categorizing academic journal articles, but your creation of this cat creates some problems. What is it supposed to contain? Any journal that occasionally publishes a review article? If so, then over 90% of academic journals are going to fall into this cat. Or should we only include review journals that exclusively publish reviews and nothing else? Do we include magazines or only academic journals? (And is a book review just a special type of review article)? Do we include any journal that has the word "review" in its title, regardless of what it publishes? Many journal called "Review of Foo" actually publish mainly or exclusively research articles. Do we include law reviews, even though very few of them actually ever publish a literature review (the term usually reserved for review articles)? Is systematic review a review journal? Sorry for dumping all these questions here, but the category as it currently stands is quite a mess. My preliminary answers to the above questions are the following. First, the academic journals and magazines projects have kept these two kinds of rather different periodicals separately for several years now (it only breaks down somewhat for literary journals). So as this category has the word "journal" in its name, it should not include magazines and should not be categorized in the magazines categorization tree. In addition, book reviews (despite the word "reviews") are not the same thing as review articles and the cat "Book review magazines" should be removed from this one. The same goes for the "General law reviews" cat. In law, they just traditionally use the word "review" for "journal". Next, if you include "Annual Reviews academic journals" (a publisher cat), then you should not include articles that belong in that cat. Then, the cat contains several articles that are not journals, these should all be removed. Finally, I think that if this cat should stay (and I frankly don't really see much use for it), it should only contain journals that exclusively publish review articles. So every entry that currently is in the cat needs to be vetted and all journals publishing original research should be removed (as far as I see, that's the majority at this point). I have done some of the above-mentioned modifications, but not all. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's neither necessary to include only publications that do strictly reviews or all publications that do any reviews. A reasonable rule of thumb is to include publications that do mostly reviews. This is what I strove to do. I have excluded publications that merely had "Review" in the title or were not mostly devoted to review. We can debate book reviews, but law reviews definitely have to stay. They are publications published by students of law schools and conduct primarily review of legal research by others, not original research, hence the name isn't merely a synonym of journal as you state.--Sanya3 (talk) 06:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
No that's incorrect. The place to publish original legal research is a law review. It will cite work of others (like in the sciences), jurisprudence, and laws, but that doesn't make them reviews. (Which is, of course, why law journal redirects to law review). And how do you define "mostly"? Over 50% of content? 75%? 83%? --Randykitty (talk) 08:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I would say that over 50% makes it mostly a review journal.--Sanya3 (talk) 03:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
And who decides that?? Are we now supposed to go to tables of contents and count articles? If so, how many issues/volumes need to be counted? Do we then have to check regularly whether the moniker still applies?? --Randykitty (talk) 08:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia is a human system. It's not perfect or fullproof. I think applying common sense, instead of attempting to approach the efficiency of computers is what is in order. It's enough to look over the article describing the journal and if it states that it's mostly a review journal or devoted primarily to review articles, it belongs in the category. Of course, if you can actually go to the journals and count the words/articles devoted to review, you are welcome to do it. But I think it would be unreasonable to demand of other users.--Sanya3 (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
The problem is, however, that I have never ever heard any academic refer to a journal that did not exclusively publish review articles as a "review journal". (This does not take into account commentaries and news items as published by Nature journals). Any journal that publishes original research papers is called "academic journal" (or scientific journal), even if it also has a large section devoted to reviews. only journals publishing nothing else but reviews are called "review journals". What you are trying to do is impose here your own concept of what constitutes a "review journal". --Randykitty (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
If you are going to make claims about me imposing something or about what ALL academics think, you are going to have to provide some serious references to back that up, because otherwise it looks very much like you trying to impose your own concept of what constitutes a "review journal".--Sanya3 (talk) 02:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

A discussion has been opened - where subsequent discussion should take place - at:

Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Is_MoStudies_Review_a_publisher_of_review_articles.3F.

(Neutral statement: At issue is the description of a scholarly journal, turning on allowable summary or interpretations from statements within what may or may not be held as reliable sources.)

--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Tear jerker for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tear jerker is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tear jerker until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TKK bark ! 20:33, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion and expertise would be greatly appreciated[edit]

You had been "pinged" recently to provide some input regarding a discussion involving Mormon Studies Review and so are now being appropriately canvassed (per wp:CANVASSING) to participate in the deletion discussion for the Review's brand-new "step-sibling" journal, Interpreter -- here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interpreter: A Journal of Mormon Scripture. Thanks for your consideration of this request.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Your help desk question[edit]

Have you tried WP:VPT?— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 21:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


Speedy deletion nomination of Slavic Chorale[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Slavic Chorale requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Santa Fe Desert Chorale[edit]

Hello. You recently tagged Santa Fe Desert Chorale with template:Db-band-notice. That template is designed for user pages to notify an editor that a page has been nominated for speedy deletion. It is not for nominating a page itself. If that was your intention, you should consider Template:Db-band instead. Grayfell (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Slavic Chorale[edit]

Sorry, but you need better references. One is an own site, the second is a performance profile thing, and the third is blogspot. None are really independent AND reliable. Peridon (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Performance profile is an independent and reliable source, confirming that the choir exists and performs. The blog covers all the choirs in the Sacramento area. I also included a list of media they have been featured in, which are all print and TV news sources. The references I provided are better than references in half of the articles about choirs on Wikipedia. And I am willing to search for better references if necessary.--Sanya3 (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

In any case, discussions like this are for AfD, not CSD. I've removed the tag. I had a quick look for sources and didn't find anything obvious, but I know full well that sending something to AfD on the back of a ten second google search is liable to come back and whack you on the noggin, so I won't be filing that. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Slavic Chorale for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Slavic Chorale is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slavic Chorale until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. reddogsix (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

(stalking) I hate Twinkle's standard templates, particularly when used on experienced editors. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:51, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Use of category for Ukrainian communities requires sources supporting the existence of a Ukrainian community in each place[edit]

From Arvada, Colorado to Vineland, New Jersey, I haven't yet found an article where you added Category:Ukrainian communities in the United States where there is a mention of a Ukrainian community in the article. You called my removal of the category at Vineland as "unjustified", but the problem is that it appears that the category is unjustified. Without a mention of some sort in each article supporting the claim that the place is "known to have large communities of immigrants from Ukraine, often accompanied by retail establishments", and without reliable and verifiable sources to backup the claim in the article, the category will be removed, as it was at Vineland. Alansohn (talk) 03:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, many of the locales with Ukrainian communities that I have added are listed in the Ukrainian American article as communities with the highest percentages of Ukrainian-born and Ukrainian-heritage populations. The others, such as Vineland, have a number of Ukrainian churches, stores, and other businesses and organizations. Your comment is especially strange because a couple of the communities I listed even have the word "Ukrainian" in the title and a number mention a Ukrainian community in the article.--Sanya3 (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
It's great that there may be a mention elsewhere, but the category needs a strong mention in the article for each place, backed up by reliable and verifiable sources supporting the claim that there is a large Ukrainian community. Delta Junction, Alaska and Ukrainian Village, Chicago appear to be notable exceptions, but I've been in places from Buffalo Grove, Illinois to Sunny Isles Beach, Florida to Fair Lawn, New Jersey, on multiple occasions over the past few years where I can't figure out where a Ukrainian community might be. This appears to be applied in an arbitrary and over-broad manner that simply doesn't meet Wikipedia standards or the description in the category itself. Alansohn (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
You are applying a strange standard - if you haven't seen it, then it must not be there. If that's the standard we go by, then I can easily tell you that every single place I added, I can vouch for, because I have personally visited a church or another Ukrainian organization in the area. I can go through and add the proper information to allay your concerns, but this is something I am in the middle of and would appreciate being allowed to work on.--Sanya3 (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
There may be well be Ukrainian communities that do exist in places that I have never been to and are unfamiliar with, but for some of these communities (e.g. Buffalo Grove, Fair Lawn and Sunny Isles Beach) I know based on personal experience about the place that the category is unjustified. I am editing these same articles and the standard is that without a description in the article backed up by a source the category needs to be removed. Go through each article, add the description about the Ukrainian community, add the required sources and then add the category. The order cannot be reversed. Alansohn (talk) 04:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I have reviewed the pages you mentioned and have added the data. I am working on the rest of the ones that don't have the appropriate info.--Sanya3 (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Slavic Chorale[edit]

REstored to User:Sanya3/Slavic Chorale. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 01:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Proofread[edit]

Hello Sanya3. Could you help out over at the Natalia Poklonskaya article? There are several Russian sources and I was hoping to get a second opinion on whether the article says the same thing as the sources. Chiefly reference 1 and the Russian references in the Biography section. Thank you very much. starship.paint (talk | ctrb) 09:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Sexual differentiation articles under WP:ANATOMY - request for comment[edit]

Hello Sanya3! I pinged you recently on WP:ANATOMY because of the work I've seen you do on the Sex Differences suite of articles. In summary, there is a stack of articles about sexual differentiation that are under WP:ANATOMY and I feel that this means that a lot of information is duplicated, and also that I don't think readers can easily find what they're looking for, which isn't ideal. I provided a list on the thread.

I really like the clear structure of the Sex Differences articles you've worked on, and also feel they're quite well-written and easy to understand. Sexual Differentiation isn't exactly the same topic, but close enough that I think you'd have some good ideas about how to improve the structure. I'd be grateful if you could leave a comment or participate in the discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy#Sexual_differentiation_articles Cheers, --LT910001 (talk) 07:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)