User talk:Mbuk

Wlecome

Hi Mbuk! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! --Irpen 23:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

RU/UA portals

Also, you might be interested to check out the Russian portal and the Ukrainian portal here at Wikipedia. Please check the "Things you can do" windows as well as the important notice boards that you might consider adding to your watchlist. Cheers, --Irpen 23:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

signing

When you leave a message at the talk page, please sign it. All you have to do is add for tildes (like this: ~~~~) in the end and the software will replace it with your username and the timestamp. Thanks, --Irpen 23:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Khreschatyk

Thanks for your comment at the talk page. The dispute is still not resolved, unfortunately. :( --AndriyK 20:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of the word "Russian"

I've replied to your question at user talk:Mzajac#The meaning of the word "Russian". —Michael Z. 2006-03-26 19:50 Z

The flafor of the word "take"

Hi! I a have a question to you as to a native English speaker. Does the word "take" assume any negative flavor in English when applied to war events like: "taking control over a certain territory", "taking positions", "take a city" etc. Why do you prefer "reclaim"?

P.S. It might be reasonable if you respond directly on the talk page Talk:Battle of the Lower Dnieper.--Mbuk 19:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Mbuk, I have included "take" in a list of alternative words to "liberate" in the Consensus section of Talk:BLD. My preference of reclaim is because of what I perceive to be it's neutrality, not having an overall positive or negative connotation. The way WP defines "liberate", it is hard to justify in the context of the article. As for "take", I personally find it rather blunt and not exactly appropriate for this context. --tufkaa 22:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this edit yours?

Hi,

A IP modified your comment on Talk:Battle of the Lower Dnieper (see here)

Did you forget to log in or do we have a vandal on the page? Thanks in advance. -- Grafikm_fr ^(AutoGRAF) 22:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's my edit.

I persistently have this problem: I loged in but, after some time, it appears that I have to log in again. I do not know what is wrong with my computer.--Mbuk 06:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration

Hi! I filled an arbitration request concerning the usage of "liberation" in WP articles. If you are interested in, please add your name to the list of the involved parties and type your statement.

Please inform everybody who could be interested in.--AndriyK 20:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, I am very buisy at the moment.

In general, I do not like these permanent Russian-Ukrainian conflicts. Therefore I can take part in the discussion at most. I would not like to be involved in the arbitration. Sorry.--Mbuk 19:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding "liberation" to "Words to avoid"

I filled the proposal for Words to avoid. Please find it here. I would be thankfull for your commennts, suggestions and corrections.--AndriyK 16:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR

You reverted the article four times within 24 hours:

• yesterday at 21:40
• today at 6:07
• today at 6:16
• today at 21:30

thus violating the WP:3RR rule. As I said, it is never my intention to have my opponents blocked and, as such, I am not reporting this to 3RR board. However, may I suggest that you seize from further reverting the article and spend time reading the talk page. Thank you, --Irpen 21:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It's my fault. The clock on my computer was wrong. As you see, I "blocked" me myself. I did not edit WP for more than 24 hours.--Mbuk 03:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This was up to you and unnecessary. Now, that you are back, please consider editing some non-controversial articles. We only have a single UA-related FA (Hero of Ukraine) and, AFAIK only one GA T-34. Take a look at this "Good articles drive" discussion and share your thoughts if you feel like it. If you instead firmly plan to resume the talk:Russian architecture deliberations, I strongly urge you to read the past discussion at talk and its archives. Regards, --Irpen 03:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I apologise for my mistake, and for being so patronising as to think that you could misunderstand something as fundemental as the 3RR. I will be altering my summary in due course. I also apologise for my strong language vis a vis the duplication of diffs. However, I do feel strongly about this issue, and that you should have taken the time to read over your statement to check it. Also, why is the RfC still in the awaiting sponsors section? There seems to be evidence of two users trying to resolve the dispute. If you disagree with any other part of my summary, please do feel free to rebut it on the talk page. --David.Mestel 04:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Dispute tag at Ukrainization

I will simply quote User:Dmcdevit who blocked AndriyK today:

“ You must stop edit warring. In answer to your question about content reaolution, I would say that there can never by a resolution as long as any party continues to aggressively revert to his preferred version. It flies in the face of consensus-driven discussion and pollutes the collaborative atmosphere. ”

There can never by a resolution as long as any party continues to aggressively revert to his preferred version.

Blanking articles and adding pretty tags is NOT a solution. If you contest something, edit the article and provide references to your new claims. And that's precisely what AndriyK did not. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read the talk and study the article history. The solution was proposed. It clearly looks like these are you, Kuban kazak and Irpen who "aggressively revert to his preferred version". Please stop edit warring and switch to the discussion at talk. Read WP:DR. Removing the tag is not a solution.--Mbuk 21:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If a tag is out of place, yes it is. You think something is OR? Okay! Just add a paragraph right after a statement, such as "However, this theory is disputed by some other researchers, such as XXXX and YYYY in the book "How to...", page NNN, because "quote_goes_here". That is ALL.

Would AndriyK act like that, never in the world I would revert his edits. Adding tags everywhere is NOT a solution. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding the tag is not a solution but it is a temporal measure that allow to avoid the edit war between different versions and resolve the dispute step-by-step according to WP:DR.

This was not me, who wrote WP:Vandalism. If you disagree with this policy please try to change it as it is proposed in the corresponding guideline. But do not break the rules addopted by the community.--Mbuk 21:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

A temporal measure that lasts for several months? Oh please...

If AndriyK would spend half his energy on actually writing something instead of putting tags everywhere, all this affair would be over by now. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The temporal measure should last until the dispute is settled.

Please use AndriyK's talk, if you have any suggestion to him.

Please use article talk if you would like to propose a solution.--Mbuk 21:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I did!!! I suggested to AndriyK to "try again" and write a separate article on architecture on Kievan Rus (User_talk:AndriyK#Russian_architecture.E2.80.8E). OK this is not about the same article but issues are pretty similar. We were three or four to suggest that AndriyK would fix things per WP:BOLD instead of using tags. We can't do more than that.

And please, stop talking about temporal measures. The tag on Russian Architecture was first placed SEVEN months ago.

Since you quote WP:Vandalism, look at this Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. (bold mine). It is totally the case here. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We discuss your recent edits at Ukrainization. Russian architecture is a separate story. The dispute tags was placed there properly. Please visit the artcle talk for the discussion. There was no consensus on either of two artiles. --Mbuk 21:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The disputed tags were placed improperly in both cases in contraversion to sources cited in both cases earlier at the article's talk pages. The tags were placed by a problem user whose unwarranted tag-trolling and revert warring is but the only activity he takes at Wikipedia since his ban for other dirty tricks. Your assuming the role of his fan, blind supporter and revert proxy is highly disruptive and doesn't speak highly of yourself and of your interest in making Wikipedia a content rich source. Your continual WP:DFTT#Pestering of AndriyK's opponents by trying to tire them in the endless debates over the issues to which they already responded is a time-wasting tactic and nothing else. You loaded the talk pages of a whole lot of people with baseless accusations and uninterrupted pestering for already answered questions. Your Wikilawyering and unwarranted appeals to the Policy pages that your friend and yourself are breaking at the first place are yet as disruptive. Once you were perceived as potentially productive, albeit a stubborn and opinionated user. This is gradually changing as you are yet to make a single productive edit and to this date you failed to make any. I suggest you take a short break, read WP:TEA and carefully read the m:Don't be a Dick article. Armed with that, please start editing and stop disrupting the work of others. If you disagree with something, edit, but change your habbits in the first place. --Irpen 21:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Please do not modify or remove other people's messages from the pages others than your own talk. It may be considered Vandalism

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Talk:Ukrainization. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. abakharev 09:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please reread WP:NPA:

“ Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on third parties on sight, and although this isn't policy it's often seen as an appropriate reaction to extreme personal abuse. ”

The article talk page is reserved to discuss the article. Flooding it with unrelated stuff makes it difficult to read and follow the discussion. Please explain your view, if you disagree with me. Thanks.--Mbuk 13:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Allow me

I, abakharev, award this "Exceptional newcomer" butterfly, in recognition of your excellent Kiev tram article. We need more of them. abakharev 13:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! But I did not deserve it. The main contributor of Kiev tram is DDima.--Mbuk 17:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me credit. But you did deserve it too,...You created an article about on a very good topic (even though I had it ready) but it takes a great writer to think of such a topic:)). —dima/// 21:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ditto about Fyodor Pirotsky abakharev 23:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainization

Hey -- got your message. I would like to help, but I feel I must decline in this case. The reason is that my attempt at the Patriarch Filaret article involves many of the same editors; I hope you understand -- I don't want to get involved to the point that my neutrality as an outsider becomes compromised. Your post at the admin noticeboard will, I hope, attract the attention of someone useful. I don't personally have any particular suggestions of others to go to. Mangojuice^talk 05:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Kiev tram on DYK

On 11 July, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kiev tram, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Mgm|^(talk) 10:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

I am gkad you recognize that I dislike edit warring. Perhaps then, you should take your own admonishments to other edit warriors to heart. There is no explanation for these reverts other than that you were edit warring yourself: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. The last one was a day ago, or you may have found yourself blocked right now, as I am blockin gall the other edit warriors. I don't see that you've been warned before, but you've been participating in the discussions I've had with others, and you know what I'm going to say: edit warring is never acceptable; edit warring makes a conflict worse, not better; if I see you make another revert there, I will block without warning. Having said that, I will of course be giving the actions of all the other Ukrainization edit warriors similar scrutiny. Dmcdevit·t 04:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)