Jump to content

User talk:Ostap R: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Horlo (talk | contribs)
Hillock65 (talk | contribs)
→‎Berehynia: new section
Line 137: Line 137:


[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 05:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
[[User:Horlo|Horlo]] 05:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

== [[Berehynia]] ==

Hi, I noticed that you are interested in topics related to Ukraine. I would appreciate if you offered your opinion on the subject of the article [[Berehynia]]. The discussion takes place at the article's talk page. Thanks in advance. --[[User:Hillock65|Hillock65]] 11:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:45, 19 September 2007

Welcome

Hello, Ostap R, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are interested in Ukraine-related themes, you may want to check out the Ukraine Portal, particularly the Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements and Portal:Ukraine/Ukraine-related Wikipedia notice board. The New article announcements board is probably the most important and the most attended one. Please don't forget to announce there the new articles you create. Adding both boards to your watchlist is probably a good idea.

Finally, in case you are interested, similar boards exist at Russia portal as many editors contribute to topics related to both countries. The respective boards there are: Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. Of course there are also many other portals at Wikipedia or you may just get right into editing.

Again, welcome! —dima/talk/ 01:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Order of the White Eagle

Hi there. Thanks for your recent addition to Ronald Reagan about the Order of the White Eagle award. I thought that the award is to be presented July 17, 2007, at the Ronald Reagan Library. I am scheduled to attend that event, so if it is to be presented then, I am going to remove that addition to the page for now. Happyme22 17:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine in WW2

I see that you are now taking an interest in that disgusting page. I must say that the attention to it is long overdue. However, I do not think it is a good idea to remove other user's comments. Trolls are best exposed when their comments are visible.

Also, would you be interested in working on the article on the Ukraine in World War Two? If created, it would be a nice subarticle in the {{History of Ukraine}}. We already have some articles about the history of the nation in the specific period of which Ukraine after the Russian Revolution is probably the best one.

Regards, --Irpen 06:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me, I fear that if someone saw that statement, they might have some thought in their mind that it is true. I would help with the article in any way I can. Ostap 06:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. No one takes seriously the Wikipedia articles with the massacres, invasions, collaborations, attack, etc. in the title. It is plain obvious that those articles were started or tilted by the users with an ax to grind. I will let you know if (and when) I (or someone esle) starts a WW2 article. Of course, you can start it any time. --Irpen

Chortkiv offensive

Good work with starting the article. Thanks, --Irpen 03:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Images

Image:Cheremshyna Marko.jpg and Image:Vitovsky Dmytro.jpg‎ uploaded per your request. Happy edits, --Irpen 05:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Ostap 14:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading images is not that difficult. There is a link from any wp page that says: upload file. Make sure you choose to title the image with some descriptive filename. Tagging it properly takes some experience. But you will quickly grasp its basics. --Irpen 20:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did this. I selected the file from where it says browse, and entered the copyright information. Then I said "upload" and nothing happened. I have uploaded before a few times, but now it doesn't work. I don't know what the problem is. You really made the Chortkiv offensive article look good. Sorry about the "офензива" part. I guess its been a while, and my english is starting to find its way into my Ukrainian. Ostap

Foreign names

Thanks. In fact this is not the case, IMO, where the Ukrainian translation is necessary at all. It is important to render a native name when it serves the basis of the English name through a transliteration, like placenames, people's names, rivers, etc. If, however, the English term is obtained through a translation rather than transliteration, then the original term is not important to an English reader and is mere clutter.

Compare:

Kyivrada (Ukrainian: Київрада) is ...

with:

Kiev city council is ...

In the former case we transliterate the foreign term into an English article. In the latter one we translate "Київська міська рада". The reader might use the term, whose origin may seem obscure to him (case 1) but very few readers come to the wikipedia to learn the translation of the words "city" and "council" into Ukrainian and those who look for such info should refer to dictionaries rather than encyclopedias.

So, I am thinking of removing the non-English term from the article. --Irpen 22:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • That sounds resonable, but I have seen foreign words in other articles where the English term is obtained through a translation rather than transliteration. Do you want me to stop adding the foreign words if the article name is based on translation? What about the Treaty of Kurukove? Ostap 04:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is hard to have a set in stone rule. This is more or less an editor's judgment issue. Probably, if the term is firmly established in national historiography, it is useful to give it. At the same time, if various authors use different terms, then giving just one is probably excessive. Re "treaty", there are several similar words used in Ukrainian historiography depending on which treaty we are talking about. Some treaties are "dogovir", some are "rada" (Pereyaslav), some are "akt" (Zluky), some are "spilka", etc. Also, some treaties are named through a name of the place (Kurukove Lake) and some through the derived adjectives (Pereyaslavs'ka rada). If there are firmly established word-combination (Pereyaslavska Rada), I would give it. If the event is covered in few books only (Chortkiv) and has no universally established name (it can be "nastup", "ataka", "udar", etc.) perhaps we need none of it.

I recently removed the pure translational name from Seven wonders of Ukraine, but the author restored it. I chose not to persist. This is just food for thought, not a rule set in stone.

For a different but related issue, see Talk:Kiev Bandurist Capella. Happy edits, --Irpen 18:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So its probably best to limit the Ukrainian names to people and geographic places? Would this also include works of literature? Ostap 05:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a sort of the rule to set in stone. So, up to editors. I would definitely include it for works of literature (like Perebendya). BTW, we are almost late to nominate our article on Chortkiv offensive to DYK. I will try to submit something right now but it may be too late. We'll see. --Irpen 06:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Submitted[1] but may still not make it because of the last minute and because some might give the nom a fight. We'll see. Feel free to edit my hook. In any case even if it ends up not featured at the main page having the new article is more important. Cheers, --Irpen 07:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the article turned out well? That is good. You really made it quite good. Ostap 07:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taking an extra effort of DYK submission is worth it for two reasons. It brings readers to the Ukrainian topics, not only to the article in question but often to the articles linked from it. Secondly, it results with the article being copyedited for style, grammar and text by native speakers. Congrats. --Irpen 20:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know...

Updated DYK query On 8 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chortkiv offensive, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Congratulations with your first DYK! --Irpen 20:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello,

Thank you for your support.

There is a request for comment open at the talk page. Please contribute.

Thanks, Horlo 23:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Bud'mo

Horlo 00:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ostap, it is of course up to you to decide how to spend your time but I recommend against "contributing" anything to the page name's "debate" for a simple reason that realistically the page won't get moved now. In a year or two, perhaps, the issue might be worth to be looked at again but now it is a mere waste of time. Since Horlo has no better use for his time than conduct his futile crusade and has no desire to make a single meaningful content edit, he types in kilobytes of text at the page designated by the administrators just for him. But as I see you are interested in content writing, I would appreciate that you continue doing it in the time you have for the Wikipedia. Getting involved in the campaigns that are clearly doomed is a big waste of time no matter of whether your heart lies with the campaign's goals. BTW, have you thought of a serious development of the PUW series? If you want to take upon this task, I will try to help with all I can. The main war article would then be a good place to start. Regards, -Irpen 00:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have voiced my opinion and am now ready to go back to editing articles. Given the evidence, I believe that Kyiv is more accurate. But perhaps you are right, and only more time is needed before the article will be moved. I am just curious, what is your opinion? Ostap 00:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello,

Thanks for the help. And don't let anybody tell you what is a wasted effort. Horlo 01:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is not a wasted effort, and I have made my comment in support of the move. But seeing the coverage of Ukraine on wikipedia I do think we have alot on our hands, even some other things that may be just as important. I wish you good luck with your struggle for greater accuracy, Ostap 01:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be Kiev as per currently prevailing English usage. How can one prove that the current prevailing usage is Kiev? There has been a lot said about it. I will refer you to three lengthy discussions I had that simply pop up at the top of my head. In fact I had plenty of more. But here are some:

As of now, I have no plans to spend time on this debate. But if I see the usage in the media shifts, I would consider it. Cheers, --Irpen 02:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev

It is not a personal attack if it is true. I told Horlo that he lied and spun my words. You don't seem to be interpereting it but you are just taking my text without considering Horlo's filibuster. Accusations of lying, especially when they are justified are not personal attacks. Reginmund 01:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CUIAS article

Thanks Ostape for the dressing up of the CUIAS article. I will have more content shortly Eduvalko 16:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:VolodymyrZatonsky.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:VolodymyrZatonsky.gif. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:07, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chekayu

Ostape,

Chekayu.

Horlo 00:35, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm sorry if my response was not clear. Please see my response on my user page.

Horlo 05:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed that you are interested in topics related to Ukraine. I would appreciate if you offered your opinion on the subject of the article Berehynia. The discussion takes place at the article's talk page. Thanks in advance. --Hillock65 11:43, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]