User talk:Kuban kazak

Kharkiv

Hey Kuban kazak. The use of Kharkiv vs. Kharkov has been discussed at length and the current form is the result of the consensus several editors. Please consult talk:Kharkiv and its archive, and discuss there if you want to propose such a change. Cheers, Michael Z. 2005-10-15 23:17 Z

Moscow Metro

Hi there, kazak! I noticed that you put the apostrophes back in the names of some of the Moscow Metro stations. Just wanted to let you know that English Wikipedia traditionally utilizes Russian transliteration guidelines outlined here. While it is generally understood that there is no single transliteration system used by everyone, it had been decided that the usage of one system greatly helps maintain the consistency of the articles. At this time, most articles dealing with Russia-related topics use that transliteration system (which omits apostrophes used for soft and hard signs). You may also want to check out this announcement board (just do an in-page search for "metro" to find relevant announcements) for more information specifically regarding the naming of Moscow Metro stations. By all means do not hesitate to contact me if you have questions. Best,—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome

Just to say Welcome! I'm glad we now have a Cossack on Wikipedia :) Nikola 18:13, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Transliteration

The point of transliteration is to enable English speakers to be able to pronounce these Russian names in the correct fashion. The reason Y is used to represent Ы, Й, -ий, -ый is that it is the closest English letter to those sounds. I understand your objection to using the "ai" sound to represent all these letters, which would be incorrect, but you have to understand that most of the time Y is not pronounced "ai" in English. It can also be pronounced "i" as in "system" and "ee" as in "fiery," not to mention the Y consonant sound.

A native English speaker will pronounce "Leninsky Prospekt" and "Leninskiy Prospekt" the same, and he or she would never say "LeninskAI Prospekt." Using "iy" as opposed to "y" does not change the way the word is pronounced, and "iy" is an unfamiliar letter combination in English that readers may not know how to pronounce.

Using a J to represent the consonant Y sound is even more ridiculous. J never makes a Y sound in English. An English reader confronted with a word like "Oktjabrskaja" will have no idea how to pronounce it, and if they attempt to say it they will almost certainly be wrong. The spelling "Oktyabrskaya," which correctly uses the letter Y to represent the Y consonant sound, will be pronounced correctly by an English speaker.

As to your other objections, in English "north-south" does not imply that the street (or avenue) runs from the north TO the south, it just means the street's alignment is along the north-south axis as opposed to the east-west axis. Removing Profsoyuznaya from the list was an accident. Regarding your request for British spelling, by Wikipedia convention either spelling is appropriate.

I appreciate your work on the rolling stock, extensions, and correction to the plans of Park Pobedy and Izmaylovsky Park. I did not realize that they were done by you because you were listed as an IP address.

Camerafiend 13:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I still don't understand the advantage of using -iy instead of -y, but if that's what you want to use I'm fine with it. I'm glad you figured out how to move the pages without creating duplicate articles. Camerafiend 21:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Pardon me for intervening, but I would like to note that Wikipedia transliteration system is not a matter of someone's personal preference. Using "ja" is definitily not incorrect, but "ya" is also by no means not incorrect—these are merely conventions of two different transliteration systems (which, I repeat, are both "correct", but used for different purposes). The WP transliteration system was devised to maintain consistency—any other system could have certainly been used with the same effect (be it ISO-9, straight BCGN/PGN, or Russian GOST). Current system has been selected as the best for transliterating Russian into English; it is not merely a generic system, but one that targets the needs of English-speaking readers and is, as such, more common in English media/texts. I would recommend that you adjust your transliteration habits when dealing with the English WP articles. Using just one system benefits English WP greatly, and, since the tradition is pretty much set, I suggest you accept it. Just imagine that suddenly your system is adopted just as widely as the current one is—how would you deal with someone who comes in in half a year and insists that ISO-9 is the only way to go? Hope for your understanding, and keep up your otherwise great work. Feel free to drop me a line if you have questions or comments. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 01:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Ukraine

Hi, Kuban Kazak, and welcome again. I just thought I stop by and request that you use some extra caution in UA-RU controvercial issues. It is easy to make others lose their temper and extra care is warranted. Since you seem interested in religeous affairs of Ukraine, you may take a look at Patriarch Filaret (Mykhailo Denysenko) article and click on the links. Hopefully, you will help to improve Ukrainian topics and avoid the edit wars. Thanks, --Irpen 16:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that, got carried away... anyway thanks for watering down the version, I suppose that that is any wikipedia's responsibility...I also wish for your help on the Kiev Metro section (photographs, we need photographs there). Actually I want to make a portal about all the metro systems of the former Ussr and hope for your help. Kuban kazak 14:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your work on expansion of Kiev Metro coverage. Cheers, --Irpen 05:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Russian portal

Dear colleague, it would have been nice of you to announce newly created articles here. Thanks. --Ghirlandajo 13:34, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

And also here. I will try to help with what I can with metro. BTW, IMO we should probably use modern Ukrainian names for most, if not all, stations/lines in Kiev Metro. Thanks for your interest. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. --Irpen 20:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

St. Volodymyr's

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Repeated_wholesale_removal_of_info_from_St._Volodymyr.27s_Cathedral. Feel free to comment. --Irpen 01:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh I commeted alright, one thing is to argue a POV, another thing is to descredit a POV and delete whole sections, Варварство причем варварство в самом прямом смысле.Kuban kazak 13:20, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

What a mess!!! I hope this would be soon put to an end. I haven't realized that you were writing to AndriyK at the same time as I was writing to him. I corrected the title of your section at his talk. I hope it is OK with you. Please send me your email address if you don't mind --Irpen 21:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

And sorry, I could not yet get to your Metro articles. You obviously see the reasons. --Irpen 22:40, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Опыт говорит что правокаторы приходят и уходят, а метро уже 70, 50, 45 лет в Мск, СПб и Киеве соответственно. Сейчас выметем мусор а потом делом займемся.Kuban kazak 22:45, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, please do not get mad that I removed your entry from St Volodymyr's talk. Let's not get people crazy when we are approaching a difficult compromise there. I wholeheartedly share your desire for Ukraine to finally get a single canonical local Church which I would prefer to see autocephalous. I just thought the article you linked will start another barrage of flames. Cheers, --Irpen 21:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Geographic names

Another thing, I think there is quiet a good discussion with an excellent proposal being hammered out by several users at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions/Geographic_names. The latest version is very close to what I would like to see as a Wikipedia policy and, if implemented, it would also help to quickly put an end to certain behaviours of certain users if you know what I mean. --Irpen 01:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "Russian Orthodox Encyclopaedia"

Please stop pushing Russian Orthodox POV to the articles. Please pay attention that canonicity

• is viewed somewhat differently by Orthodox and Catholic Churches;
• is not recognized by Protestant Churches;
• is not recognized by most of people in the wold that are not Cristian at all.

Please read WP:NPOV carefully.

NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view.

Please pay attention that pushing Orthodox POV is against the WP policies.--AndriyK 21:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

The original article said something along the lines of "a church viewed uncannonical by the Orthodox Communion" i.e. Protestant, Catholics and other religions have nothing to do with this article. The church is NOT recognignised by other Orthodox Churches which happen to have cannonical standing. It is you who needs to pay attention and not omitt these facts, same NPOV argument my Drug Kuban kazak 22:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Kuban kazak, I also got this message. I will respond shortly at AndriyK's talk. Please see Talk:Lviv Oblast re names. The issue isn't trivial. Also, please email me with your email address if you don't mind. --Irpen 00:16, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for interfering again, but let's not inflame our opponents in the edit summaries. I responded on the essence on their positions on the article's and AndriyK's talk pages. Cheers, --Irpen 01:46, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

...вряд ли

Родом я из Москвы. У меня прадед, будучи казаком, воевал в первую войну. Другие предки у меня с Полтавщины - наверняка с Хмельницким были. А сам я не то что бы казак, а скорее потомок казацкий - хотя шашка и нагайка дома имеются.
Kazak 02:27, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Challenge

Man, saw your challenge for AndriyK. Ahhh, I want it :)) Anyway, I see why you want him to do it, and I am not going to interfere, but if you have anything else that's equally interesting and not so recent (administrative divisions are a hobby of mine), let me know, OK?.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 01:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Try Belarus, from the same 1940s atlas. Or Russia, all of the historic regions, gubernia, different borders etc.Kuban kazak 11:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Guberniyas, them I've been doing anyway (see History of the administrative division of Russia), albeit it's progressing much slower than I wanted. What I had in mind was a specific, well-defined challenge. I'll take a look at Belarus, though. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Request for help

User:Molobo has been in habit of vandalizing articles on Smolensk War, Russophobia, Belovezhskaya Pushcha, etc. Now she attacks Berlin Congress. Please help to neutrilize her. Thanks, Ghirlandajo 12:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Metro :(

Hi, Kazak. To be completely honest, I'm a bit disappointed with your recent moves of metro articles, especially considering the fact that you were the one scolding someone else for making silly edits. I already explained the Russian transliteration system used in Wikipedia, and I also explained that neither that system, nor the one you are more fond of, is by itself incorrect. However, only one system should be used for consistency sake. I would suggest that you adopt one that's already widely used instead of moving articles back and forth. Transliteration of Russian into English happens to be the system that Wikipedia's policies prescribe, and, as you undoubtedly know, non-complying with the policies is not usually the best idea. I do not mean to be petty or waste our time, but I am a consistency hobgoblin, that's for sure, and I do see consistency as one of the virtues Wikipedia should pursue. Thank you for your attention and understanding, and I would appreciate if you undid the rest of your changes yourself.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:59, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, I would also recommend you a refresher on Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and to remind you that American spelling should not be changed into British (and vice versa) except when both variants co-exist on one page or when British spelling is used in an article on an American-related topic (and vice versa). In all other cases, the variant of English used by the original contributor should be used.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 23:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

If consistency is to be followed then you will find that british spelling is used on the main page, and the main page of the KRL was changed to my system and used since, what kind of consistency is this if one line will use one version and another one a different one. Me and Camerafield agreed to take off -ja and -ij in preference to -YA and -IY. So no point reverting my changes.Kuban kazak 23:22, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

The point is not something you discussed with another user. The point is to follow policies. If you see British spelling in one line and American in another, by all means correct that (but make sure you correct it to one the original author used, not the one you like the most). As for translit, please always correct it to conform with what the policies tell you to. I realize it may be hard for you—I, for example, cannot stand British spelling, but if that's what the original author used, then I will change all American spelling back to British if I happen to edit the page (mind you, some people actually choose to hunt down pages with inconsistent spelling). Again, this is not just the matter of personal courtesy, it's the matter of following the policies. You would not break the three-revert rule just because you do not like it or think that it was invented by a bunch of morons who had nothing better to do with their time, would you? Same goes for transliteration and spelling. Trust me, people broke too many spears and wasted too much time over these seemingly petty issues in the past. Each policy is there for a reason. I once again ask you to please comply.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 03:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

May I add to that what's my own take on this. Being not a native speaker I never interfere with American/British spelling issue. I just leave those words as they are (unless I edit a piece) and leave it up to native speakers Wikipedians to bother about this. This is really such a minor issue for us, that there is no need to persist if it is such a major issue for others. As for the choice of the transliteration, especially in the article's names, I only move them when I know what version of the name is prevails in English. Like I moved the article about the Soviet rocket designer called until recently Korolev to Korolyov simply because the latter is used in English clearly wider. For subway stations, there is no way to get any meaningful statistics of the English usage. So, I suggest to propose the moves at talk first and wait for a while. It is really not a big deal, is it? --Irpen 05:04, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

... Whilst I might have patriotic POVs, I am against an article not repressinting the other side of the story. NPOV is a wikipedia policy which everyone must adhere to. ... Kuban kazak 13:30, 11 November 2005 (This is copied from my talk page)--AndriyK 15:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Please find below some citations of your edits. Just to think once more about NPOV that "is a wikipedia policy which everyone must adhere to."--AndriyK 15:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It seen the revival of Orthodox religion in 1988 when the millenium celebration of the baptism of Rus marked a turn in the Soviet policy of religion. However afterwards dark times came on it again. In 1992, after Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine Filaret refused to resign, the cathedral became the first building to be captured by the UOC-KP. After the Karkov sinod and with the return of the new Metropolitan of Kiev and all Ukraine Vladimir, members of the neo-fascist UNA-UNSO barrikaded themselves inside the cathedral and refused entry to the new cannonical church leader and several thousand believers who gathered to meet them. Despite numerous protests from all the world Orthodox communities the cathedral is yet to return to the church and is still in the hands of the schismatics.[1]

After the pillage of Kiev by the Mongolian Tatarsin 1180 the cathedral fell into decline and was even taken up by the uniats [2]

Do you think your slighting attitude to other confessions is the way how the WP articles should be written?--AndriyK 15:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that I was the perfect example, yet I did not mind people editing my posts so that it be presented in an NPOV way. On the contrary before you people showed up, me and Irpen discussed how to water down the first example. In the end the seizure was agreed upon.

What I do not understand is how my extensive contribution about Sophia is a breach of NPOV. Поясни.

Kuban kazak 16:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediation concerning St Volodymyr's Cathedral

I propose to ask for official mediation to resolve the dispute concerning St Volodymyr's Cathedral article. Whould you agree?--AndriyK 18:08, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Not that I am against but then we pretty much have setteled everything there is to settle, I mean if it is something as petty as Kyiv vs Kiev then it is laughable at mediating that (considering the length this article travelled), but if that's how you want to end it, fine by me. Kuban kazak 18:12, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I've got an e-mail from the mediator. Please check your mailsbox so that we can start the dispute resolution.--AndriyK 15:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Balachka

I've never heard of Balachka, until you mentioned it in some discussion recently. It sounds like an interesting article topic. Would you create a stub? —Michael Z. 2005-11-12 22:20 Z

Basically it is not a language, it is a dialect which we cossacks speak, it is similar to Ukranian/Russian mix (although nothing like the surzhik dialect) but volcabulary is solely Russian (ie флаг is used instead of прапор, аnd Дворец instead of Палац etc) although some ecxeptions exist e.g. Червоны(е) Рассийски(е) Ю(г)а. differences exist mostly in the sounds of Г, В, and О. Moreover the dialect varies so much from stanitsa to stanitsa (and the older generations in particular) that there really is no common version of it. For instance in some places the e at the end is muffled others clearly pronounce it. Well anyway here are some examples:

Take pronounciation of cities: Харькаф, Ки'иф, Петербург (the g at the end is pronounced solid, not like h)

Да шо ты мне (х)оворишь (if there is an h sound then it is very short although in my stanitsa it simply muffled)? Сам знаю шо наши Рус'ськи(э) казачки красние фсех, хотя балтиливые. The э sound at the end of that word is said very briefly but destinguishable.

-Вот был Сталин, да по'аладали потом по'ое'али, но при этам было щастьи а потом умник Хрущоф

-Хрющиф чорт е'о падрал

-Ща ты у миня будеш Хрюкать оГда пад маей шашкай акажишся...Вот взял и ород-ерой (alternatively g's if pronounced are used - no h substitute) СталинГрад периминавал В-Ол'ГоГрад (here is a good example where an В sound is pronounced and also the O sound is fully sounded and streched for longer than in normal Russian) Other examples of BO sound different: сем, осим, девять. Kuban kazak 01:04, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. That's interesting; I can see the Ukrainian connection, although some of it is puzzling since I don't know Russian. Is the akanye usually spelt out, as in "Харькаф"? —Michael Z. 2005-11-13 05:04 Z

It is spelled out using Moscovite Russian translit here, balachka has no grammar or language, we write in Russian (although some stanitsas use the pre-1918 grammar), also it is spoken very quickly. Kuban kazak 14:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt

I think you would be interested in voting here, especially as there are voices that Halibutt is an anti-Russian (Ukrainian, etc.) POV-pusher. --Ghirlandajo 23:30, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't know really, I was not here long enough to become in contact with Halibutt, so I shall withhold for the time being. Anyway you seem to have a strong case against him. Kuban kazak 23:50, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Ok. I don't have a case against Halibutt. As I explained on his talk page, I will even support him the next time around. But he should learn to dissociate himself from nationalist trolls like Molobo or Space Cadet. If you have had troubles with Molobo, please add the summary of his abuses to my note here. I believe we should stand united against his nationalist spree. Thanks, Ghirlandajo 14:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

A bit more on the metro

Hi there. I have a couple minor questions on your metro project, this edit in particular. The first one I meant to ask for a while now—it's regarding the names of the architects. You've been using their initials so far, which is understandable, considering that's probably what most of your sources are using. You do, however, also wikilink them. Now, I don't really know much about those people, but do you think they are notable enough to ever have their own articles? My point is, if the only thing they are famous for is the station(s) they designed, maybe there is no need to link their names, especially when only the last name and initials are known. Anyway, that's just my thought.

The second question is regarding the external links section. I'm not sure why you didn't like my wording ("the description of the station on..."), and I'm not going to concern myself with this, but having a note in parentheses indicating that the link leads to the site which is not in English is a common courtesy to the reader. I've read too many interesting articles that made me hungry for more, only to discover that most of the links in the external links section are to the sites written in Chinese, Dutch, or Hebrew. I admit that not many editors concern themselves with these minor details, but since you are developing quite a few articles from scratch, perhaps you'd consider it? Besides, it's often a combination of both content and those minor details that creates a synergy of a great article.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not wikilink them as I did not write the original article. Sorry about the removal of the description of the links, that was a typo. But why did you revert my translits, I mean since as you said none is right I just wanted to clarify them. Besides Krasniye vs Krasnye is much more logical considering that Y is not a vowel and is not suitable to substitute Ы since the index Ye is used to substute any E that's after a vowel and hence ЫЕ ЫЙ should be translited as IYE and IY consisdering there is no Ы in english anyway, and in my opinion the Y is overused in Russian to english translits anyway. -ий, -ый, й, ы, е. Give I a chance!!!Kuban kazak 17:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad—it was me myself who added the wikilinks (duh!). That was in hopes someone would come and put the full names in. But since you obviously know the topic—do you think it'd be better to replace initials with full names and leave the names linked, or would it be better to simply remove the wikilinks because most of the metro stations architects were not all that notable?

Not notable? Nina Aleshina, Robert Pogreboi, Alexandr Dushkin... Kuban kazak 20:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Being less than a fan of Moscow and its history, I wouldn't know. Surely, some of the architects mentioned in the metro articles are far less notable than the others. Anyway, I'm leaving this up to your judgement to delink those people who do not deserve articles of their own. All I wanted to do their was to bring someone's attention to incomplete names.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the external links format, too.

As for the transliteration (sigh), I did indeed mention that no existing system is "correct" (as well as "incorrect"). The question is again consistency. Yes, we can theoretically use "i" for "ы", but notice, however, that neither ISO-9, nor ALA-LC, nor Allworth, nor BGN/PCGN, nor even GOST systems do so. They all use "y". This is, simply put, a tradition. Why invent new rules? Do you really want to introduce yet another transliteration system to the slew of already existing ones? In the hindsight, the act of modifying BGN/PCGN (slightly!) for Wikipedia was probably not the best idea, but it was only done because using "y" to indicate "-ый" and "-ий" endings is so common when transliterating Russian into English, and because "yy" for "-ый" looks awful to an English-speaking reader. It makes sense, but it introduced elements of transcription into otherwise clean transliteration system. Substituting "i" for "ы" will add another one—but in this case the question is—why? It is certainly not traditional, and is not even more common (just google for "krasniye" vs "krasnye", or "chistiye" vs "chistye").

I hope my explanations make sense to you. You won't believe how many times I had similar conversations in the past. So far I've been able to persuade those people that the system currently in place, while definitely not perfect, is the best for Wikipedia considering 1) the number of articles that already use it; 2) the traditions of transliterating Russian into English (this is English Wikipedia, so the other languages do not really matter much); 3) the fact that the output is so much readable to an English-speaking person; and 4) it can easily be decoded back to Cyrillics even despite some transcription elements.

Please let me know if you wish to discuss this further. I am more than willing to. Take care, —Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not the question of what is commonly used, it is a question of what is correct, I mean the fact that Y is used instead of I whilst there is no ы sound in english at all is not my convention but then hey Galen was used up until 15th century before Versailles corrected him, so conventions make little difference to me, they will make even less difference to an English user, but the overwhelming preference to Y will, especially in since most of the sounds can be split easilly replaced by I. I mean compare Izmaylovsky Park to Izmailovskiy Park. You are saying that an english person will be fully alright and forgiven for saying ИзмаЫловскЫ Парк or Красн'йe Ворота. No wonder that so many foreigners can't pronounce and read Russian correctly. In addition what is Й in Russian? И-Краткое, ie I-Short, so why use Y for it? Kuban kazak 20:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as "correct" goes, let me remind you that Wikipedia is not here to push correct spellings, but to represent common trends (I'll dig you a link to a specific policy, if you don't believe me). In that regards, "Kyiv" is also correct, and "Kiev"—incorrect, yet the article is at Kiev because that's what the majority of people uses. By your logic, the best way to handle Russian names is to provide phonetic transcription instead of transliteration. Surely IPA is more "correct" by your standards than any of the translit system I described above. But, transliteration, unlike transcription, renders the original name in letters the reader knows and in ways the reader can understand. Tell me, what makes Izmailovskiy Park superior to Izmaylovsky Park? Following your example, it can just as easily be converted by an uninformed reader back to ИзмаИловскиЫ, which is equally incorrect. Would you rather see Izmailovskii? Same thing, it can be converted to ИзмаиловскиИ—again, incorrect (and that is not to mention that we merely traded one ambiguity for another). What about Krasniye? Why do you accept the possibility of it being read as КраснИе? Face it, there is NO correct way to transliterate Russian, not if we accept your definition of "correct". In which case, why not stick with something that worked before, is working now, is not an artificial invention, and is accepted by the majority of people? I really want to hear what you have to say now.

As for the "y" being used to transliterate "й"—in modern English "y" is a consonant that sometimes acts as a vowel, which pretty much makes it a semi-vowel. "Й" is also a semi-vowel. To me, that's a perfect match. I'm sure that the authors of all major transliteration systems followed the same logic.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Kiev and Kyiv is more a question of familiarity and the comparison is more like Moscow and Moskva. I agree that it will be impossible to fully transliterate Russian into English (although it is possible to do it into Spanish and German where you have the J). In terms of pronounciaciaon of Izmailovskiy lets remeber that I in english is not limited to the и sound, in fact the sound can also be achieved in ee and ei and other examples, so why limit i to и, so why should it become in Russo-English translit. Moreover Измаиловский is actually not entirely incorrect (depending on which Russian accent you take). Anyway since "history" has made it that y represents Ы, then so be it, but representing other sounds, I can't see the disadvantage of not clarifying something like -ий with -iy. Finally I don't expect foreigners get the Ы sound at all, and most substitute with И anyway. I personally have herd them say Красние Ворота and I am alright with that but when they see something like Izmaylovsky Park most say Измаиловски Парк, I consider that to be a much more serious mistake than Красние Ворота, because this is not due to their mother tongue not having these sounds, but due to the transliteration that is given to them. Don't get me wrong I am against -ii and -yy to duplicate -ий and -ый. I thing that the former in particular should be differentiated from the latter by -iy and -yi or -yj respectivelly. Finally in relation to the Krasniye vorota. Note that the letter E has always been made very clear by (guess what) by using the Y, after a vowel it like in Alekseyevskaya and Belyayevo (I don't even want to imagine how many incorrect ways that can be pronounced), so how does Krasnye Vorota fits into this is the y used for the Ы or the E (and I'll finish with saying I have herd Красне Ворота before)Kuban kazak 23:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Using "-iy" to represent "-ий" (but not "-ый") is actually all right, even within current policy. In the end, this is the matter of personal taste. I personally like to use "y" anyway (for, you guessed right, consistency sake), but "-iy" has equal rights.

As for "Krasnye Vorota", "ye" for "-ые" here is used for the same reason why "yy" is not used for "-ый", which is to avoid ugliness of double y. What's more, in these borderline cases "ye" is used more often than "yye" (see google, as well as the article on Naberezhnye Chelny). So basically to conform with policies we should either use "Krasnye" (because it's more common use) or "Krasnyye" (to stick with the translit guidelines; also note that Encarta uses this convention). "Krasniye" may seem as a good idea, but, as I mentioned above, such variant is not used by any major transliteration system, and Wikipedia should mirror common knowledge/use (to the point where it does not contradict the facts, of course) instead of inventing new conventions. Again, the final variant boils to the personal preference. As for foreigners pronouncing stuff incorrectly—well, they are foreigners, they would pronounce things incorrectly and/or with accent even if transliteration were perfect.

Anyway, I will try to compile a list of most common objections to and questions about current Wikipedia transliteraton system. I should have probably done it long ago, because having the same conversation over and over, only with different people every time, is really a chore. If you want to suggest any objections/questions for such a list, feel free to drop me a note or just continue commenting here. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 02:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Ulitsa 1905 Goda

I think Ulitsa Tysyacha Devyatsot Pyatogo (1905) Goda should be shortened to Ulitsa 1905 Goda since "Ulitsa Tysyacha Devyatsot Pyatogo (1905) Goda" is rather long for an article title and makes the TKL template uncomfortably wide. I don't see any advantage to spelling out 1905, especially since "Ulitsa 1905 Goda" is the spelling commonly used elsewhere, including Metro signs. Camerafiend 01:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

But not how its pronounced in the loudspeakers, anyway I don't really mind, but certainly spell it fully out on the article.Kuban kazak 08:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, the template looks a lot better. Camerafiend 02:08, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Volyn Crop and Holodomor

Hi Kazak, that's an interesting point that you're rising. I think the good places to check for this would be National Archives or The New Archives (but the latter don't seem to have an English version online) or maybe Central Statistical Office. Your question seems intriguing and I'll try to investigate it but it's going to take some time, as I'm rather busy these days. Also, we have to remeber that wikipedia is not a place for original research, so we should be rather basing on other authors' works. As far as I know there's been no famine in the 1930-s in Western Ukraine, so that would seem to confirm that the famine in Eastern Ukraine at that time had to be politically driven rather than a natural disaster. As for neutral historians (that is not Polish/Russian/Ukrainian), I've checked that Norman Davies in his "God's Playground" writes that Ukrainians in Poland at that time were horrified at their neighbours across the border starving to death. This would also confirm that it was not a natural famine, but one that was artificially made. Cheers for now. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 10:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Just want to congratulate you and your wife abakharev 08:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Summer 2006. Kuban kazak 22:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Architects' initials

What exactly is the problem with giving the initials of the Moscow Metro architects? Camerafiend 01:15, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I hope Kazak does not mind me answering this question for him (since it was me bugging him about it in the first place). Actually, there is really no problem. It is just preferable to give full names, if they are known. If they are not known, then, of course, initials are better than nothing, but in that case the names should probably not be wikilinked.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 01:55, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest we leave it as surnames alone, and besides official names of Russians are never given (in Wikipedia) with their (son of ) "middle" name. So if giving initials, then just the first name.Kuban kazak 08:31, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

RfAr

An arbitration request against User:AndriyK has been filed. If you intend to participate/co-sign, please add your name to the "Involved parties" section and write a statement.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:00, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom accepted

This is the generic message left at several editors' talk pages in relation to the ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Community_vs._User:AndriyK. Since the fourth ArbCom member has recently voted to accept the case, the case is now considered accepted by the ArbCom as per Arbitration Policy. Please make sure your statement for the ArbCom is on the page if you are willing to write one (OTOH, being named as a party does not require you to make a statement, it just gives you a right to write one) and please make sure your statement is proofread if you wrote it earlier. Please, also, make sure your statement is in the appropriate place of the ArbCom page and not interjecting with others' statements. You are welcome to read up on the Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy and the associate pages.

--Irpen 04:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Question

Are Kuban kazaks Russians, Ukrainians or Kazaks? IMO it is Russian sub-ethnical group. RGRDS Ben-Velvel 14:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

We are Cossacks. Кубанские Казаки. Checl 2002 census.

My opinion: the followng people Velikorossians, Malorossians, Belorossians, Pomorians, Carpathian Ruthenians and Cossacks are just the different variations of the Russian slavic group. The fact that in 1917 the term Russian was privatised to the Velikorossians is the source of confusion. Cossacks in the 1926 census could not decide where they belong and as they are neither Veliko or Malorossians, culturally and ethnically. Most of the Cossacks by default were turned into Russians (Don, Terek, Ural etc). With us Kubanese when faced with question Russian and Ukranians they would have digested it as Veliko or Malorossians? Well we are neither and there are countless ethnographical accounts which say that Cossacks are a subgroup and do not belong to either side of the eastern slavic branches. In 1926 they would have said we are Cossacks, the census people after their failed attempt to lingustically destinguish the population simply split them, 50:50 and called for further research. Thereby the census itself concludes that the data is provisionary. The fact that US government can't understand that is not surprising, I mean there is a destinct percentage of the US population that thinks in our country winter is all year round and bears walk on our streets.Kuban kazak 17:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

What an original point of view! I must write it down. It can be used as smart joke. Especialy this part: "...Carpathian Ruthenians... variation of Rissian slavic group..." LOL!!! Did you tell them already? I think you should, Kazak - they struggle to find identity for a long time already.--Oleh Petriv 02:00, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Genetically!!! Not politically, and yes Carapathian Ruthenians do agree that they belong to an eastern slavic group of people, they are certainly not malorossians (I don't know if Galicians can be considered Malorossians as well, and certainly Pollesians and Volynians apear to be more of a cross between Malo and White rossians (The reason why I use malorossians instead of Ukrainians is not to insult anyone but just to avoid confusion between ethnically Ukrainian and citizen of Ukraine). Same with the people of New Russia, Novorossia, they are also an interbreed of people who came from all over the empire to colonise the territry in the 19th century, Most of them were eastern Slavic (ie what we refer to as Russians) but there were Serbs, Greeks and others. Same goes for Sibirian people who call themselves Russian...Kuban kazak 14:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Dnipro

Kazak, I would gladly take into account your suggestions, but unfortunately I have low credibility in them. Even if I'm only few days here, on English Wikipedia, I have formed my opinion already on your style of writing and changes as well as couple of other "brothers" like Ghirlandajo. Sorry for being so direct. I will talk over the issue about names with Irpen. He seems to be reasonable person. And don't worry too much about poor Anglophones. In this case this excuse in nothing more than a way to promote or pro-Russian point of view.--Oleh Petriv 01:56, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not an encyclopedia on Ukraine, and the topic of Cossacks is not limited to Ukraine, and the river Dnieper is not limited to Ukraine. This was thoroughly discussed prior to your arrival, and respectable people like Mzajac and Irpen supported it. We are not going to alter Wikipedia's convention to suit your tastes.Kuban kazak 09:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Kuban

Will you trust 1926 USSR census that among Kuban population 62% were Ukrainians? Ilya K 16:41, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Russian Empire 1897 census - Kuban oblast http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_lan_97.php?reg=100

Great Russian 816734
Malorussian   908818

Ilya K 17:09, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Did you read the census appendix that I have provided? It itself says not to trust it?Kuban kazak 17:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I have not understood. What and where should I read? Ilya K 19:15, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

At the talk page heading Demographic data, there is a long itallic summary of everything I have provided.Kuban kazak 14:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Belarus

I think we should first get in touch with few Belarusians at en-wiki about that. I will have to check histories for their usernames but I do remember there were some. Back with more later. --Irpen 09:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Holodomor - "REGISTER, then edit"

I think this standard text nicely sums up the fact that comment is bang out of order - there is no requirement at all for someone to register on WP before editing. Assume good faith, and revert for real reasons if you must:

== Welcome! == Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public). Create an account 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 Wangi wangi 16:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It would have been far more constructive to leave {{welcomeip}} on User talk:69.156.10.177.

Thanks/wangi 16:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Beg my pardon, got carried away. Kuban kazak 17:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK has been accepted. Please place evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK/Proposed decision. Fred Bauder 02:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Stay cool

Привет, ну что ты кипятишься? Может у некоторых тут цель, людей позлить. Try to stay cool which is not always easy, I admit. In any case it should be easier now. Besides, keeping our cool actually helps to get the point through. --Irpen 05:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

War with Oleh Petriv

See, Kazache, this is not war of revertions, this is just removal of unproved facts. Why unproved? See here [3], aha, removed already. Why? OK. Let's talk. What do you think about that post that you just removed? Meanwhile I'll write more to you.--Oleh Petriv 22:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Because a compromise was already achieved by me, Gnomz, Anderew Alexander, Michael, Dietwald, Woysul...need I name more? and you come and once again screw over an uneasy peace. Everything that needed to be said was said already. -- Kuban kazak 23:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

So the thing is that my only claim is that I do not agree with your sources and your persistant attempts to push your opinion into the texts. Also, I do not like these wars. I would gladly work on Metro, or Antonov, but this is not something where I feel knowlegable. This is why I don't. One thing that I wanted to propose - to organize together, if you have time, better all material on Cossaks/Kazaks. At the moment it is "kasha". But only if we can solve our dispute now. And please - leave my post on "kubanization" You can rename if it is offencieve to you. But I think I have made reasonable statements.--Oleh Petriv 22:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I left it on Kuban Cossacks not on Golodomor (actually it is still there but it has been archived as the dispute over Golodomors pharases was, the above parties though was over, no need to reincarnate disputes) where it does not belong. --Kuban kazak 23:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Kazache, one more question: why names of metro stations in your article on Kyiv Metro are in Russian? In here here we see that originals are in Ukrainian. Do you mind if I change :)?--Oleh Petriv 23:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes I do mind. a) AndriyK already made a mess of it. b) Basically I know how to write templates and figures for the metro, as well as maybe draw diagrams. Of course it's a bit slow paced. But I project that by spring next year all the sections will be filled and all the station articles will be written. c) Also my idea of a megaportal exists and some common base must be used. d) Finally Kiev is Russophone and even during Soviet times stations were spelled in Russian, yet with Ukrainian twist. eg. Chervonarmeiskaya, Ploshchad Zhovtnevoi Revolutsii, Zhovtnevaya etc. In any case its better to compleate it first and then rename, as it will avoid the endless hastle of redirects, (AndriyKs experiment put me in a very awkward position when writing templates.) -- Kuban kazak 23:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Kazache, OK with Holodomor at the moment. I'm just sorry for Andrew Alexander trying to talk to your company. Your arguments on leaving Russian names in templates are nonsense. Templates do not suffer from this. This is why they are templates. I'm new here, but hot in WP in general, so do not put "lapsha" on my ears. Strange things are happening on this WP - whatever I would like to change - I can not because "I will make a mess". Any word will be deleted because "it does not conform" some standards. Those are set by Irpen and Kuban Kazak. Reasons vary, but the purpose one - to keep "the line of Party". Is that your personal Kuban' encyclopedia or what? Or Irpen's diary?--Oleh Petriv 23:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Well Are you ready to write templates and station articles, I mean detailed like I did on Pushkinskaya and Lubyanka? Tell you what before you start show me what you can do, with the Russian spellings, and if I am impressed fair enough go for it.

Otherwise you are asking for a revert war? And no need to accuse Irpen, he certainly did MUCH more than you, Andriy, Andrew Alexander or anyone else put together. If anything he is a respected author. -- Kuban kazak 00:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well Are you ready to write templates and station articles? I mean detailed like I did on Pushkinskaya, Lubyanka, Skhodnenskaya? Tell you what before you start show me what you can do, with the Russian spellings, and if I am impressed fair enough go for it. -- Kuban kazak 00:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Kazache, why would I write templates with Russian spellings?--Oleh Petriv 00:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Guys, please cool down. Oleh, especially you. Your "set by Irpen" remark was out of place here. I said earlier that I support Ukrainian names for the subway stations. Kiev being Russophone or not has little to do with how the stations should be called. There is no reason to call them by Russian names and I said that. Now, Kazak says that for whatever reason it would be easier for him to finish what he is doing and then change the names. It is fine with me. If you need Russian names out of here now and agree to take over from him the project of developing this and willing to make a commitment to it, just say so. If not, discuss with the author how and when is best to change names. Most people here are perceptible to civil communication. --Irpen 01:37, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

cool down, and refrain yourself from sarcastic remarks

What you did on Rydel's talk page is inacceptable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rydel#End_Russification_Propaganda.21.21.21.21). You should refrain yourself from making sarcastic remarks. Second I have to thank you for your info posted on my talk, but try to understand that by doing like this [[4]] you don't convince anybody. Bye bye. User:Bonaparte

Stubs

You did absolutely right thing with the Kremlin Wall, if you feel that after your edit an article is not a stub anymore (and the Kremlin Wall is certainly such a case), then just remove the tag. Another good idea is anouncing new articles and the major rewriting of the old ones on Portal:Russia/New article announcements, this way the interested people could read and check the article. Thanks for the good work abakharev 04:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Translit

Hi! I am not sure if you've seen it, but in case you missed it, there is a new initiative to unify conventions on transliteration of Cyrillics (not just Russian or Ukrainian, but all languages using Cyrillics as a writing base). It is located at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic). At this point there is no voting or discussion yet; we are merely documenting current usage. Eventually, however, a policy will be drafted, which hopefully will eliminate silly translit fights once and for all. Since you have different views on how Russian should be transliterated, it's would especially benefitial if you joined. Diversity of opinions is always good, especially in major undertakings such as this one. Take care and hope to see you there.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, perhaps this will help you in your future endeavors. Why have you reverted everything back again? If you have any new reasons, I'll gladly listen. So far all I've heard from you is "because I like it better that way". Is that a way to discuss things? You are not a little baby, I suppose, and I'd hate to babysit you for something as trivial as transliteration.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Hold on a second I was under the opinion that a drafted new version is being set out, so why not?

It's a work a progress. Meanwhile, no one canceled the policies which are already in place. When a new policy is adopted, then we'll make changes, if such changes are necessary.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 04:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

And for what f..g reason did you revert my massive factual expansion on those articles?-- Kuban kazak 00:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC) It does help to read them first, and why limit yourself to SL only? -- Kuban kazak 00:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about. Did you copypaste the old articles over the redirects and then added new material to them? I can see how I might have reverted you in this case. If that's what happened, let me know, I'll gladly restore your work at the appropriate title. As for why only SL—it really irks me that you continue to show disrespect to existing policies (they may not be perfect, but they are policies). I'll fix the rest when we finally settle these few. I can reason with you, can't I? Hopefully yes.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 04:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Have a read of how the articles were before you touched them I expanded the text of all three stations, removind that is DISRESPECT and VANDALISM. -- Kuban kazak 12:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Hardly disrespect (although it's sometimes hard to respect you when you use language such as above) and hardly vandalism (I did not replace the text with gibberish or nonsense after all). Perhaps "inattentiveness" is a better word? You also have not replied if the scenario I described above was what happened. Did you or did you not copypaste the content over the redirect and then added "massive factual" materials to the text? If so, this must be fixed regardless of what your intentions were—"copypaste is bad, you should not copypaste." If not, then I have no idea what I deleted and when and how it happened.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

No first I expanded it, then copypasted, saving in the process. Still it helps to read the text prior to reverting. However your revert on the main line article itself was a clear vandalism considering that no moves took place there. -- Kuban kazak 13:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Still not sure where you see "vandalism". If you expanded the article, saved it, and then copypasted to the new place, then my reverts would have simply restored the origianl, already expanded version, wouldn't they? You say that somehow this revert of mine also removed your expansions. Paint me confused, please. Or is this not what you are saying.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Sokolnicheskaya Line: Recentely I have expanded information about expantions, future plans etc. Then I replaced the list of stations with a schematic. All of this was done over a period of weeks. Yesterday you come along and revert EVERYTHING to what it was ages ago. Same with Chistiye Prudy same with Okhotniy Ryad. -- Kuban kazak 19:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Unfortunately, that's a side effect of the rollback button; it certainly was not my ill intent. When an editor makes consequent edits, the rollback button automatically reverts them back at once to the first version by a different editor. This is intended to simplify the reverts of vandalism (anons often vandalize a page more than once in a row), but in your case it had a completely undesired effect. I should have been more careful and should have checked if there were more edits rolled back than I had intended to. I can also see how this would piss you off—you probably are not aware of the admin rollback function, and, logically, it must have looked as if I purposefully reverted everything from your point of view. For that, I apologize. This, however, still does not justify your persistence in pushing your preferred spelling contrary to accepted conventions and copypaste moves.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Your knowledge is needed

Hello, Kuban kazak I was pleased to see your name on edits on many pages. My family is also from direct Cossack descent. However, I am currently the last remaining Cossack of my lineage and my knowledge of certain events is not as thorough as I wish it were. To get to the point, I would appreciate any help you could give me on a page I started The Betrayal of Cossacks at Lientz. I imagine you have better knowledge of this event and would appreciate any additions. Thank you.Jklin 10:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Hello. I have been asked to block you with respect to violating the three-revert rule on the article Holodomor. I have chosen not to do so and explained myself here. I recommend that you read through Wikipedia:Edit war to help guide you with what to do in order to not violate the 3RR in the future. -- JamesTeterenko 20:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your more rational approach, If you are interested this is what IMHO has led up to the edit war. On the 18th of december User Andrew Alexander adds the following [[5]] to an already highly controversial topic. Not only is it presented completely in an unrelated standalone way, the POV is EXTREAMELY skewed:

• The events of 1932-33 in Ukraine were seen by the Soviet Communist leaders as a kind of "final solution" against possible Ukrainian self-determination....One of the leaders of the Ukrainian Bolsheviks, Mykola Skrypnyk, witnessing the results of his cooperation with Moscow, shot himself in the summer of 1933. ...The Communist Party of Ukraine under the guidance of state-appointed mass murderers like Kaganovich, Kosior, Postyshev....

These facts presented in the most unwikipedian POV, they also messed up the whole structure of the article. With this in mind, I, Wojsyl, Irpen and Michael began discussing about neutralisation of these facts and of course put a POV tag (I think it was Irpen who did that although one can always check). I deleted the section and Wojsyl replaced the disputed section with a temporary heading:

• The events of artificial famine of 1932-33 were preceded by the onset of Soviet assault on Ukrainian national culture in their drive to prevent possible Ukrainian national self-determination.

Now Andrew Alexander come back restores the controversal material begins arguing for sources that say that these facts are not related. Although I have not questioned the relation as that is a POV regardless of how one looks at it, I have simply offered Andrew Alexander to start a new article Ukrainian Genocide and set that separately from Holodomor (the famine). He refused and continued to steer the conversation away from the topic with arguments for refrences etc. In the meantime I took it upon myself and rewrote his addition moved it to the existing portion where the facts that Andrew Alexander presented belong and actually not omitting a single fact, expanded the section AND integrated it into the article removing controvertial POV rubbish, making it once again consice. Andrew reverts everything including all my grammar corrections, all my refrence expansion... I revert this vandalism. AndriyK comes along (whom after his arbitration I don't see as a serious editor - have a look at some of the damage he cause to wiki) I revert telling him to bugger off, and well...edit war. -- Kuban kazak 22:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Dealing with trolls

Hi Kuban kazak, while AndriyK is again resorting to his deletions and other trollings, problably because of the slow pace of arbitration, I urge you to restrain yourself in responding to him. Thanks! --Irpen 21:25, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Да ты не волнуйся этот хлопчик долго не попрыгает. Кто он такой? Я в Ровно столько таких навидал когда туда приехал. Когда уезжал их раз в десять сократилось. И этот последний из магикан доиграеться... --Kuban kazak 23:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Whatever you think, still keep it civil. Some just look for opportunities to accuse opponents in lack of civility in POV disputes. No reason to give such editors even a remote chance to do it. --Irpen 07:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ukrainian language

По твоим вопросам о диалектах украинского языка скажу следующее. Начну из общих принципов. Безусловно, жизненный опыт, переживания, субъективное мнение о предмете, о котором собираешся писать в энциклопедии очень важны. Но все-же более важно что пишут об этом специалисты, которые изучают этот предмет уже более 100 лет. То что ты никогда не слышал о степном диалекте украинского языка, то это совершенно не означает, что его не существует. В любом учебнике по диалектам он довольно подробно описан, там же кубанский диалект относят к степным. Кстати, что ты имееш в виду под "Uses Russian grammar"? Разве на Кубани в наше время издаются газеты, журналы на кубанском диалекте, которые "Uses Russian grammar"? Я о таких не слышал, видел несколько песенников Кубанского казачьего хора с украинскими народными песнями, записанными буквами русского алфавита и все. Выглядит весьма забавно и непривычно. А вот в 20-х годах издавались и книги, и газеты, и журналы на украинском языке. Теперь о волынском и полесском диалектах. Их различие также довольно подробно описано в учебниках. Ты не уточнил откуда именно родом твоя жена (с какой части Ровенской области), но если побывать на севере Ровенской области (в Полесье) и на юге (Волынь), то различия в говорах будут весьма заметны, во всяком случае для носителя языка. И снова про "суржик". Его также не относят к диалектам, напрасно ты его присовокупил к слобожанским диалектам (с таким же успехом мог добавить и к гуцульским, там суржик также распространен). Посмотри определения суржика в статье Russian language, его к диалектам не относят. И, наконец, Galician Dialects - это тоже некорректное название, правильно называют эту группу в диалектологии юго-западными. Тем более ты туда включил области совершенно не "Galician" - Буковина, Закарпаття. Гуцулы тоже не только в Галичине живут, на и на Буковине и в Закарпатье. --Yakudza 17:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Во-первых Кубань- Никогда казаки на Украинском не писали. Даже в 20-х годах. Единственное что было это в сельских школах до 28-го учили правописи на нашей балачке. После 28-го до 88-го учили в школе на Краснодарском Русском. После 88-го снова учат на балачке. А вообще-то некоторые станицы уже успели перейти на правила Русского языка до 1918 (т.е. с ятьми и твердыми знаками). А вообще все зависит от станицы. Но обычно разница очень резка. Например если одна будет резко по-Русски произносить букву Г то соседния вообще ее заглушет (но так как в Украинском Г тут увы никто не произносет). Например один казак может сказать Город-Герой-Ки'иф, то другой например орад-ерой Харькаф. Но словарный запас почти весь из Русского например слова палац, прапор не улышешь ни где. А вот например Червоный цвет даже я предпочитаю Красному, а некоторые говорят алый. Девчина дает приимущество на девушкой. А вод девочка например дивченка (смотри не перепутай с девчёнкой). т.е. всевозможная каша получеться. Но главное с нами говори хоть на Русском хоть на Украинском (кроме Карпато-Галицких диалектов) все всё прекрасно поймут.

У меня есть некоторые сомненения, что в школах в советское время учили на краснодарском русском. Меня например не учили на донецком русском, а на обычном литературном русском языке. Также есть сомнения, что после 88-го учат на "балачке" и что есть на ней учебники, учебные программы и все такое прочее. Но я поспрашиваю у своих приятелей, они родовые кубанцы да и на Кубани бывают пару раз в году. По их рассказам в станицах со стариками можна поговорить на украинском языке (или балачке, как хотите так и называйте), а молодежь хотя украинский прекрасно понимает, но говорит в основном по-русски. Но подобная ситуация довольно часто встречается и в Украине. --Yakudza 21:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ты меня не понял, со стариками можно говорить хоть и на Болгарском (у меня прапрапрадед жену в 1878-ом привез оттуда, на Румынском, на Сербском (другие пра...прадеды)) тогда старались чтобы все корни люди знали. А учат конечно Русскому языку, но в сельских школах учители говорят на балачке, в советское время на Русском старались говорить, но большенство учителей местные были вот на Московском не получалось. Но Украинской письменности ни в одном архиве не найдешь. А ведь словарный запас меняеться, и сейчас он полнустью соотворим с современным Русским. Может если в 1800-х когда предки мои говорили на одинаковых языках с Галичанами (например) то двести лет изоляции от друг друга привели к совершенно двум разным языкам. Например сегодня спроси у самого старика который литературного Русского не понимает кто он и национальность и на коком языке - Рус'къи. Хотя я например спокойно могу понять мою жену и ее родителей ну там два слова пропущю незнакомых а так 95%. А вот во Львове как в Праге одно-два слово уловишь а остальное ну ни в какую. -- Kuban kazak 23:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

• Насчет Волыни то жена из Ровно где я сам пять лет прожил (правда 60% из этого времени потрачено было на путешествия по восточной России, Украины и Беларуссии). Мой опыт мне говорит следующие что если то на чем говорят в Ровно или Луцке считать Украинским а то на чем говорят скажем в Барановичах Беларусский. То если селами идти на север замечаеться Плавный переход с Украинского на Беларусский. Но такой резкой границы в языках на севере Ровенской области например оголо города Сарны или Ковеля я не помню. А вот например Тернопольская область, там можно прекрасно определить где шла бывшая Российско-Австрийчкая граница (хотя физически она и так в местах осталась) по говору села на севере и на юге. Тоже самое с Слабодянщиной. Если начать с Полтавы и поехать в Курск или Воронеж деревнями то тоже самое сам не заметешь как Украинская речь перешла в Русскую.--Kuban kazak 18:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Я с полесскими диалектами знаком слабо, на Полесье был всего один раз. Но разницу между полесским и более знакомым мне волынским говором, на котором говорят на юге Ровенской области, почувствовал сразу. Насчет плавного перехода между волынскими и полесскими говорами довольно правильно подметил - в литературе это явление тоже хорошо описано. Но еще раз хочу подчеркнуть, что только личных наблюдений совершенно мало для написания статей в энциклопедии. Да, и спасибо за исправление грамматических ошибок в моем английском. --Yakudza 21:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Да мне как-то без разницы если ты считаешь что между Волынью и Барановичами есть какой-то мидиум который особо выделяеться то пожалуста, может он и есть.--Kuban kazak 23:08, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Kuban kazak, your personal observations may be interesting, but they are not apropriate for the WP articles unless they were publised by a scientific journal or other equivalent publisher. Please stick at published facts.--AndriyK 20:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Again, some of your recent changes to the article are not supported by the sources you cited. Please check them again.--AndriyK 17:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Your edits of Holodomor

Dear Kuban kazak, please do not forget that your edits should be confirmed by creadible sources (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). Your recent edits look like your own opinion about discussions surounding Holodomor. If I am mistaking, please prove it by references.--AndriyK 20:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Examples of edits which require refrences. In fact I believe that in them not a single source was ommited. -- Kuban kazak 22:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

All the information you add should be confirmed by references.--AndriyK 11:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Name me an example where my edit is not refrenced. In fact all of my edits were simply a grammatical and structural, with a few refrenced facts (like Lev Kopelev) -- Kuban kazak 11:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

For example this (two paragraphs after "Line 69:"). Where the info is taken from?--AndriyK 11:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Your tezka's paragraphs. After they were NPOVed and restructured and moved to another place. And the other ones existed there before anyone edited them -- Kuban kazak 12:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Either you switch to a fair discussion, or it is useless to discuss anything with you. I mean the info you added. It is not supported by sources.--AndriyK 12:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Which info are you talking about? The church or the purges or the Kuban what exactly do you want to know? -- Kuban kazak 13:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I mean this (two paragraphs after "Line 69:"). They are not about the purges or the Kuban. Please read my messages carefully.--AndriyK 14:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If you mean these paragraphs:

• • Nowadays, the Holodomor issue is politicized within the framework of uneasy relations between Russia and Ukraine (and also between various regional and social groups within Ukraine). The anti-Russian factions in Ukraine have vested interest in advancing the interpretation that the Holodomor was a genocide, perpertrated by Russia-centric interests within the Soviet government. Russian political interests and their supporters in Ukraine have reasons to deny the deliberate character of the disaster and play down its scale, moreover one must remember that it was not only Ukranians that suffered.

• • Some criticize Ukrainian communities as using the term Holodomor, or sometimes Ukrainian Genocide, or even Ukrainian Holocaust, to appropriate the larger-scale tragedy of collectivization as their own national terror-famine, thus exploiting it for political purposes.

Then please note that they are not mine and I did not write them and existed there long before you or your tezka or me for that fact came to wiki. -- Kuban kazak 15:56, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It does not matter who wrote them. They look like original research, no reference is given. So restoring them would also contradict the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy.--AndriyK 17:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well considering that neither you or your tezka did not bother removing them I cannot be blamed for what is in the text. In my opinion there is nothing wrong with these paragraphs and their sources are mentioned elsewhere in the article. IMHO- a nice conclusion. But then seeing as you preatty much now own the article (and wikipedia) does it matter what other people say matter anymore. -- Kuban kazak 17:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Koniuchy massacre

Hello, take a look at this. It has no Russian/Lithuanian name, so I was not able to find any data on this outside wiki. I don't see how Moscow, incorrect Russian spellings, Naliboki are relevant to the subject. It seems that the only rationale for this article is the hatred for Soviet partisans. And, of course, the article should be moved to Koniuchy Incident. Finally, we should finally start articles on real massacres of that war, such as Katyn. --Ghirla | talk 10:10, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Uniate church

Hi, pardon my ignorance but what does it mean: Uniate church ceased to exist in 1839 in Russia. ? --Wojsyl ^(talk) 19:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I think I answered myself: In 1839 the Sinod of Polotsk agreed to terminate the uniate chruch and all its property transferred to Orthodox.. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 20:02, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Your recent change to Ukrainian language

Hello. I noticed you changed the figure for of ukrainophone pop. in Russia from 4+ mil to less than 2 mil., and I also noticed that you took the difference and subtracted it from the total number. So, now it says "According to Ethnologue[6], Ukrainian is spoken by 36,894,052...". So, if anyone follows that link, he or she will find the old figure, and not the corrected one. My point is that if you change the number, it can no longer say according to "...", because that's not the number Ethnologue provides. So either revert your edit, or remove the part citing Ethnologue, or find a better source. Thanks. Oh, that 4 mil number was from the same Ethnologue [7]. --Berkut 03:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well the source for language spoken in Russia is correct based on 2002 census result which I have given, other details are not mine. -- Kuban kazak 11:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

С Новым Годом!

. --Irpen

Спасибо! Тебя тоже с прошедшем и с наступающим старым Новым Годом!Kuban kazak 20:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Check: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alex Bakharev Take a look. It seems there that the raging russophobia of some is the only reason of the attempts to derail the candidacy of one of the most worthy people for the job. His unquestionably high ethics and decensy are so clear even from how he handles the criticism and shameless attacks at his own RfAdm even for those who don't know him his contributions to Wikipedia. --Irpen 19:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the good people who spent their valuable time time and effort working on my (failed) RfA voting. Especially for those who actually voted to support me :). Lets move on and make together our Wikipedia an even greater place abakharev 10:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR block on Belarusian language

I have blocked you for 3RR on Belarusian language. Clearly there is an edit war going on there that I don't understand; in view of your previous warning and apparent clear violation, you're getting a block. If you feel this is invalid, or there are some extreme extenuating circumstances, please email me or reply here: I'm watching. William M. Connolley 20:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC).

f one reads the edit history then they will find the following: Back on the 14 of december I put an edit adding a lot of information, slightly repharasing and NPOVing the articles [8]. [User:Rydel] comes along and reverts it compleately [9]. Not having it on my watchlist I return to the article 21st and keeping the two newer edits once again put my main edit content into the article and offer to Rydel discussion. Rydel reverts [10]. Having it on my watchlist I go to the talk page of the article [11] and on Rydel's talk page [12]. Amir80 comes along to the former's call and I explain my actions there to him [13]. Still not responding to my calls for a discussion Rydel reverts once more [14] But this time by reinserting some of the paragraphs which I rewrote not ommiting a single fact on top of mine, so we have now a heavy POV slanted paragraphs followed by a table (my original addition) followed by my NPOVed paragraphs causing the article to lose its conciseness and timeline. I revert, and warn Rydel on his talk page that next time I will report this to the WP:3RR [15] (remembering that he has not responded yet to my call for a discussion). A week later on the 27th and 28th two anon user restore Rydel's version and one puts on a talk page urging me to stop. [16], to which I responed [17]. Rydel the all of a sudden comes along, once again tries to revert his version which I restore (I suspect heavy sockpuppetry there). And respond on his talk page [18]. Until 10th of January everything is quiet, Then comes AndriyK a person known for his trolling habits (mind you his has a whole arbitration filed against him). Despite starting a section on the [talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABelarusian_language&diff=35432295&oldid=33519645] of the article and on his talk page. Then I carried out my threat and posted it on the admin noticeboard. Now I find myself blocked for going with wikipedia rules and removing controversial edits that received no discussion or explanation from the other party. I urge you to look into this. --Kuban kazak 21:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to review content. 3RR applies to anything except vandalism, and this wasn't reverting vandalism. Now I find myself blocked for going with wikipedia rules.... No: you find yourself blocked for breaking the rules. Also, starting a section entitled "for the trolls" [19] was a Bad Idea. Can you provide a diff to what you posted on the admin noticeboard., please? William M. Connolley 21:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC).

And is putting back controversial information without any explanation or reasoning not? despite my numerous appeals for discussion not vandalism? Although I understand that the wording "troll" can be seen as offensive, what I do not understand is how the behaivour which includes reverts w/o any discussion is not?

If you are having a content dispute (which clearly you are) then it needs to go through RFC/Mediation/RFA (well there is an RFA, which I presume relates). But during that process *you need to avoid breaking the rules*. William M. Connolley 21:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC).

Also have a look at the version which they (Andriy and Rydel are trying to restore):

One of the reasons for this situation is the minority status of Belarusian speakers in urban areas—traditional cultural centers. For example, according to the 1897 Imperial Russian census, in Belarusian towns of more than 50,000 residents, only 7.3% respondents reported Belarusian as their mother tongue (the criterion in defining nationality for the purposes of the census). This state of affairs greatly contributed to a perception that Belarusian is a "rural", "uneducated" language.

In the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century, very few people wrote in Belarusian, peasants being mostly illiterate, and urban dwellers preferring Russian, Polish or Yiddish. Still there existed a minor movement for returning to the Belarusian language; it was important in the circle of friends of Adam Mickiewicz.

Then my table

In all respects the urban language of Belarusian towns remained either Polish or Russian and in the same census towns exceeding 50000 had Belarusian speakers of less than a tenth. This state of affairs greatly contributed to a perception that Belarusian is a "rural", "uneducated" language.

However the census was a major brakethrough for the first steps of the Belarusian nation, as it clearely showed that by this point the population and the language was neither Polish nor Russian. In 1904 the Russian Imperial athorities legalised the language and Belarusian schools along with communities switched their language of communication. Initially only in Rural areas, but in cities all schools too were mandatory to include Belarusian language.

IMHO two paragraphs repeating each other. -- Kuban kazak 21:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Kazak. Just be careful with 3RR. Trolls are very inventive in provoking their opponents into real or not 3RR and they eagerly report them to get an upper hand if unsuspecting admin imposes a block without looking at the issue carefully on whether it was a vadalism revertion or other similar obvious action. If you need to revert for the forth time, still don't do it. Wait for what others will say and/or ask others to look at the issue. Finally, if the rv warring includes suspected sockpuppets, report them but still don't 3RR. The goal of 3RR is not to punish anyone but to prevent endless revert warring and there is no shame in having 3RR blocks in history. However, this can be extremely frustrating and to avoid the block just don't do it. regards, --Irpen 16:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Re block length. I see I forgot to tell you that it was only for one hour: my apologies. It was possible for you to find this out, but probably rather difficult to find the right page (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/block if you ever want to know again; hopefully not).

As to the mechanism: blocks are set for a fixed length of time, then remove themselves. To be "unblocked" has a special meaning: it means that someone has deliberately removed your block before its own automatic expiry.

William M. Connolley 22:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC).

Kuban!!

HA! Your name reminded me, there's a town called "New Kuban" not far from here. This is probably a strange question from your perspective, but do you know anything about it? There's about .015 sources of information of any recentness or soundness about it around here. Thanx 68.39.174.238 00:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC) PS. My IPs static, so any replies there will be found.

Where is here? Kuban is a territory in Russia starting from the coast of the black sea and moving inwards. If you are in the states then it was most likely founded by the emirge population after the revolution and civil war. --Kuban kazak 08:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Simon Dach

Please add the page to your watchlist. I'm tired of fighting such edits alone. Also, please archive your talk page: it takes ages to download it. --Ghirla | talk 09:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I was asked to come stop a revert war started by Space Cadet. He has been asked multiple times to explain his changes on the talk page and has failed to do so. Your entering into a revert war is not helping. Please either refrain from reverting, or explain on the talk page why you think those changes are correct. Thanks! KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

My error, I had mis-read that you had simply reverted. My apologies. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Revert warriors

Kazak, please cool off and don't feed trolls. --Irpen 23:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Also, please link to Little Russia when you use the term. --Irpen 23:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Little Russia I used when quoting 1897 census data, that is how it is presented there. --Kuban kazak 23:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Mate, something has to be done against them. I mean, have a look at the story of Belarusian language, it shows that they will stop at nothing to get their view across. Правда промазал Ардрюшка по полной, заблокировал меня, а я просто правду сказал...а потом наконец прочитал то что он пытался восстановить, какие-то глупые пункты выдвинул...моментально получив по шапке, уже неделю его не видно и не слышно... А остальные...Рыдель, Андрей Александрович, какой то Космонавт (Спейскадет), впечетления что вообще люди пришли сюда исключительно бредить обо всем возможным. I reckon that the WP should officially classify people, who are involved in trolling as trolls.

Yeah, cool off, try to use proper English when you're on my talk page, and I don't need no capsules, I travel through space on foot. Space Cadet 23:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Really? So what brings you to wiki...why not go to the moon. You will make a lot of people happy that way... :-) --Kuban kazak 23:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As for Little Russia, I don't mind the term being used properly. Moreover, it was me who created the Little Russia article. That it was used in census is enough reason to include it. OTOH the reader has to get the clue that the term is obsolete and linking to the term's article is an easy way to do it.

AndriyK is not going anywhere. From time to time he shows up in different articles to help some buddies in revert wars. Even if he gets blocked for a month, it won't make much difference. He will be back. Personally, I don't care whether he is blocked. If not him, someone else will be there to continue the crusade. Learn to live with trolls hanging around. It is regretable that a small group of users show up between articles just to revert and contributing nothing to the discussions. I doubt they read them at all. There is nothing we can do about it because those guys are not socks. Live with it and be patient. Stchastlivo, --Irpen 00:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Listen, please learn to better tolerate the fierce disagreements. Your opponents are not going anywhere and just remember that. Also, I understand that for you it is only natural to use Russian names for Ukrainian places but if some take offence in that, why make such a big deal about it? You could not to not expect that Ukrainian metro articles will end up under Ukrainian names. Why create them under the Russian ones? For me, it's no offence. I would just propose the move at talk and than move them, but for some it is. Why annoy people? Sorry, for unsolicited advice. I will try to help on Kiev Metro. --Irpen 02:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I did allow Oleg Petrov to move the articles to Ukrainian. I allowed Pecher to move Kharkov Metro to Kharkiv Metro. I find it easier to use Russian names because they are more familiar to me. But in articles I do not mind them being replaced with Ukrainian ones. --Kuban kazak 13:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Metro

Hi, thanks for the note on Metro portal. Please note that all the information in Wkipedia must be appropriately sourced. It would be nice to have sources for sentences like "Fruits, vegetables, flowers, CDs, books, clothing...can all be found there. It is also possible to find fast food cafes in some passages." before they can be restored.--Pecher 19:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:Kiosks

The reference that you provided actually talks of an attempt to remove vendors from the metro. In addition, mere personal observation is insufficient because any sources must be verifiable. Can you think of rewriting the passage so as to make it easier to support with evidence?--Pecher 22:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Vorsha

Thanx for adding those city emblems of Vorsha. This was a pretty nice addition. --rydel 01:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK RfAr closed

The AndriyK RfAr has been closed. Until by consensus he has agreed to a suitable and mutually agreed naming convention using the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conflict, AndriyK is prohibited from moving pages, or changing the content of articles which relate to Ukrainian names, especially those of historical interest. AndriyK is banned for one month from Wikipedia for creating irreversible page moves. Andrew Alexander, AndriyK, and MaryMaidan are warned to avoid copyright violations and to cooperate with the efforts of others to remove copyright violations. Ghirlandajo is warned to avoid incivility or personal attacks.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Транслитерация восточнославянских имен и названий

Заметил ваш коментарий на "Vote:Mikhail of Chernihiv - Mikhail of Chernigov", который очень хорошо осветил всю нелепость принятой американской "транслитерации" кириллицы. Напомню: там в ответ на сообщение какого-то вербованного украинского националиста вы перевели его "Mykhaylo of Chernighiv" как "Мыхаыло оф Чернигхив". Я пытаюсь начать всеобщее введение любого из вариантов ГОСТ-а как стандартный на Википедии - вы со мной? Если так - я уже поднял вопрос на российском портале и на страничке обсуждения правил транслита. Удачи! Kazak 17:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Please don't do that again

Mr.Kazak, one more comment like this and I'll start official anti-troll procedure against you. Regarding the fact that you permannently express shauvenistic POVs in the talk pages, that procedure is likely to be successfull. Ukrained 19:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Напугал... Do what? Revert trolling to versions which has been accepted by all but a minority of editors on wiki? Does that insult you? Because it was not directed against you for one thing, and second wether the arbitration would be successful or not you are forgeting that there are more Russian wikipedian editors. And about chauvism...have a look at yourself:

• I think that the that times prevailing terminology passage is misleading, contradicting to the article's context and offensive. You know, Russia was (and is) a totalitarian state without press and thought freedom.

Так что не ищи правду в других коли в тебе ее нету, а то тоже мне... --Kuban kazak 19:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to stress the following:

• Mr.Kazak made at least two insulting comments today, the other being directly against me
• In the post above Mr.kazak is threating to form a cabal or Russian editors to forge his future RfA. This is another serious breach of civility. BTW, I ask those RU editors who do not participate in such a conspiracy to react. Are there any such editors? Ukrained 20:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry is this adressed to me or to someone else, because otherwise I will remove this, since it is obviously meant to be read by a third person.

Kuban kazak, I agree with what's said above. Not denying your useful edits, I not once asked you to avoind inflammatory remarks. This contributes to the poisonous climate here. Thanks, --Irpen 20:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Well if someone here can't be manly enough to take simple jokes I cannot help but to assume that the chauvist, imperialist nomenclature justifies these people. В конце концов по упрямости они точно равны Русским, а по дуре тем более... А вот явная параноя и капризы подобные тому что написано выше действительно неспособность быть мужчинами. As a result = Little Russians. Если я этим рассуждением нажал на больную точку... ну извените, опять же не по-мужски ее подставлять.

I would like to stress that there are many capable Ukrainains here and because of this I will never think of saying anything against them. Prior to today I had a much higher opinion of Ukrained, personally very dissapointing.

Personally had Ukrained set a correct tone, he would have had an apology already, but that is yet another typical Russian habit of escalating conflicts over nothing. Had he given thought prior to writing none of this would have been written, but (yet again demonstrating a very bad Russian habit) he did not. --Kuban kazak 20:37, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Russian text above contains insulting generalizations regarding all Ukrainians. The translation may be provided within the RfA procedure. BTW, I guess erasing/archiving that text should be qualified as hiding evidence of Wikirules breaking. Ukrained

sigh...btw accusing me of being a Ukrainophobe is rediculous, my wife is Volynian and I have lived in Rovno for several years. --Kuban kazak 21:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Regardless of what is said above I do personally apologise to those who found this edit comment offensive, however I would like to see a much more manly attitude from some of the users.

Sincirely

-Kuban kazak 20:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, now then let's close the issue and get back to work. I posted the same message at Ukrained's page. From my experience, you can work with that editor. Just remind him from time to time to chill out a bit :) and remain cool yourself. There are so few editors contributing to Ukrainian wiki, that we have to treasure every non-trolling contributor, especially this one with the commitment to write rather than name-change. Peace everyone, --Irpen 20:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
P.S. he is not the only one that needs to be "reminded". Sometimes I could use a reminder too, perhaps. :) --Irpen 20:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Apologies rejected, the issue has just been opened very-very wide.

To Irpen: He can't work with me, . And let's decide can you. As I told Mr. Bakharev, you only have two alternatives. Ukrained 21:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Disappointed sigh...a sorry sight. --Kuban kazak 21:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Kuban kazak, check your email. --Irpen 21:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Figure captions

Thanks for adding and organizing the images at the Verkhovna Rada building articl. Do you really dislike more elaborate captions? I find it nice when the caption provides a ministory on its own and many books do that. My first experience was the caption to the Kiev Metro sign in UA lang article and I keep using it. Do you think we should not do it? Also, I sent you a link to an article about the Kiev Metro expansion plans. You are welcome to use it. --Irpen 22:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Images are supposed to only illustrate the text. There is no need to overexplain on the headings, unless it is something important. As for Kiev Metro, I must say I am so far behind on what I wanted to do, but I have not forgotten it. If you want to overtake me please feel free to do so.--Kuban kazak 22:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Новогириво

Please explain (again) why you are reverting contrary to the existing policy. If you don't like the policy, please go ahead and push to change it; you've been around long enough to know that blindly and sneakily reverting stuff out of stubborness and without explanations isn't the way to go. You also know about this place; please document all your grievances there. Reverting is not the solution to lack of desire to get into lengthy discussions—if you have no desire and/or time to discuss, then please simply comply until such time when you do.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:23, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

So, any chance I can get an answer from you any time soon? Frankly, these cossack revert wars with you are getting more than annoying. I simply fail to understand why you are refusing to accept one of the policies (matter not how small) and prefer to play on my nerves instead. I know you don't like the current scheme, I know it's not perfect, which is still not a good reason to push your own, especially one that's not any better anyway. I, for one, do not like more than one of current WP policies, but I am not sneakily circumventing them because I am not willing to get involved into a lengthy process of reverting them. Your reply will be kindly appreciated.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I put an answer up there already. -Kuban kazak 14:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ты мне не умничай, ты мне пальцем покажи :) Where is your answer? If you mean Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) (incl. talk), I don't see how any of your comment substantiate circumventing current policy. All I see is your disagreement with current practices with a couple of suggestions.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 20:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

На историю страницы посмотри...такое и ежу понятно :) -Kuban kazak 22:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Какой страницы — в этом-то вся проблема. Anyway, I put another comment of mine at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Proposal of another system of transliterating Russian for your reading pleasure.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 23:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

For your reading pleasure --Kuban kazak 23:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup, that's the one I replied to and which I do not believe to be a sufficient basis for your reverts. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 01:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And I added follow-ups...not sufficient basis? How about googling the two words and have my correct version outnumbering yours by a factor of 10?

I commented on your follow-up there. Still, you have not answered another question of mine: even though you disagree with the current translit scheme, you know perfectly well it's a part of the policy. Why do you keep breaking it? Why? Why? Why? I, for example, disagree with the policy of "common English use" and would very much like to use official names of the geographic locations instead of what's someone decided to be "common" (and I excersise my right to let my viewpoint be known whenever there is a poll or discussion on that matter), but you don't see me sneaking around covertly changing names of lesser-known places in hopes that I am not going to get caught. So, again, why do you think it's acceptable?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 16:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it is acceptable for two reasons:

1. From reading the discussion a number of protests are raised against standards and there seems to still be a lack of consensus.
2. Exceptions already exist with well known names like Kiev and Khrushchev (both lacking ys). Ok Kiev is an exception in its own right, but Russian places derived from that word are not, same metro station Kievskaya (as opposed to Kiyevskaya-Киыевская). --Kuban kazak 17:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Item number 2 in your list is actually an illustration of how the "common English use" takes precedence of any transliteration systems. While there is, unfortunately, no policy as to what is considered "common English use", it is generally regarded that one variant must be used overwhelmingly more often than another. A 1:100 or in some cases even 1:1,000 difference is not necessarily "overwhelming". For obscure subjects (and metro stations' names are definitely obscure, as well as the names of the cities with small & average populations, or the names of the people who are known in narrow circles of the specialists) it is preferrable to use a consistent naming scheme rather than use a small-scale usage margin as a guideline. The reasons for that are 1) consistency is better than lack thereof; and 2) the smaller the difference margin, the more abundant counter-examples.

Well in that case shouldn't we apply a translit system which matches a more common english use? --Kuban kazak 10:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

To do that, it needs to be documented and accepted by the community (both Wikipedia's and academic). So far we have you pushing it with no other active supporters in sight, and I am yet to see you produce any documentation. How do you expect you system to be used if no one except you knows what it is?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the number 1, the protests were the main reason why something like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic) was even started. The Wikipedia way to change something is to 1) note what's wrong; 2) complain about it; 3) consider alternatives; 4) present alternatives to the public; 4) achieve public consensus; 5) accept the change and formalize it as a guideline or a policy; and 6) make changes to conform to the new policy. We are currently at step #3: documenting current usage practices and considering alternatives. I bring it to your attention that actually making changes is way down at #6, and it is especially questionnable that you rush to perform that step when we are still so early in the process and when the consensus is clearly lacking regarding your proposal as well. Perhaps it would help if in your mind you put your proposed change against me as a complaining person, and start thinking back from step #1. Making changes before a consensus is reached is bad faith and is not Wikipedia way. Please think about it. This is the quintessential point of what I was attempting to make you understand all along.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 19:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Vytautas

Glad you are a Russian patriot and that you are proud of it. Hopefully you are not a chauvinist as well. Have met a few of them lately on Wikipedia. Regarding Vytautas in the Smolensk article, my changes were to correct some grammatical flaws and to have greater consistency in the English version of Wikipedia, nothing more. Since you are an English User 5, you need to improve your usage of THE and other parts of speech in English known as ARTICLES of SPEECH. The part in the article "...the Vitaut", is confusing and gramatically incorrect (even though it links to the English article Vytautas). p.s. to "Lithuanianize" some aspects of this encyclopeadia is wrong, and occasionally needs to be questioned. Just as long as you understand that sometimes it is good and necessary too. Dr. Dan 18:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Look I am not against using different names for links, but I think where appropriate a name that is relevant to the geopolitical context should be given. No offense in any case. --Kuban kazak 21:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No offense taken, but I don't understand what you are trying to say, or telling me, in your remarks, as they are stated above. Especially, in regards to Vytautas and the article about Smolensk. Dr. Dan 13:57, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Samara metro

Did something go wrong? Virtually the same text now appears twice in the article, the second (chronologically the first) version being written in very awkward English, if don't mind me saying so... Xyboi 02:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for that. :) -Kuban kazak 12:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Football AID 12 February - 18 February

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

FC Dynamo Kyiv has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Regarding comment on Wikipedia:TfD

Hi Kuban kazak. I saw your vote on the Russian copyright templates for deletion discussion, and I had a few comments. Please support your votes with comments relevant to the discussion, and please be more careful to observe WP:CIVIL.

Also, public domain images whose source website does not exist anymore don't have to be deleted. You can change the link to point at an archived version on The Internet Wayback Machine if one exists, or you could explain that the site is no longer around. If people assume good faith, they should trust you that the source you provided was authentic. More information is always better in these cases.

Finally, would you consider putting translations of non-English comments you've made on your talk page? This is only a polite request. I was just curious what was said in some of the above discussions, and can't understand them. Thanks! ~MDD4696 23:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Metro mass deletion

Sorry about the whole "deletion thing." It was a complete accident. I was editing something (I actually forget what it was at the moment, something about extensions) and when I saved it, the Metro page came back with only "Extension Plans." I have absolutely no idea why. There were a lot of messages like "fatal error" but I think those are server problems as editing was locked for a while today. I'm really sorry about it.Geoking66 00:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)^talk

no prob. -Kuban kazak 01:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Kiev metro

you wrote: "I think I have used all of the material you gave me (Take a good look at recent developments and future plans for each line), but I seemed to lost the original message, can you re-post it, preferably here."

Sorry, what original message? Could you remind me? I forgot already :(. BTW, you may get MORE enemies at wiki for that ribbon at your talk. I just thought I mention it to you so that you reconsider. For exactly this reason I don't carry an Orange Ribbon on my userpage. But this is up to you of course. Reasonable people can get along with each other anyway. --Irpen 01:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey if people put free Ichkeria ribbons regardless of thousands of Russians murdered by the Chechens in 1990-1994, how can supporting a party which currentely leads all opinions (and has absoloute majority in areas not far from where I live) is commiting a crime? Now you sent me an e-mail which had a file attached to it about the expansion of the system which I lost by accident. I was wondering if you can re-publish it here.--Kuban kazak 02:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

People who put Ichkreia ribbons are also not helping themsleves to make more wikifriends by doing so. You are free to support Party of Regions, of course. I was simply commenting on the ribbon being inflammatory. I don't care, but some of our common friends may get extra fervent and I want to avoid such things. Anyway, it is up to you. As for the article I sent you earleir, it was problably this: http://www.korrespondent.net/main/144051 --Irpen 02:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

My support is not to Party of Regions actually, my support is to those Ukrainians who percieve to defend their century-old ties with us, who percieve to defend their home language, their culture and their religion, and who reject the values of traditions that only three oblasts share be administered nationwide. Party of regions simply has the closest to what is defending those claims, and currentely has the majority of support of Ukraine, I simply answer to those people who live where we once lived and show my solidarity to their choice. Politically I have never voted in any election, but my Volynian wife...these people.

Anyway I could not care less what other people think about someone supporting the majority of the country's population anyhow cheers for the article, what do you think of my improvements? If all goes well the first articles about the stations should appear within a week. --Kuban kazak 02:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Okhotny Ryad/Ploshchad Revolyutsii

I noticed that you removed the Okhotny Ryad/Ploshchad Revolyutsii transfer from the Sokolnicheskaya Line and Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya Line templates. Although it is true that no direct transfer exists between these two stations, passengers are nevertheless able to transfer from one to the other via Teatralnaya so I feel the current versions of the templates are misleading. The stations are not directly connected, but they are part of the same transfer complex and should be shown as such in the templates. The stations' articles should mention that they are not directly connected to each other, of course, but the transfer should still be shown in the templates since it is possible to transfer from one to the other. Camerafiend 03:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless these transfers are not even announced in trains, which is why they go. We had lengthy discussion on ru:wikipedia about them and ended with majority being against them mentioning. The station articles must mention them however. Also please stick with British spelling for convention with rest of article. Thanks for the additions though. --Kuban kazak 09:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because it is not announced does not mean it does not exist. I still think it is misleading to leave this transfer off the templates, regardless of the consensus on ru:wikipedia. Passengers can walk from one station to the other without leaving the Metro, which by any standard should be considered a transfer. As for British spelling, I do try to use it when I remember to, for the sake of consistency. I'm not accustomed to British spelling though, which is why I miss things a lot of the time. Camerafiend 02:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not misleading which is why these stations are mentioned in the station articles themselves and they are part of the metro which is why monorail is not even mentioned in the article. Sorry if you want a vote I can invite ru wikipedian users (of whom majority live in Moscow and use these transfers) to express their opinion here. --Kuban kazak 13:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You're not even making sense anymore. "They are part of the metro"... therefore they should be omitted? I have provided concrete reasons why the transfer should be included. You haven't provided any justification for omitting it except an appeal to a "majority" from ru wikipedia and the fact that it is not announced on trains, which does not mean it does not exist. I have used this transfer and can verify that it does in fact exist. If you can't back up your argument, by all means feel free to find someone who can. Camerafiend 01:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please also explain your stubborness regarding transliteration. I am yet to hear your reply to the discussion above. None of the points you made so far make much sense. I really do not see you acting in good faith here, which is too bad because you seem otherwise to be a valuable contributor.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 03:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

sigh.

Is this all you have to say? You insist on making changes right away, so, please, be answering the questions you are asked. Can I expect at least that little from you?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you believe my actions to be vandalism (as your edit summary suggests), I urge you to put your actions where your mouth is and report me immediately. Vandalism is a serious offense, all the more so when an admin is vandalizing; it should not go unpunished.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 04:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for a reply, by the way.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summary

Also, regarding this suggestion of yours. Ukrainian, eh? And you are bloody serious, I assume? And if I will want to adopt Belorusian for the same purpose, who's going to stop me? You? But I’ll make exact same points you did.

Seriously, you do realize that Ukrainian is a different language governed by different rules, don't you? What's more, if you insist on using their system (called "Ukrainian National transliteration", by the way) for Russian names, you'd better wait until the Ukrainian government comes up with a "Ukrainian National transliteration of Russian", at which point I'll be more than happy to accept it as an alternative.

Now, you want me to start arguing for removing -yi for Ukrainian. Unfortunately, I cannot, and I see no reason why I should. You see, they use a real system, one that has a name, is well-documented and used by both government bodies and in academic circles. What you use for Russian is your wishful thinking based on observations. Perhaps Ukrainian names would indeed be better with a different system, but I don't know because my knowledge of Ukrainian is limited and I may not know what works best for them. Russian GOST would, of course, be somewhat equivalent to their system (both documentation-wise and usage-wise), but you already heard what Anglophones have to say about GOST—names transliterated with GOST make little sense to them. There is still nothing preventing you from offering that solution to the community, but for crying out loud, for umpteenth time I am trying to tell you that in order to make a change you need to propose it first and have it accepted. Current system may very well be challenged by you and some other people, but it was accepted at some time in the past. If you want to unseat it, please follow the procedures, OK? Otherwise I will regretfully have to seek mediation, because this all is going nowhere. If you insist on wasting my time explaining you obvious things which you ignore anyway, so be it.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Well adopting the equivelant of Belarusian lacinka would be alright, since it does really offer a real alternative to any translit system, and was historically used for Russian translits including metro. Now Ukrainian maybe a different language but its phonetics and sounds are identical to Russian as is 95% of its alphabet (with exception of Ї and Г (Ґ for G) and different letters for identical sounds: И/Ы and I/И; Є/Э) apart from those few letters identical translit systems can safetly be applied. Oh and STOP BEING SO HYPOCRITICAL of EVERYTHING I DO!!! Надоел уже. --Kuban kazak 13:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

So, I, who am merely trying to enforce a current convention or at least to make you understand that in order to have it changed (or at least introduce exceptions for metro stations, if you so wish) you actually have to work, am being hypocrytical, but you, who is simply reverting back to an invented system that you can't even document, are not? I am sorry, but I don't see how I can reason with you any further. I will be filing a mediation request against you shortly. Let others judge us.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A mediation request has been filed

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee in regard to issues surrounding Romanization of the Russian language. Mediation Committee procedure requires that all parties to a mediation be notified of the meditaion, and indicate an agreement to mediate within fourteen days. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Romanization of the Russian language, and indicate your agreement or refusal to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation or contact a member of the Mediation Committee.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am really sorry that I had to do it, but I take Wikipedia policies quite seriously and, as an administrator, have a duty to enforce them.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, have it your way, but do not blame me for not expressing my opinions on the translit section for wiki. I have made them 100% clear there, and will accelarate the slow pace of progress there with this mediation, so actually I am sort of grateful. --Kuban kazak 13:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. Please accept this mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Romanization of the Russian language; it will not be considered by the Mediation Committee unless you indicate your agreement in the "Parties' agreement to mediate" section. You may also need to restate your views or provide relevant diffs to a mediator once the case is accepted. Thank you.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:42, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Moscow Metro

What do you think? --Ghirla | talk 08:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Bakharev is wrong.--Kuban kazak 13:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

So, the phrasing used in Moscow article is correct? --Ghirla | talk 15:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much...-Kuban kazak 13:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

№

By the way, what's your grudge against the number sign (#)? I would think you know that "№" is not used in the English language.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 01:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is used. -Kuban kazak 09:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Bloody British trying to be different again :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Oi don't insult the source of english language you yankeestanis :)-Kuban kazak 13:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

At least we are evolving :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 13:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

cetrain type of jokes

Slushay, tormozi! Some people take your jokes seriously. This is not the first time I am asking you to not aggravate some short-tempered guys here. Some people are sensitive to certain things and don't expect any sense of humor from them. Just do some editing, all right? I will be glad to help. For the user armed with certian attitude, it is tempting to extrapolate your comments (as you saw already), and bring allegations of conspiracies and it's time-consuming every time to prove that black is black and white is white to someone whose ability to see clearly is impaired by emotions. As for strangers, they just come by accidentally and notice "Oh! Controversy! Bad, I don't like controversies!"

Irpen, ya ne protiv ostanovitsya, and before yesterday though that someone did cool down, however what is happening here is not a case of jokes or beer discussions; I am actually myself considering launching a complaint because being insulted on a daily basis is not why I came here to do. This is a direct violation of WP rules and the user in question accuses me of things that he is performing on a daily basis. --Kuban Cossack 00:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't start the "What did I do?" thing! It is easy to get you lose your temper over certain things and same applies to others. Also, please no "manhood" stuff at talk pages. Let's reserve this for beer conversations. If you want to make jokes about someone, please use user:Irpen for that :). That said, I will get to your Crimean article when I have time but I can't promise how soon. Take it easy! --Irpen 00:01, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I added lnks to consitituion btw on Crimea. --Kuban Cossack 00:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Kazak! Vsyo! Hvatit! Nu poslushay menya hot' raz! -Vsyo, brek! --Irpen 16:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, pls see my email! --Irpen 16:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

You first

Perhaps you would like to explain why you changed sourced information from the same article earlier, and then disregarded the neutral point of view policy at the same time. Gentgeen 22:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

By all means. First of all information on how the thousands of Belarusians were forced into the Unia can be easily found. Second the persectution of Belarusian Language during the interbellum Poland is also a sourced fact. Finally the numbers of how many Belarusians willfully returned to Orthodoxy are also 100% genuine. Why did you remove them, that is another question. Finally the Uniate church was terminated from the inside via efforts of Bishop Joseph Semashko. --Kuban Cossack 23:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Greetings,

You have requested mediation at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Romanization of the Russian language. The chair of the committee has asked if I'd take the case. This would be my first case since joining the Mediation Committee, however I have been an editor for over a year and an administrator for about seven months. I have no knowledge or opinion of this matter, shall be fair to both sides. Please respond here to let me know if I am acceptable as a mediator. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I accept, thank you. --Kuban Cossack 23:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Good. Could you please send me an email, using the link from my user page? In the email I'd like you to briefly outline your issues. Then I'd like you to briefly outline the issues of the other party, describing them as you believe the other party sees them. Lastly, please briefly decribe the outcome that we should work towards. Thanks, -Will Beback 09:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If you've sent me an email I haven't received it. This is an important step in mediation. Your attention is appreciated. Please let me know if there is any problem. Cheers, -Will Beback 09:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

3rr on Belarusian Byzantine Catholic Church

I've blocked you [20] for WP:3R on Belarusian Byzantine Catholic Church. You clearly did this hastily, or you wouldn't have made edits like [21] or [22].

On 3rr, you said Moreover the 4th and 5th reverts if you compare with the first three third are not exactly the same, in fact I took note of the comments and attempted to NPOV the article with the 4th... please slow down. Read WP:3RR carefully if you're going to skate this close to the line. Oh, and don't label content disputes as "reverting vandalism".

William M. Connolley 20:03, 20 February 2006 (UTC).

Acutally if one looks at history, then a similar story is painted as the previous case. On the 22 January I edited the page, expanded it and added lots of sourced material ([23]) . For nearly a month no-one has approached the article. On the 18th of February a an anon reverted all of my additions with no explanation whatsover [24] . As this page was on my watchlist, I reverted it for the anon offered no explanation and refused to discuss content. On the 19th Gengeen comes along, again no discussion, no explanation [25] . Suspecting heavy sockpuppetry I reverted it once again. The history which you link to is of accidentally rollbacking the wrong version [26], which I corrected immeidately [27]. Once again the same anon reverted my version [28] claiming that the sourced material is wrong and dubious (fair enough but according to the WP:Assume good faith rules it is worth to discuss these issues prior to reverting and since the opposite party(s) offered none explanation whatsoever I even started a talk page aimed to discuss these issues. [29].

Me and Gentgeen begin discussing (I must say the tone that he set there reminds me of anything but the WP:Assume good faith rules which the user claims to adhere to). Simultaneously I revert the article [30] After Gengeen's 2nd revert [31] and with already quite a few issues on the discussion page raised. My 4th edit was an attempt to NPOV the article and disqulifies it to be a revert (compare with the third [32]) Gentgeen reverts in quite a rood fashion [33] That is a third revert btw so if anything then I would expect him to also share the 24 hour block if I got blocked for three reverts. --Kuban Cossack 20:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I also would like to ask you, to check wether User:Gentgeen's IP is by any chance similar to №84.22.47.114--Kuban Cossack 20:37, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

In my judgement, you have 4 reverts; Gentgeen has 3. 3 isn't good, but it doesn't trigger the rule. If you're prepared to accept WP:3RR and accept that in future "revert" has quite a broad definition, I'll unblock you. Gentgeen is an admin, so if he is using IP socks he is being very naughty; but I will put a request on the checkuser page. William M. Connolley 21:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well it depends if you mean revert to the same version then its 3 and 1. If its purely reverts regardless what to than 4. Anyway I do accept the rules, but I must say your admin Gentgeen should show a more considerate and set a better example if one reads the talk page on that article. Actually I was going to propose a mediation...--Kuban Cossack 22:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping for something a bit more unequivocal, but I shall take a risk and unblock you. *Please* use this wisely; Irpen comment is very sensible all round. William M. Connolley 23:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC).

No need to worry, I do agree with everything that Irpen has said myself. Thank you very much.--Kuban Cossack 23:38, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You should now be unblocked. Please make a quick test edit and reply here if you're not unblocked, cos I'm just off to bed... William M. Connolley 23:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

And are now even less blocked :-) William M. Connolley 23:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Works perfectely, thank you again...Good night. --Kuban Cossack 23:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry: I promised to list it on checkuser, but on reflection I'm not going to: the IP 84.22.47.114 resolves [34] to Kosovo/Pristina; Gentgeen is in California; there is no point getting checkuser; there is a backlog there. The page is Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser if you ever need to ask. Not just admins can make the check. William M. Connolley 22:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC).

Kazak, let me add my 2 cents. For now, I take no position in your dispute with Genteen. I didn't read the details of the dispute. I also haven't met Genteen in my life and I would be reluctant to make my judgement about an editor based on a single incident. That said, please keep the 3RR firmly in mind. There are even some trollish users whose tactic is specifically to provoke their opponents whom they consider "adversaries" into three revert violation and promptly report them at 3RR boards. Many admins who stop by at the 3RR board don't have time to study the complaint with the due diligence and impose a block, causing exactly the aggravation that was an intent of the provocateur. I did not study the case specifically, I am not saying that Genteen was acting maliciously and I make no judgement amount William's decision to impose a block. I simply advise you to not ever approach the 3RR and, instead, ask others to look at the article. Reread the WP:3RR page. Finally, please take the block lightly. 3RR is in no way a "punishment" of any kind and is implemented simply to stop an edit war rather than sanction the user. Cheers, --Irpen 22:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Grozny

No, it's NOT "confirmed fact", and "genocide" is not just a criminals at work (criminals killed, raped and robbed people also at Moscow, and no one says of "genocide" in Moscow - check out definition of genocide), while exodus of Russians from elsewhere of ex-Soviet Union to Russia was and still is commonplace (and now even encouraged by the Russian governemnt, who counts 20 million ethnic Russians to return to their homeland) - even if they're often treated as an "illegal aliens" with practically no rights.

Also there are still some ethnic Russians in Grozny, with no help from the government (even their church bombed by Russian aircrafat in 1995 was still in ruins when I heard last time). Most of civilians who died in 1994-96 and many of these who died in the second war were ethnic Russians, too poor or old to move elsewhere and with no families in a villages to stay there (like how many of their Chechen neighbors did) and the heaviest devastation was in the ethnic Russian majority downtown.

So, please don't push anything what is not even a Russian government's official propaganda. Thank you. And as we are talking about this, check out situation of Russians in for example "friendly" Turkmenistan. --Kocoum 10:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"Genocide"

In fact, the only episode of real genocide in XXth century Chechnya happened in 1994, when at result of the deportation by NKVD 1/3 to half of the entire Chechen population died during 2-day brutal round-up, transport in an Auschwitz-style trains, or a first years in exile.

No single Chechen was allowed to remain in their homeland, even Communist party dignitaries went on the last train - the only difference a passeneger one. Even their cemeteries, books and other cultural heritage was destroyed (additional practice called cultural genocide). Obviously it was aimed at destroying Chechen nation as a whole (and several others, because it wasn't the only wholesale deportation of '40s - several other nations were also targetted).

Another would be part of the Stalin's war on "kulaks" in case of Terek Cossacks in 1930s (forced famine), but it's usually taken in context of the extended Ukrainian genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kocoum (talk • contribs)

"disturbance"

May I suggest you add WP:RCU to your watchlist and if your friend has guts to leave a checkuser request there, please promptly post a follow up note that you don't object. Because even an invoking of m:Checkuser is somewhat a privacy intrusion (the access is given only to less than a dozen people), your no objection may speed things up removing an obstacle that even an investigation requires some merit in the case to begin with. --Irpen 17:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)