User talk:Kuban kazak

Welcome, if you are here about my Metro contributions please use this talk page.

If you are looking for an old topic and can't find one, please check the 2005 and winter or spring 2006 archives

(B) K/Ch (Uprising)

As this may be a controversial issue, I have started a discussion at Talk:Khmelnytskyi_Uprising#Name_-_move_proposed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

You and Elk Salmon appear to have a major edit war. Georgia guy 16:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Medal

Тут у меня дырка в голове и вспомнить никак не могу: Как называлась та медаль котороя выдавалась всем участникам войны? Ну знаешь, которую справа вверху носили, на подвеске (именно подвеске, а не колодке) и с чуваком на ней... Спасибки... user:Grafikm fr

"Za Pobedu nad Germaniey"? --Irpen 22:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Moscow Metro

Done. Please let me know when you are in agreement so the article can be unprotected.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 00:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Redirs

As long as there are no objections, it is no problem. Just list redirs that need fixing on my talk page, and I'll take care of them tomorrow.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes

don't be ridiculous, the point of an infobox isn't to introduce new material into the article, it's to present quick facts from the text in an easy-to-view manner. See for example BART. No one seems to have a problem with the infobox there, even though a lot of its info is in the article itself. Also look at Vaquita. Quit whining! As for the line itself, having the line map on the LEFT is UGLY regardless of the infobox, if you don't believe me, I can give you a screenshot. I wish there was a WP policy saying when it's ok to use infoboxes, alas no. lensovet 16:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Presentely the infobox you put in is DULL and incorrect.:

1. E type trains have been retired
2. The rest of the rolling stock are simply modifications of that train that have been redesigned interiorally and have long names, it is alright to put that in the heading but to have that in an infobox is extreamely misleading
3. Why have length in miles?
4. Anybody can see the colour from the template, they are not blind (colourblind) and this is not wikitravel.
5. That leaves a pointless infobox which has to go, as you say there is no rule on keeping them. --Kuban Cossack 09:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

First of all - i have absolutely agree with Lensovet. Infoboxes are for quick providing of facts without scrolling and reading of article. Those are should be.

1. E type still in use and it doesn't matter if other are modifications. This is quick list with train types. It is much faster to check infobox then reading all history in rolling stock section.

2. Mile is very popular measure of distance among english speaking countries, and not only.

3. Color is just header for infobox and making it just a bit more pleasure for an eye.

Elk Salmon 16:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

1. Not on APL, last were retired in 2004. Only FL continues to use E type but these will go in 2007, when APL takes over its end and the Rusich trains take over its main stock.
2. Where? Whole of Europe uses metric units, whole of Asia uses metric units, even South America does. And certainly MOSCOW knows of no imeperial units. What's next? Versts?...
3. That is useless. --Kuban Cossack 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

first off, the specific content of the infobox can be changed; that is not the issue here. what is the issue is the layout of the article. in addition, this map (as are all the other maps on the other lines) does NOT work. Please take a look at some lines in other parts of the world, such as LACMTA_Gold_Line, Dublin/Pleasanton_-_SFO/Millbrae_Line. If you notice, the lines themselves have no maps - they have lists and/or tables. This makes more sense. Then, when you go to a station, such as Dublin/Pleasanton, you get a box at the bottom of the page that shows you the next and previous stations. Click through them. You'll notice that at transfer stations, this box will have all the lines that stop at it listed, allowing the viewer to see easily that the station is a transfer point. Re: miles, it should have both miles and km. That's a simple conversion and is in no way a valid rationale for removing the infobox. lensovet 21:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Lensovet, why do we have to follow other examples and not make our own? Moscow Metro is unquestionably the most beutiful system in the world. So why do we have to adopt Dublin's template, when we should set the example. Finally in Dublin you can't immediately get through to the station a few stops away directely from the station article you are on. Remember in west Metro is but a transport system, in my country it is a gateway to the city.

The template that you refer to is meant to be a guide for easily selecting the station articles and not as a geographical map (which can also indeed be useful, but presentely none is drawn). Currentely there is not too much text needed to explain the history (for which table is alright, as for name changes). Transfer table can go, but I would keep it, as it is quite useful in navigation. The only other one is future extensions. That is indeed useful and should be enchanced with images. However I do not share your view on problems with the template of the line. Sorry but you'll have to do better to argue your point through. --Kuban Cossack 14:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for proving my own point - The template that you reffer to is meant to be a guide for easy seleceting the station articles and not as a geographical map - and that's why it doesn't need to have the form of a line - it can be a table. That's all I'm saying. then this new table will incorporate info from the transfers table, and instead of having some weird thing going down the left side (can you explain why? This gets in the way of the table of contents and doesn't do much else) and a separate table for transfers, we have one easy-to-use regular table. Care to argue your point? Also, thank you very much for changing the topic. I never brought up any tables in the article - only the line template. lensovet 17:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

However visually it is MUCH more pleasent than just a list, moreover it shows closed sections, branches, extensions and of course transfers to other lines. The plan is similar to what you get inside trains of that line. Now going down left hand side is simply a nice layout. If it gets in the way change your browser font settings. (actually give me a screenshot of what you see and paste it here [1]). Now for transfers, there is a catch. Most of the stations are done in different articles (with exception of cross platfrom ones). Look at the size of Biblioteka Imeni Lenina, Aleksandrovskiy Sad, Arbatskaya (Arbatsko-Pokrovskaya) and add on to the text Borovitskaya, now imagine merging them into one article. -- :(. Finally the present layout was adopted by ru-wiki and other wikis as well, so en-wiki is by far not the first to have them. I think there is a reason of convinience involved in such a pattern. --Kuban Cossack 22:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

There's no need for a merge - just list the stations as transfers. Also you can include closed sections, branches, extensions and of course transfers to other lines in a table. My point is that this layout does not work and font sizes have nothing to do with it. My screen resolution is 1280x854, which is wider than the majority of the world. Yes, it is a little prettier. But the overall layout is ugly as hell, and we can do this way more elegantly with just one table instead of three tables and a long map.lensovet 23:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Exactly we agree that presentely the versions look prettier. So what is the issue here, Ok, we can cut on the tables, although IMO there is nothing wrong with them. As before I fail to see any valid points, and as for elegancy, sorry but I fail to pick up on that. --Kuban Cossack 09:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Also congrats on dissing the west when there is absolutely no need or reason to do so.

Sorry now its your time to explain your english. --Kuban Cossack 22:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I present to you a definition and semantic relations

OK, and in what ways do you see me follow that definition, that is what I am asking. --Kuban Cossack 09:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Belarusian xlit

Modified how? Or was that just a copy-paste from Russian? Just making sure...—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration

An arbitration request involving you has been filed.--AndriyK 19:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Please note that your cooments like [this] or [this] are in variance with WP:Civility.--Mbuk 21:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree but as is endless revert warring and tag reinsertion of settled disputes. --Kuban Cossack 11:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I moved your message from the talk of Russian architecture to the user talk of AndriyK. The´article talk pages are reserved to discuss the articles. Personal discussions should be restricted to the user talk pages. Keep the article talk pages free from personal accusations.--Mbuk 21:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Kiev metro: suggestions

I think the entire issue (both about how to code the template and the layout problems) could be solve by going an alternate route.

Most templates listing train stations use a footer format (see for example {{MTL Metro Green}} of the Montreal Metro, {{MBTA}} of the MBTA,or the succesion box used for London Underground stations). Moving the template to the bottom of the page frees nearly 300x wide of screenspace and makes the image size/placement issue at Vyrlytsia (Kiev Metro) (which you'llfind explained on its respective talk page) moot. What do you say? Circeus 17:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, presentely I like the layout much more than the footer, it looks nice when viewed with standarard equipment. --Kuban Cossack 18:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

makes the image size/placement issue at Vyrlytsia (Kiev Metro) moot – no, he has his ideas about how rapid transit articles should be done, and he's made it his duty, apparently, to make sure that his way is the only way. for now i'm just glad that he's restricted himself to CIS systems. :) lensovet 02:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid WP:NPA on my talk page, if you have a phobia against me, file a mediation/RfC or even an arbitration if you want to. Finally I am not saying my way is perfect but presentely I do not see advantages of the alternatives that have been presented as of yet. --Kuban Cossack 20:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

please look up the meaning of the word phobia, if i had a phobia of you i wouldn't be commenting on your talk page. my point is that no amount of evidence presented will ever be enough for you to see any advantages of any alternatives. end of story. lensovet 22:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but if there were STRONG advantages in an alternative I would have considered, so far the alternative is NOT convincing. --Kuban Cossack 23:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, there!

I would like to ask you that if you may bring a convenient and "indecent" translation for the letter. Ciao! --Behemoth 17:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I will, do not promise immediate action, but I shall. --Kuban Cossack 20:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Important

Please vote: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2006 June 28#Template:POV-tag --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

TfD

You're a good user. I believe you've had problems with some of the same disruptive editors as I've encountered. On that note, I think you should reconsider your keep vote here. [2] I'm convinced the "POV because" tag will empower disruptive editors. 172 | Talk 17:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

What is to reconsider, I made it rather clear, only the admin/mediator can insert this tag (most likely after he/she locks the article). Otherwise insertion of such a tag should be prohibited, if such a rationale is not provided then delete. --Kuban Cossack 09:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

NPA

Kuban, you have all the rights in the world to remove unwanted messages from your talk page (unless they are good faith official warnings), but please avoid edit summaries that can be seen as personal attacks. abakharev 10:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

Edit warring

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. I have noticed you reverting a lot of AndriyK's edits lately and being very contentious towards him. It may be time for you to re-read Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Your reverting is fueling this dispute. Please, stop. Work out your differences on the talk pages. If I see you escalating the dispute further, you may be blocked. Mangojuice^talk 20:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My reasoning is explained at User talk:AndriyK, I will nevertheless promise to try to remain civil in the process and apologise for the disruption caused already. --Kuban Cossack 10:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to chime in and second Mangojuice's concerns. Edit warring is never ever acceptable, and harms your cause and inflames the conflict, not the other way around, so you should pursue dispute resolution instead. I am pleased by your conciliatory response though. :-) Dmcdevit·t 08:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Grozny

I know you are very busy on other things, but could you take some time to explain a few points? First: congratulations on the expansion of this article. I do have a problem with "Second Chechen War", particularly the second paragraph. I am thinking of editing it (one non-encyclopaedic passage, grammatical errors), but first I would like to know what you think about it:

a) what is the argument on this evacuation about? I do not know from the text whether it was a military ruse (=the separatists were only told unofficially) or an official offer. There is a claim (I seem to remember that it is or was being debated at the European High Court in Strasbourg) that it was an official offer, and that the Russian Army misused it to kill as many separatists as possible, killing also some civilians in the process. (Interestingly, evacuation proposals like this in normal warfare usually only concern unarmed civilians, excluding combatants, I think.) Your text, to most people who know about the controversy, seems to suggest that the Chechen diaspora version is correct. I do not really think you meant that, but ... If it is a deliberate attempt to avoid the issue and keep the passage NPOV, it fails, according to me.

b) what is meant by this passage "the path between the city and the open the village of Alkhan-Kala"? Do you mean "the open village of Alkhan-Kala"?

Side note: you write that the Russian flag was raised on February 6 in the centre. Since in the article on Kakiev I mentioned that he claims his group did that, I would like to know whether your source says more. If it turns out Kakiev is right, we could put that as the 2000 event for February 6: a Muslim force doing that - seems noteworthy, and there is no event mentioned for 2000 yet.

Hope you understand that this is not meant against your work. I want to help.--Pan Gerwazy 22:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Прапанова аб Вікі ў правапісе 1959

Чалом! Азнаёмцеся з прапановай: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages. Дзяк.

Regarding Elk Salmon

If you do decide to enter dispute resolution with Elk Salmon, you may want to skip directly to the Request for Comment. I opened a mediation case on July 5 (which is theoretically not against him, but rather between him and I), but he has yet to respond. Perhaps this incident on the Moscow Metro page along with the situation at the mediation cabal case can be used to support a request for comment under Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Users who exhaust the community's patience. I'll see how he responds to the changes I am about to make to the Moscow article (which is in accordance with the mediation cabal case discussion). If we see a continued refusal to negotiate on that article as well as a continued refusal to negotiate on the Moscow Metro article, a request for comment will be necessary. joturner 13:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation for Moscow Metro

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee in regard to the article Moscow Metro. Mediation Committee procedure requires that all parties to a mediation be notified of the mediation, and indicate an agreement to mediate within seven days. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Moscow Metro, and indicate your agreement or refusal to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation.

-- joturner 05:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)