Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:42, 30 December 2005

Welcome

Welcome!

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

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

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.

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

Get help at the Teahouse

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

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing!

Ukraine portal

Since you are interested in Ukraine, please check the Ukraine portal here at Misplaced Pages. Particularly worthy are the "Things you can do" list and "New article's notice board". You may want to add the latter to your watchlist. Best regards, --Irpen 05:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Naming convention

May I suggest for your attention the following discussions that were extensively conducted Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ukrainian_subdivisions#On_WP_naming_conventions, Talk:Kiev/Archive02. Let me know if you still unconvinsed after reading this. Thanks, --Irpen 04:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

I ask you to refrain from breaking conventions outside the talk pages. Dnipro has a much more common english name Dnieper. Like Dunai, even though the river flows through Romania, it is not limited there and its source is outside Romania hence the article is titled Danube and to avoid confusing and English reader with unfamiliar spellings. Dnipro flows also through Belarus (Dnyapro) and its source is in Russia (Dnepr). The common English spelling is neither one of these names - Dniepr. That is why Kiev is used instead of Kyiv, Moscow instead of Moskva and Warsaw instead of Varshava.Kuban kazak 23:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Oleh, thanks for your response there. May I ask you to read the chapters of the same page that follow the one you read and commented. Some of the issues you raised are already answered there. After you are done reading the not only Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ukrainian_subdivisions#On_WP_naming_conventions, but the sections that follow, we can continue this discussion. Thanks, --Irpen 02:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

One has to remember this is not a Ukrainian but international encyclopedia, and the topic of Cossacks is not limited to Ukraine, and the river Dnieper is not limited to Ukraine (Geographically and Historically). This was thoroughly discussed prior to your arrival, and respectable people like Mzajac and Irpen supported it. We are not going to alter Misplaced Pages's convention to suit your tastes.Kuban kazak 09:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Holodomor article

Oleh, please read this as an answer to your question: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Holodomor#Demographic_data. --Andrew Alexander 04:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Edit Wars

Please I urge not to follow in the footsteps of AndriyK and learn from other people's mistakes. Misplaced Pages does not tolerate whole-scale removal of paragraphs (like your recent "edit" in Kuban Cossacks) from articles. As you are new here I would suggest that you begin with actually writing articles instead of following the bad manners of some of the users and engaging in edit wars. As you are Ukrainian, write something about Ukraine (why go for Kuban which is Russia). For example about the Dnieper Hydrolelecric stations or the Antonov Design bureu, or give me a hand with the Kiev Metro or something that does not involve politics, thereby showing that you are a person with capacity for factual knowledge before tying yourself up in edit wars.-- Kuban kazak 22:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

War with Kuban Kazak

See, Kazache, this is not war of revertions, this is just removal of unproved facts. Why unproved? See here , 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)

Metro

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)

Don't argue, WRITE; try Obolon of the Kurenevsko-Krasnoarmeiskaya Line, it has identical spelling and transliteration if you are that picky. -- Kuban kazak 00:22, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

(Good enough)

Oleh, you totally overstepped with the subway line jokes. The handicapped pictogram is really offensive. Would you please moderate your entry? The pic itself looks great, BTW. But shouldn't we rather go with the official map? It is PD by the Ukrainian law (see template:PD-UA-exempt). Thanks, --Irpen 05:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Metro is not high on my priority list although I would be happy to help a little bit. I have several unfinished tasks re Ukrainian history and politics and the mess created by AndriyK took recently too much time to sort out. However, once the arbitration is over he will have more motivation to use his abundant energy for the constructive work. I will look at Kuban Cossacks later. But please do remove the unnecessary inflammation from the Kazak's page that you added there in the comments to the station names. As I said earlier, I totally agree that subway stations should be in Ukrainian. Let me just assure you that Kazak would agree too if you take a less "shaski nagolo" approach.

I believe we'll be able to work together in the future just fine. Best regards, --Irpen 05:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I Moved all of the metro related discussion from my talk to --Talk:Kiev Metro -- Kuban kazak 01:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

And I already responded there.

Gentlemen, let's have all further discussions in a civil form. This will makes us all happier and vse bude harazd. --Irpen 02:09, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Sharing vocabulary

Oleh, are you denying that the related slavic languages share some vocabulary? If not, leave this alone. The lack of info in other articles is no reason to strike out the information from the article where the info is present. You are welcome to add to the articles of other languages. --Irpen 02:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, Irpen, to be short, I will do small experiment - put the same sentence in the articles on mentioned langueages. Let's see what happens. On Jewellery... I ask to leave it as it is not because of format. I have to fix it more seriously as it is a bit "raw". Originally it was written in non-encycplopedic style.--Oleh Petriv 02:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I can tell you how this got into the article. Initially, the article only said about resemblance to other East Slavic languages. While entirely correct, it sounded offensive to some sensitive patriots who hate to see Ukraine having anything related to Russia even though the article mentioned the Belarussian too. So, the Polish and Slovakian were added "for balance".

You, OTOH, just added a disconnected phrase to the intros of several article. Besides being a highly discouraged WP:Point, it also included nosnense about Polish and Slovakian being either "neighbors" of Russian or being "close" to Russian. I am sure it will be reverted or rephrased. If it is really important to you to see Ukrainian mentioned in the RU L article, you could modify intro to include that the Russian belongs to the E. Slavic family and, therefore, has similarities with other langauges of the same group. Please consider my advise and modify it as per above. In any case disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a point is not the answer to your feeling unhappy about the article's content. --Irpen 03:28, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Never mind with Russian, I corrected that for you. I hope you find it acceptable. You are welcome to modify your edits to other languages or wait for someone else to do it as well. --Irpen 03:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course nonsense. (In appropriate places though.) Same as having it in Ukrainian. And I'm sure people will delete it. Your correction of my insert in Russian changed meaning completely. Basically, it denied the previou. But I do not care about this. I care about Ukrainian. Note, I do not remove the explanation of similarity from the body text. But I against having it in the Introduction. --Oleh Petriv 04:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

If you are sure people will delete it, why not delete it yourself? Don't annoy our Polish and Slovakian friends. We have a Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages to illustrate a point rule as an official guideline. State your problem with the text at talk and lets see what others would say. Undiscussed deletion from the articles is in most cases a bad practice. If you care about introduction to be concise, why didn't you remove the second paragraph about "oppression". It is well elaborated further down in the article in the history section. Why is it duplicated in introduction? It was added by the same patriot who likes making his point stronger by adding strong stuff to the intros.

If you have time on your hands to add info to other language articles just to test waters, please consider checking out some articles in need of attention due to an attack by Romanian nationalist POV pusher . I am tired of arguing the obvious with that fellow. --Irpen 23:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I will take a look, but a few day after. No time to finish even Jewellery. --Oleh Petriv 22:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! There was an announcement at the Romanian board you may want to look. I know what this is about and no need to waste your time for translating that for me but lets keep speaking english on talk pages to give example to trolls. This articles] need to be attended by other Ukrainians, not just by myself.

Finally, with all due respect, please restore the info you deleted from UA L yourself. When an average WP reader, usually an English native speakers, comes to an obscure to him language article, he would benefit from some initial clues on the language relations. It was there for a while, it is totally inoffensive and I see no reason of your removal. That our Slovakian colleague feels differently, doesn't mean much for this article. Deletion, is generally, a bad practice and WP:Point is almost always a bad idea. Please take this criticism lightly. I would really appreciate more people to attend the Bukovina related topics. --Irpen 23:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I like more your rephrasing. I put it back. As for "sharing vocabulary" - it is not scientific as it means same as "sour cream and butter are both made of milk and this is why they are sharing same constituents and have similar colour". I hope we close this question. Romanians just advise others to give up polite discussion and start "to do what has to be done". I will join you there shortly. U must read on that topic something. Don't give up! :)--Oleh Petriv 03:17, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I like the content of your restored paragraph more but we need to restyle it. There is a redundancy right now with "E. Slavic" repeated. I am not sure right now on how to change it. But please be ready for an attack on that from another side. You see, in your version the closeness to Russian is more prominent than in the previous one where Polish and Slovakian were mainly to dilute Russian from there. You see, it makes some editor irk when Ukrainian is even compared to Russian in any way , (check edit summaries). As for butter and sower cream, yes you are right. But how would you introduce these to someone who've never heard of those (like many reader who can't tell Ukraine from Uganda, an unfortunate fact). You tell that they are both related to each other and to milk, that is introducing a less familiar term through a more familiar one. I don't object to your most recent version, I am just explaining you why resemblence was there and warning you what to expect because having Ukrainian and Russian mentioned together may provoke some nationalist sentiments in some editors.

To Bukovina and your advise to read something, that's exactly what I did. That's what I like in WP most of all because it motivates to read more. However, it is rather nerve-wrecking to deal with the POV trolls as you can see from the talk page. --Irpen

I told you so. --Irpen 04:32, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Strange. I find "sharing vocabulary" more "assaulting". It sounded to me like "Ukrainian is actually a mixture of Russian, Slovakian, Polish and Belorussian". Whereas relation to group is just a linguistic classification. Anyway, I find both variants as redundancy and would not like to see them in introduction at all. But I will stay away this time. And do not worry about A.A. and A.K. "nationalism" - they are perfectly balanced by G. and K.k. from the other shore.--Oleh Petriv 05:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's state the problem with vocabulary sharing statement on the talk page. People have different views. Vocabularly affinity is one of the most enlightning things to know about any language. It gives a good idea where the language is in practical terms. Too bad that data isn't that widely available. Maybe with the advent of computers in linguistics this will become more standard. --Andrew Alexander 06:19, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

History of jewellery in Ukraine

And thanks for this article. Do you still want others not to edit it for a week as you wrote in the summary? Otherwise, we could announce it at Ukraine portal. We can anounce it anyway and request others to leave the format alone for some days. It is up to you. --Irpen 02:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Oleg, do you care to explain why you replaced my link to Merovingian with meroving? Your promotion of Ukrainian nationalist mythology is unworthy of the Russian surname you use. I'm going to add {original research} and {NPOV} tags to your article, if the odious passages are not removed. --Ghirla | talk 09:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)