Misplaced Pages

Talk:Architecture of Russia: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:28, 21 June 2006 editIrpen (talk | contribs)32,604 edits moved section to article's talk for others to read and comment if interested and for better clarity of the problem← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:17, 20 October 2024 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots7,677,808 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 3 WikiProject templates. The article is listed in the level 5 page: By geographic location.Tag: Talk banner shell conversion 
(127 intermediate revisions by 39 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{Architecture}}
{{WikiProject Architecture|importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Russia| importance = Top| art = yes| hist = yes| tech = yes}}
{{WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors}}
}}
{{Archive box|auto=yes}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 2
|minthreadsleft = 5
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Architecture of Russia/Archive %(counter)d
}}


==File:224th Flight Unit Antonov An-124 over Moscow 6 May 2010.jpg Nominated for Deletion==
{{Architecture SA}}
{|
|-
| ]
| An image used in this article, ], has been nominated for deletion at ] in the following category: ''Deletion requests September 2011''
;What should I do?
''Don't panic''; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is ] then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no ] then it cannot be uploaded or used.


''This notification is provided by a Bot'' --] (]) 15:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
]
|}
==Problems with the article==
==File:Moscow, Bagration Bridge and Tower 2000.jpg Nominated for Deletion==
: This article is not suitable as an encyclopaedia article, as it is in violation of Misplaced Pages's ] (NPOV) policy, and is written in a very non-encyclopaedic tone. In addition if it's from a website, it might be a ]. Please do something to address these problems, or the article might be deleted as per Misplaced Pages's ]. - ] ] 18:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
{|
|-
| ]
| An image used in this article, ], has been nominated for deletion at ] in the following category: ''Deletion requests May 2012''
;What should I do?
''Don't panic''; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is ] then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no ] then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant ]


''This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image'' --] (]) 13:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
'''Architectural landmarks erected in the country of RUS, regradless of prefixes and suffixes, must be called RUSSIAN (RUS+IAN, adjective, belonging to RUS)!'''
|}


== External links modified ==
==Article completely rewritten==


Hello fellow Wikipedians,
This article was completely rewritten after the article that the above comments refer to was speedy deleted after being listed for deletion. ] 12:26, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
:Nice work on the article. ] <sup><small><b>]</b></sup></small> 16:30, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050818065003/http://www.bartleby.com/65/ru/RussianA.html to http://www.bartleby.com/65/ru/Russiana.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091021030808/http://www.skypalace.org/europe/slavic/east_slavic/russia.shtml to http://www.skypalace.org/europe/slavic/east_slavic/russia.shtml


When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
== Readings ==


{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
I went to the library this afternoon and had a look at the following books:


Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 04:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
* (2003) Entry "Architecture: Kievan Rus and Russia" in ''Encyclopædia Britannica (Macropedia) vol. 13,'' 15th ed., p. 921.
: The article is "Architecture", the section is called "Kievan Rus and Russia". The state is referred to as Kievan Rus, but the churches of Rus are referred to in aggregate as "Russian ecclesiastical architecture".


== A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion ==
* William Craft Brumfield ( 2004). ''A History of Russian Architecture,'' Seattle and London: University of Washington Press. ISBN 0-295-98393-0.
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
: Nice book, with photographs by the author. The subject is referred to in the text as "medieval Russian architecture", but the people and state of the period are called "eastern Slavs", and note "medieval Rus and subsequently Russia".
* ]<!-- COMMONSBOT: speedy | 2020-06-20T08:55:03.974433 | RIAN archive 850726 XXV Congress of the CPSU.jpg -->
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —] (]) 08:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)


==Wiki Education assignment: Imperial Russian History==
* John Fleming, Hugh Honour, Nikolaus Pevsner ( 1998). Entry "Russian Architecture" in ''The Penguin Dictionary of Architecture and Landscape Architecture'', 5th ed., pp. 493–498, London: Penguin. ISBN 0-67-088017-5.
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/University_of_Miami/Imperial_Russian_History_(Fall_2022) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ], ] | start_date = 2022-08-23 | end_date = 2022-12-06 }}
: Under the entry "Russian Architecture". References to the subject and period in general are "Russia", "the Old Russian state", "Kievan Russia", "Transfiguration Cathedral at Chernigov (c. 1036) . . . and all other Old Russian churches . . . ", but Kievan Rus’ specifically is called "Kiev", also "the Kiev Prince". Polotsk and Smolensk are in "west Russian lands". Later references are to "Moscow's domination of Russia", "Muscovite architecture".
: (Interesting quote about the Baroque period: ". . . ] has its own characteristics, however, and stylistically the interaction with Muscovy is less significant than was once thought.")


<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 16:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)</span>
I would classify these all as post-Soviet editions of earlier writing. They seem to know that Kievan Rus’ is not the same thing as Russia, and refer to the state as Rus or Kiev, although it is also referred to descriptively as "medieval Russia". Russia is used for the name of later states, but in all three sources the architecture of Rus belongs firmly within the subject of Russian architecture. There is no subdivision of Rus architecture into Belarusian, Russian, or Ukrainian.

In the next day or two I'll propose some revisions to the article based on this, if someone else hasn't done so already. ''—]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>2005-11-21&nbsp;00:08&nbsp;Z</small>''

:Nice job. Thanks. --] 00:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)





----
I've found a lovely image of a Russian monastery. Perhaps there's room for it in your article? ] 00:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
:Yes!!! Of course!--] 01:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

] in ] (photo from ]).]]

----

== Bepassing the dispute ==

Whilst I not going to get myself involved in your (to be fair quite pathetic) arguments. I would like to give the following site with excellent photos of Orthodox architecure for those who are intersted in cotributing professional information: http://www.sobory.ru/

-- ] 15:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

== Why only tamples and churches? ==

Why only tamples and churches? What about citadels, towers, palaces?--] 01:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, why there is no "]" article?--] 01:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

: Get to work. ''—]&nbsp;]&nbsp;<small>2005-12-14&nbsp;07:24&nbsp;Z</small>''




==My proposal for the future of the article==
I propose that this article has some radical changes. The truth is that like History of Russia, it is impossible to generalise everything into one article without having seprate articles reflecting each phase. In Russian architecture there are clear break-ups. THis site here has a feature were one can actually search through the dates when each building was built. We might be also able to obtain copyrights for several images if lucky. I propose the following strucutre:
A general page (which this article can provide) Then about individual subarticles describing the individual phases of history. Now for those nationally conscious little people, there should destinct and separate subarticles for periods of history for your phase.
*So this is what we get:
:#Three general articles (maybe more) Architectures of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine
:#Broken into phases of history:
::#Kievan Rus
::#Grand Duchy of Lithuania/Halych/Muscouvian Rus (and their respecive styles)
::#Polish Lithuanian Boroque/Ukrainian Boroque/Muscovian Boroque
::#...and so on
::#Stalinist Architecutre
::#Post-Stalinist Soviet architecture
::#Late Soviet Architecture
::#Modern Architecture of Ukraine/Russia/Belarus
:#Each subarticle talks about decorative features, Churches, Fortifications, Palaces, Terema and so on...
Here is some info on styles

--] 22:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

==Unexplained tag insertion==
I see that AndriyK's mission after the return to Misplaced Pages from the ] is to keep trolling this article. On one hand, this is much better than large scale moving nightmare and vote rigging which got him in trouble previously. OTOH, I see no activity from this user other than occasionally showing up here and there, run some quick but fierce edit wars just under the 3RR and disappear for another week or so. This is untenable.

The tag removal has been explained multiple times. Reasons were discussed, the article RfC was filed, users commented, MichaelZ spent hours in the library due to AndriyK's persistence with nonsense ideas. The public spoke over the issue he raised and the tag was removed.

Yet, it is restored either by himself, or others who choose to act as his proxies in his shameful quest to expunge anything Russian from everything related to Ukraine. Please care to read past discussion and clearly point out the reasons behind the tag reinsertion which were not addressed by the past discussion. I hope others will reconsider acting as AndriyK's proxies. If others have an issue after having read the past discussions and insist on tagging, please use talk to explain your POV disagreement. Same applies to AndriyK. If he has anything new to say, he is welcome to do so at the talk page. Finally, if AndriyK reinserts the tag one more time without entering his grievances at talk (taking into account past discussions) and/or his explanation will seem frivolous, I will file a specific ] with an ArbCom. ArbCom cases often have unintended consequences as ArbCom members sometimes rule not only on specific issues, but more generally on the user's behavior and a block may very well be a consequences of a new arbitration. For one, it is not my intention to have AndriyK blocked, whatever stuff he dumps on me all the time. Another issue is that I would hate wasting time on this yet again. But I see no other venue to bring this article to normalcy with the tag being reinserted and the tagger's refusal to use talk. RfC was not sufficient. All kinds of dispute resolution was tried. ArbCom would be the last resort. --] 08:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

:The reseons for inserting the tag are explained in the tag itself. Please read.
:The fact that you explained your personal opinion about removal of the tag does not mean that the issue is resolved. Your opponents may disagree with your personal opinion. And, in fact, this was the case.
:There is no need to say anything new here. The problem that I pointed out half a year ago is still not solved.
:I propose the solution, you did not accept it. You do not propose any acceptable alternative solution.
:The only way out is to keep the tag until somebody proposes an acceptable solution for both sides.
:Please read once more what another user wrote to you ] --] 08:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

::There was a vote, a poll which culminated in DROPPING the issue permanentely ] Find it there. As of then the MAJORITY of wikipedians are AGAINST any more disputes. They are FINE as it is. If you want a another poll start one here and ask it '''Do you see any point continuing the dispute between AndriyK's POV (and his maidan goonies) and the rest of wikipedian society?''' Extend the notification to the whole ] and go for it. It is not an issue anymore wether the buildings will be mentioned, previous poll but a fat tochka on that it is wether your POV-pushing continues. --] ] 10:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

:::Read what you moved in archive ] --] 10:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
::::Makes no difference to the stance. If I was you I would write Ukrainian architecture and then simply interlink them into this article that way there will be no problem, but of course how many useful articles have you written (sorry but your contributions page is so full of worthless conflicts that it really is impossible to filter) or can you ever right them? --] ] 11:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::I have to explain you once more. There is a unsolved problem with the article ].
:::::Whether i article on Ukrainian architecture or not is my choice.
:::::I tried to write articles here, but your troll friends prevent me from doing it.--] 11:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

::::::You tried? Really? Молодец, садись -енко/-чюк, пять. :) Although I find that if one makes writing articles a priority and leaving the policing of wikipedia to the admins which is clearely the opposite of your case, then at least people can have an opinion of you as a valuable contributor as opposed to a troll. Experience shows that useful contributors are more successful at gaining favouralbe outcomes on disputes. If I were you I'd reregister a new account and start all over. User:AnriyK's reputation is a shame of the Ukrainian society and even if you start writing articles now there is little to salvage. Стыд и срам.--] ] 13:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I see AndriyK reinserted the tag. Everyone, please do not remove it or alter it in any way until the issue is referred to ArbCom. I will try to be as fast as I can. --] 19:03, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

== Page protection ==

There has been no actual change to the content of this article since before the last page protection on March 31. Every single edit since then has been to either (1) insert or (2) remove the NPOV tag. Until this gets cleared up on the talk page for good, I don't feel like I'm stopping any earth-shattering developments by protecting the page. (])<sup>(])</sup> 22:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

<nowiki>{{editprotected}}</nowiki>

:I think an edit needs to be made. In that ludicrous looking POV tag it currently reads:
::''it describes the structures that were build by ancestors of the present-day Greeks and Ukrainians in Kievan Rus...''
:Is it possible to have that replaced with:
::''it describes the structures that were buil'''t''' by ancestors of the present-day Greeks and Ukrainians in Kievan Rus...''
:Thanks. ] 10:19, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
:::Done ] 14:39, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

==unexplained tag==
A single user persisting with a nonsense claim is no reason to destroy excellent articles with ridiculous tags. When whoever who thinks that the ] tags the ] article because it represents the "Earth is round POV", the tag would similarly be removed without discussion.

If AndriyK can come up with new reasons on why the article is not NPOV, he should bring them at talk. His old points prompted much discussion, much research through the most authoritative literature and were rejected based on that as well as the vote. Until new points are brought up, I am removing the tag. --] 02:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

:I do not think that the dispute is as obvious as about the shape of the Earth (see, for instance, ). I would not remove the tag without discussion if I would you. It would be much better to find a compromise solution.--] 23:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

::The dispute is settled, if you look in the archive, all of the points raised by the opposing party were overturned. I propose to unlock the article and permanentely purge the tag. --] ] 10:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

:::A dispute is settled if
:::*a decission that satisfies both sides is found or
:::*there is a decission by some authority (ArbCom in the present case) that is compulsory for both sides even if they do not agree with it.
:::This was not the case. Therefore, the present dispute has not been resolved yet. Let's take the next step.--] 08:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

To Irpen: there is no new reasons. The old dispute has not been resolve yet. Please note that removing the tag (and even locking the page without it) does not resolve the dispute. Let's follow ].--] 08:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:AndriyK, you can't hold the page hostage just by saying "I disagree" to satisfy your nationalist Russophobic fervor. If this were allowable, any page could have been held hostage similarly by any bad faith user. This was explained to you multiple times. Whoever claims that the Earth is flat cannot persist with POV-tagging the ] article by saying that he doesn't consider the dispute resolved. You have anything new to say, say it. Consensus doesn't include the agreement with Holocaust deniers or those who reject the theory of evolution in the Holocaust and Science articles, respectively. If this were required, all Wikipeida articles would still have been tagged and would remain so forever. --] 17:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


I've read the talk and the archives. There are clearly two viewpoints. AndriyK is not the only user who supports the viewpoint opposite to yours. There are at least three more users (Andrew Alexander, Yakudza, Ukrained) whith similar view. And Durova's comment suggests the solution similar to what is proposed by AndriyK and others. Later, an anonimous user with similar to AndriyK's view appeared. I have not seen any sign of consensus in favor of the present version of the article.
BTW, incivil comments by Kuban Kazak and Ghirladajo do not help to form a positive impression about supporters of the present version.

I restore the tag. Please try to build a consensus.--] 21:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:Mbuk, I'll be honest. I think you're either a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet. --] 21:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

::What makes you to think so? Is everybody who have similar view is "a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet". Whose meatpuppet are you in this case?
::BTW, this page is reserved for discussing the articles. If you would like to discuss user's activity, please use the user's talk page.--] 22:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet again, the tag needs removed. The users fail to explain their position at talk. If they want to bring more people to comment, the right way is article RfC rather than tagging an excellent article as a whole. That RfC has been tried and the outcome didn't suit AndriyK is no reason to insert the tag. Also, anyone is free to contact experts from the Architecture portal. Tagging per se is just mislabeling an excellent article putting it in the same category as, say, ] with bunch of its nonsense claims. --] 22:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

== Mediation? ==

Lets try, to resolve the dispute by mediation. To see how many people agree to participate, please add your name below.--] 08:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:Archives and talk above show extensive mediation, discussion and the article has been at RfC which brought many more users here who added their valauble comments which still didn't satisfy AndriyK. The user can't "mediate" until he achieves the his sole goal that it the results he wants. I don't object to the mediation if it is based on the new arguments, not the ones already discussed and rejected as per sources, multiple comments and the vote. Just prolonging the dispute in the hope to tire the opponents when there is nothing new to say is disruptive. I suggest Mbuk reads the discussion and archives. --] 21:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

====I would like to resolve the dispute and will particpate in the mediation process====
#] 08:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
#--] 21:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

====Oppose====
#This dispute is settled. Provalivay svidomyi ] ] 16:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

== Recent edits of the tag text by ] ==

Please note that nobody calls the architecture of Kievan Rus "Ukrainian architecture". Therefore whether Ukraine existed that time or not is completely irrelevant to the dispute. I removed "and Ukraine" from the tag text not because it's wrong but because it is irrelevant.

Moreover, the tag is there to point out our disagreement. We preserve the article in the form that you prefer, then the tag should be in the form that we prefer. We can do it vice versa, if you like.--] 08:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

:Why don't you start an article ], where you can amongst others ''describe the structures that were built by ancestors of the present-day Greeks and Ukrainians in Kievan Rus (i.e. hundreds years before Ukraine was created) and located in present-day Ukraine as if they were "Ukrainian".'' --] 12:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

::Because I respect WP policies, in particular, ] and ].--] 12:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


:::Yes tell us about your respect for policies, how many articles did you move and locked the re-directs? Or how you vote frauded two Ruthenian (not Ukrainian as that country did not exist at the time) Chernigov Princes? Or what about the 600-revert St. Vladimir's Cathedral? Or the massive POV in Holodomor that you helped your tezka to push through. After all that do expect anyone to take you seriously? IMO - pathetic... --] ] 17:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

:::The message from Kuban Kazak wich is '''not''' related to RA is moved to AndriyK's talk. This page is reserved for discussing the articles. If you would like to discuss user's activity, please use the user's talk page.--] 21:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I restored it the message makes a reasonable claim about lack of good faith on an account of a user caught red-handed in using dirty tricks to push his agenda. This is relevant to how qualified he is to make a judgement of what's NPOV and what's not. If his behavior changed since then, that would have been a different story. When he makes an unrelated to any of this edit that would look different from all that he was doing to this date, I and everyone would treat that edit independently from the past history. This hasn't happened yes. --] 02:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


== Back to the discussion ==
I propose to go step-by-step to find where exactly your disagreements are.
=== The first step ===
I propose all the involved parties to answer the question about their understanding of the word Russian. I asked already a native English speaker, Michael Zajac. His answer can be found . But other people may disagree with him...

OK, let's everybody who would like to continue the discussion answers the following questions:
''What exactly means the word "Russian" in modern English? Does it mean only "of Russia", or it means also "of (Kievan) Rus"?''

Please keep the discussion as close to the point as possible. No personal accusations, no irrelevant stuff.--] 21:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

:Mbuk, please read that this has been addressed. No one claims that Kievan Rus was Russia. The point is the uninterrupted tradition from the first Churches of Rus' built by Greek masters inherited into the art of the later Muscovite Russia. The relevance of the Rus' architecture to the Russian one is unquestionable and therefore it is presented not only in this article but in classical books on the subject as discussed above by MichaelZ. There is no need to repeat all that, read talk and archives. --] 02:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

::You say "Russian" means "of Russia" and does not mean "of (Kievan) Rus"? Did I understood you properly?--] 06:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
:::Please read archives and ]. --] 06:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Until the tag is explained, issues presented at talk, explained how they are unaddressed in past discussions and edits, the users have no right to destroy the article by tagging it just because they don't like what's there. --] 06:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


== Causion against removing the POV tags. ==

Please note that removing the POV-tags does not help to ]. The tag should indicate the disagrement until the dispute is resolved as described in ].--] 18:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
:Bad faith tag trolling you are famed for is extremely disruptive. Normally, editors use article's talk and discuss the disagreements there. In fact, when you attempted that, all your questions were answered. If you are still not satisfied, bring this again at the article's talk. --] 18:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
::Please read ] and ]. "Answering all the questions" is not sufficient to resolve the dispute. The dispute is resolved if a consensus is built or by the decission of ArbCom.
::The purpose of the tag is to attract the attention of other users to the disputed issue. This would help to resolve the dispute. Everybody who sincerelly wish to resolve the dispute wowuld keep the tag.
::You are not autorized to "classify" the users. If you suspect that I am acting in bad faith, please fill arbitration agains me as you many weeks ago or take other steps proposed in ]. Otherwise your phrases like "bad faith tag trolling" or similar will be considered as personal attackes, wich are stricly forbidden by WP policies.--] 08:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
AndriyK, you can't hold the page hostage just by saying "I disagree" to satisfy your nationalist Russophobic fervor. If this were allowable, any page could have been held hostage similarly by any bad faith user. This was explained to you multiple times. Whoever claims that the Earth is flat cannot persist with POV-tagging the ] article by saying that he doesn't consider the dispute resolved. You have anything new to say, say it. Consensus doesn't include the agreement with Holocaust deniers or those who reject the theory of evolution in the Holocaust and Science articles, respectively. If this were required, all Wikipeida articles would still have been tagged and would remain so forever. --] 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:Irpen, ne kormi ego, voobshe ne otvechay, zachem na ego uroven opuskatsya, v kontse kontsov ty Ukrainets a ne bydlo. U tebya est dostoinstoinstvo kotoroye v zhizne im ne imet. --] ] 17:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I am second to warn you against removing the tag. All POV-tagged articles are listed in a special category. This helps other people to find the disputed articles.

I would not remove the tag without discussion if I would you.

I do not think that AndriyK does it in a bad faith. The case is not so obvious as the shape of the Earth (see, for instance, ).

Why not to look for a compromise solution?--] 21:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:It has been tried. read the archives. the current situation reflects the fruit of the long discussion and research. As for AndriyK, I've seen more of him than you and I have every reason to say what I said above. If you have anything new to say, once you read the talk and the archives, by all means do so at the article's talk. --] 21:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read the talk and the archives. There are clearly two viewpoints. AndriyK is not the only user who supports the viewpoint opposite to yours. There are at least three more users (Andrew Alexander, Yakudza, Ukrained) whith similar view. And Durova's comment suggests the solution similar to what is proposed by AndriyK and others. Later, an anonimous user with similar to AndriyK's view appeared. I have not seen any sign of consensus in favor of the present version of the article.
BTW, incivil comments by Kuban Kazak and Ghirladajo do not help to form a positive impression about supporters of the present version.--] 21:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:I agree with you on the last point. I don't see how Durova's comments agree with AndriyK aggressive nationalist position. If you have more ideas and proposals, by all means raise them at the article's talk. --] 21:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any "agressive nationalist position" of AndriyK (I mean in the talk about the Russian architecture. Perhaps it appeared in other places) OTOH comments by Kuban Kazak are often agressive and charged with Russian nationalism, IMHO.

Please read the comment by Durova once more. She does not agree with AndriyK explecetly, but he agrees with her in his answer. Please read . Perhaps it will help to resolve the dispute.--] 22:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:I reread the whole section although I remembered it very well. Durova's points were taken into account in the article's later edits. AndriyK still disagrees and will disagree until the day Russia is elminated from Misplaced Pages. I suggest you don't become AndriyK's revert proxy. If you read the archives, have anything to add, just add what you have to say. Cite specifically what's wrong with the article. Persistent tag insertion is just tag-trolling. I don't know you yet and I assume you are an interested editor and potetnially a productive user. Instead of jumping into fierce debates immediately taking sides, I suggest you edit some articles a little. Maybe try to start from non-controversial ones. See ] for some ideas (] is already taken by DDima). regards, --] 22:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll follow your links and perheps will do some edits. (Although I have very little idea about Kiev tram. Maybe I find something else.)
But, to be honest, I do not like this permanent Russian Ukrainian conflict. This is the reason why I participated in this discussion. I would not like to take any sides. Agrassive and uncivil positions of Kuban Kazak and Ghirla made me simpatic to their opponents.
OTOH, I did not see how Durova's proposals are taken into account in the article.--] 22:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:I not only dislike but hate these permanent conflicts that were started with AndriyK's arrival to WP last fall and the meatpuppet that he brought with him. For Durova's proposals making its way to the article, check its edits following her voicing them. I request that you remove the ridiculous tag yourself and say anything you have to say at the article's talk. --] 22:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please explain me what is the reason for removing the tag? The dispute is there. There would be no edit war if there would be no dispute. If all the parties act in good faith (which one has to assume unless the opposite is obvious) then this dispute should be resolved by discussions, mediations etc. If anybody acts in bad faith, this is also a dispute but it concerns to user's behaviour and should be resolved by blocking the distruptive user or restricting his ability to edit the article.

But in any case the dispute should be dealt with in one way or another.

You remove the tag, AndriyK puts it back. It continues for days, weeks, months. What is the ultimate goal you want to reach going this way? Or you enjoy the process? ;)

I suggest you to keep the tag (just to stop the edit war). And do something to resolve the dispute. Continue the discussion, or start arbitaition against AndriyK, if you believe that the discussion with him is useless (personally I do not think so, but you have your own experience of communicating with him and you may be right, I do not know.).
But keep in mind that AndriyK is not the only one who disagrees. You have to think how to deel with the other guys.

Either discussion/mediation or arbitration will take some time, but this is the real way settle the dispute. Otherwise it's going to be endless.--] 20:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

:Mbuk, the tag is removed because it is not explained. As to your question, I have every reason to believe that user:AndriyK is acting not in good faith but to push his Ukrainianian nationalist Russophobic agenda when Ukrainian Misplaced Pages was not enough audience for him. The evidence is his past actions, and his present actions are nothing but a repetition of familiar themes. A formal action against AndriyK would certainly result in another lengthy block. I don't want this to happen for one, and, additionally and more importantly, I have better things to do with my time at Misplaced Pages. I really need to see that the consequences of his actions become so intolerable that my time is better spent on dealing with his disrpuptiveness rather than articles. As long as I see that he is dealt with by an overwhelming majority of editors who reject his nationalist stance, I spend my time on writing articles rather than ArbCom cases. You are right about discussions and mediations, etc. This was tried, comments were made, changes were made as well. That he will persist until he gets it his way, is his peculiar feature. Disruption to make a point is not allowed. If you read the archives, read the past article's RfC, saw any issues unaddressed, by all means raise them at talk. I said this to you multiple times. We can't keep the tag eternally just because someone somewhere disagrees over something. Such disagreement has to be discussed and addressed. This was done. If users were allowed to persist with the tags just for the sake of it eternally, until they get it their way, every historic article in WP would have been tagged by now and no tag would ever be removed. --] 21:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

::Irpen, the tag was explained in the tag itself (this was a POV-because tag). Besides there is a lot of explantion in the archive. You may say that you disagree with the explanation, but it was not unexplained.

::Why do not want AndriyK to be blocked if you consider his action distruptive?
The edit war takes also a certain time. Why not to spend this time to resolve the dispute ultimately?

::Addressing all the issues is not sufficient to settle the dispute. You have to reach a consensus with the opposite party. (Or an administrative action should be taken against one of the parties if the consensus is impossible). Merely discussing the disagrement is not sufficent.

::I do not propose to keep the tag forever. It should be there until the dispute is resolved. But the dispute cannot continue forever. It should be settled one way or another.--] 21:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Mbuk, there must me some common sense in what takes to consider the dispute resolved. If there is some fringe POV pusher with stubborness and persistence, nothing prevents him from stating that he remains unconvinced and insists that the dispute is unresolved and an excellent article should be labeled in the same category as, say, nonsense ] or controversial, like ]. This is exactly the case here as has been with this user in the past. There are people who come to Misplaced Pages with a political agenda. Reaching the consensus with them is impossible. That's why the article was listed for RfC, users commented, changes were made. He can't keep doing this forever until he is satisfied. Now, please don't make me repeat to you what was already said. Read the talk and archives. As for why I don't want AndriyK blocked is because his disrpuptiveness is met with sufficient opposition that is preventing him from doing too much damage. He may learn this and finally start writing instead of doing nonsense. Even at his arbitration following the actions that was totally intolerable and uncorrectable I didn't call for his block as you may see if you read the arbitration pages. Ukrainian topics need editors. It's just as simple as that. Now, please start writing too. This all is too time-consuming. --] 02:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

::If there is a fringle POV pusher with stubborness and persistence it should be delt with by means of administrative mesures. It cannnot be dealt with by the stubborness and persistence from the other side. Otherwise you will be look like "a fringle POV pusher with stubborness and persistence" for otside observer.
::"Sufficient opposition" means nothing else as permanent edit wars. Is it the best solution?--] 05:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I've told you all I have to say on this multiple times. If I feel like I had enough of AndriyK again and his being out of controll damages the wikipedia beyond repair I will move to administrative measures. Please don't try to tire me by repetition and forcing me to repeat things. I've told you all I have to say. Take the rest to the article's talk, or start and new article RfC or see otherwise whether you can get any more support in your support of AndriyK, aside from a couple of known problem users. I don't have any more time to repeat this. This is called "feeding". I have already broke the non-feeding rule and as I see no new questions, there won't be any more new answers until you have anything new to say. For that, use the means I suggested. --] 06:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

== Causion against removing the POV tags. ==
:'''I am moving the following from my talk page to here so that the readers can read it, get a better understanding of what the issue is, what the user's positions are and comment if they want.'' --] 06:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please note that removing the POV-tags does not help to ]. The tag should indicate the disagrement until the dispute is resolved as described in ].--] 18:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
:Bad faith tag trolling you are famed for is extremely disruptive. Normally, editors use article's talk and discuss the disagreements there. In fact, when you attempted that, all your questions were answered. If you are still not satisfied, bring this again at the article's talk. --] 18:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
::Please read ] and ]. "Answering all the questions" is not sufficient to resolve the dispute. The dispute is resolved if a consensus is built or by the decission of ArbCom.
::The purpose of the tag is to attract the attention of other users to the disputed issue. This would help to resolve the dispute. Everybody who sincerelly wish to resolve the dispute wowuld keep the tag.
::You are not autorized to "classify" the users. If you suspect that I am acting in bad faith, please fill arbitration agains me as you many weeks ago or take other steps proposed in ]. Otherwise your phrases like "bad faith tag trolling" or similar will be considered as personal attackes, wich are stricly forbidden by WP policies.--] 08:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
AndriyK, you can't hold the page hostage just by saying "I disagree" to satisfy your nationalist Russophobic fervor. If this were allowable, any page could have been held hostage similarly by any bad faith user. This was explained to you multiple times. Whoever claims that the Earth is flat cannot persist with POV-tagging the ] article by saying that he doesn't consider the dispute resolved. You have anything new to say, say it. Consensus doesn't include the agreement with Holocaust deniers or those who reject the theory of evolution in the Holocaust and Science articles, respectively. If this were required, all Wikipeida articles would still have been tagged and would remain so forever. --] 17:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:(some PA removed)
I am second to warn you against removing the tag. All POV-tagged articles are listed in a special category. This helps other people to find the disputed articles.

I would not remove the tag without discussion if I would you.

I do not think that AndriyK does it in a bad faith. The case is not so obvious as the shape of the Earth (see, for instance, ).

Why not to look for a compromise solution?--] 21:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:It has been tried. read the archives. the current situation reflects the fruit of the long discussion and research. As for AndriyK, I've seen more of him than you and I have every reason to say what I said above. If you have anything new to say, once you read the talk and the archives, by all means do so at the article's talk. --] 21:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I've read the talk and the archives. There are clearly two viewpoints. AndriyK is not the only user who supports the viewpoint opposite to yours. There are at least three more users (Andrew Alexander, Yakudza, Ukrained) whith similar view. And Durova's comment suggests the solution similar to what is proposed by AndriyK and others. Later, an anonimous user with similar to AndriyK's view appeared. I have not seen any sign of consensus in favor of the present version of the article.
BTW, incivil comments by Kuban Kazak and Ghirladajo do not help to form a positive impression about supporters of the present version.--] 21:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:I agree with you on the last point. I don't see how Durova's comments agree with AndriyK aggressive nationalist position. If you have more ideas and proposals, by all means raise them at the article's talk. --] 21:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen any "agressive nationalist position" of AndriyK (I mean in the talk about the Russian architecture. Perhaps it appeared in other places) OTOH comments by Kuban Kazak are often agressive and charged with Russian nationalism, IMHO.

Please read the comment by Durova once more. She does not agree with AndriyK explecetly, but he agrees with her in his answer. Please read . Perhaps it will help to resolve the dispute.--] 22:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
:I reread the whole section although I remembered it very well. Durova's points were taken into account in the article's later edits. AndriyK still disagrees and will disagree until the day Russia is elminated from Misplaced Pages. I suggest you don't become AndriyK's revert proxy. If you read the archives, have anything to add, just add what you have to say. Cite specifically what's wrong with the article. Persistent tag insertion is just tag-trolling. I don't know you yet and I assume you are an interested editor and potetnially a productive user. Instead of jumping into fierce debates immediately taking sides, I suggest you edit some articles a little. Maybe try to start from non-controversial ones. See ] for some ideas (] is already taken by DDima). regards, --] 22:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll follow your links and perheps will do some edits. (Although I have very little idea about Kiev tram. Maybe I find something else.)
But, to be honest, I do not like this permanent Russian Ukrainian conflict. This is the reason why I participated in this discussion. I would not like to take any sides. Agrassive and uncivil positions of Kuban Kazak and Ghirla made me simpatic to their opponents.
OTOH, I did not see how Durova's proposals are taken into account in the article.--] 22:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:I not only dislike but hate these permanent conflicts that were started with AndriyK's arrival to WP last fall and the meatpuppet that he brought with him. For Durova's proposals making its way to the article, check its edits following her voicing them. I request that you remove the ridiculous tag yourself and say anything you have to say at the article's talk. --] 22:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please explain me what is the reason for removing the tag? The dispute is there. There would be no edit war if there would be no dispute. If all the parties act in good faith (which one has to assume unless the opposite is obvious) then this dispute should be resolved by discussions, mediations etc. If anybody acts in bad faith, this is also a dispute but it concerns to user's behaviour and should be resolved by blocking the distruptive user or restricting his ability to edit the article.

But in any case the dispute should be dealt with in one way or another.

You remove the tag, AndriyK puts it back. It continues for days, weeks, months. What is the ultimate goal you want to reach going this way? Or you enjoy the process? ;)

I suggest you to keep the tag (just to stop the edit war). And do something to resolve the dispute. Continue the discussion, or start arbitaition against AndriyK, if you believe that the discussion with him is useless (personally I do not think so, but you have your own experience of communicating with him and you may be right, I do not know.).
But keep in mind that AndriyK is not the only one who disagrees. You have to think how to deel with the other guys.

Either discussion/mediation or arbitration will take some time, but this is the real way settle the dispute. Otherwise it's going to be endless.--] 20:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

:Mbuk, the tag is removed because it is not explained. As to your question, I have every reason to believe that user:AndriyK is acting not in good faith but to push his Ukrainianian nationalist Russophobic agenda when Ukrainian Misplaced Pages was not enough audience for him. The evidence is his past actions, and his present actions are nothing but a repetition of familiar themes. A formal action against AndriyK would certainly result in another lengthy block. I don't want this to happen for one, and, additionally and more importantly, I have better things to do with my time at Misplaced Pages. I really need to see that the consequences of his actions become so intolerable that my time is better spent on dealing with his disrpuptiveness rather than articles. As long as I see that he is dealt with by an overwhelming majority of editors who reject his nationalist stance, I spend my time on writing articles rather than ArbCom cases. You are right about discussions and mediations, etc. This was tried, comments were made, changes were made as well. That he will persist until he gets it his way, is his peculiar feature. Disruption to make a point is not allowed. If you read the archives, read the past article's RfC, saw any issues unaddressed, by all means raise them at talk. I said this to you multiple times. We can't keep the tag eternally just because someone somewhere disagrees over something. Such disagreement has to be discussed and addressed. This was done. If users were allowed to persist with the tags just for the sake of it eternally, until they get it their way, every historic article in WP would have been tagged by now and no tag would ever be removed. --] 21:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

::Irpen, the tag was explained in the tag itself (this was a POV-because tag). Besides there is a lot of explantion in the archive. You may say that you disagree with the explanation, but it was not unexplained.

::Why do not want AndriyK to be blocked if you consider his action distruptive?
The edit war takes also a certain time. Why not to spend this time to resolve the dispute ultimately?

::Addressing all the issues is not sufficient to settle the dispute. You have to reach a consensus with the opposite party. (Or an administrative action should be taken against one of the parties if the consensus is impossible). Merely discussing the disagrement is not sufficent.

::I do not propose to keep the tag forever. It should be there until the dispute is resolved. But the dispute cannot continue forever. It should be settled one way or another.--] 21:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Mbuk, there must me some common sense in what takes to consider the dispute resolved. If there is some fringe POV pusher with stubborness and persistence, nothing prevents him from stating that he remains unconvinced and insists that the dispute is unresolved and an excellent article should be labeled in the same category as, say, nonsense ] or controversial, like ]. This is exactly the case here as has been with this user in the past. There are people who come to Misplaced Pages with a political agenda. Reaching the consensus with them is impossible. That's why the article was listed for RfC, users commented, changes were made. He can't keep doing this forever until he is satisfied. Now, please don't make me repeat to you what was already said. Read the talk and archives. As for why I don't want AndriyK blocked is because his disrpuptiveness is met with sufficient opposition that is preventing him from doing too much damage. He may learn this and finally start writing instead of doing nonsense. Even at his arbitration following the actions that was totally intolerable and uncorrectable I didn't call for his block as you may see if you read the arbitration pages. Ukrainian topics need editors. It's just as simple as that. Now, please start writing too. This all is too time-consuming. --] 02:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

::If there is a fringle POV pusher with stubborness and persistence it should be delt with by means of administrative mesures. It cannnot be dealt with by the stubborness and persistence from the other side. Otherwise you will be look like "a fringle POV pusher with stubborness and persistence" for otside observer.
::"Sufficient opposition" means nothing else as permanent edit wars. Is it the best solution?--] 05:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I've told you all I have to say on this multiple times. If I feel like I had enough of AndriyK again and his being out of controll damages the wikipedia beyond repair I will move to administrative measures. Please don't try to tire me by repetition and forcing me to repeat things. I've told you all I have to say. Take the rest to the article's talk, or start and new article RfC or see otherwise whether you can get any more support in your support of AndriyK, aside from a couple of known problem users. I don't have any more time to repeat this. This is called "feeding". I have already broke the non-feeding rule and as I see no new questions, there won't be any more new answers until you have anything new to say. For that, use the means I suggested. --] 06:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

:''end of moved section''
----

Latest revision as of 04:17, 20 October 2024

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconArchitecture Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconRussia: Technology & engineering / Visual arts / History Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Misplaced Pages.
To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the technology and engineering in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the visual arts in Russia task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by a member of the Guild of Copy Editors.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors
Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2


This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

File:224th Flight Unit Antonov An-124 over Moscow 6 May 2010.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:224th Flight Unit Antonov An-124 over Moscow 6 May 2010.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Moscow, Bagration Bridge and Tower 2000.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Moscow, Bagration Bridge and Tower 2000.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Moscow, Bagration Bridge and Tower 2000.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Russian architecture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Imperial Russian History

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2022 and 6 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ToriTrouble (article contribs). Peer reviewers: CIN513, Norgusbjorgus.

— Assignment last updated by Soviethistorian (talk) 16:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Categories: