Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Robchurch (talk | contribs) at 01:28, 5 November 2005 (Your edits to St Volodymyr's Cathedral). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

blocked for posting Vira Sulyma's article about Ivan Kotlyarevsky

I have blocked you for 24 hours for refusing to follow copyright guidelines and for violation of WP:3RR Jtkiefer ----- 06:15, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

I am following copyright guidelines as described for instance here:

"Note that speedy deletion applies only to articles, that is text; and only when the source is a commercial content provider, that is someone engaged in directly making money off the content. Note: In general, copyright exists automatically, upon publication: an author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright for a copyright to exist. Only an explicit statement that the material is public domain or available under the GFDL makes material useable, unless it is inherently free of copyright due to its age or source."

The article has been copied from a free web site with the consent of the author. Please explain what this violates. Also, protecting this text from simple deletion on a bogus excuse could not be considered a violation of 3RR since it states "The three revert rule is not generally considered to apply to reversions of simple vandalism by users who are waiting for a sysop to block the IP, of course."--Andrew Alexander 08:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Please re-read the above, which says an explicit statement that the material is public domain or available under the GFDL is required, plus you were blocked for reverting more than 3 times in a 24 hour period. WP is built by consensus, please follow the copyright rules and don't try to edit by attrition (it doesn't work). Wyss 18:28, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The material is available due to its source. The explanation of an appropriate source is mentioned two sentences above. The copyright of the article belongs to the author and she has agreed to publish it. It's not clear why Misplaced Pages has to bend its own rules to allow frivolous deletions of valuable articles by the people who already attacked multiple Ukrainian related articles in the past. The Ukrainian language page has been re-written by Irpen at least a hundred times to make it look more like another Russian language page. Now he or she comes here and deletes the text about the founder of modern Ukrainian literature. If the author wants her article from a free web site to be in Misplaced Pages, why not let her? This is at least arguable. Banning people for fighting vandalism is discouraging and unfair.--Andrew Alexander 21:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The material you plagiarized from is available from the link I added to the article and everyone can read it at the site of the copyright owner.

The material has not been plagiarized. It's an offending statement. The material has be been published with the consent of the author, listing the author.--Andrew Alexander 00:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

WUmag doesn't state it is a free license and WUmag, not the author, owns the copyright.

It's a web site that provides free content. The Misplaced Pages policy reads an author does not need to apply for or even claim copyright for a copyright to exist. Please explain, why you decided that the article is fully owned by the free web site of WUmag and not the author.--Andrew Alexander 00:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

If you absolutely insist that the link to the original is worse than your copy, try retelling this article in your own words. All you have to do is to write something yourself, even based on the sources cited. Copy'n'paste would not go. Well, from some sites copy'n'paste is allowed. MaidanUA explicitly states it is GFDL. Copy and paste from there isn't a problem. Use it as a source istead of a tool to mobilize people to do things without thinking. --Irpen 22:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The only problem with this statement, again, is its arbitrariness. Why should anyone re-tell what has already been said and approved for Misplaced Pages by its owner? Why is your version of ownership of the copyright is better than author's? What are the exact documents or rules that you use to support this?--Andrew Alexander 00:45, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I could only repeat that whatever is published,(not just posted but published in the media), is owned not by the author but by publication.

And I could only ask you again, where did you get this information from?--Andrew Alexander 04:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

WUmag holds the copyright for this, not the author.

In this case it's the author. This is a default assumption mentioned by the Misplaced Pages policy. Please provide any proof of the opposite.--Andrew Alexander 04:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Second, he cannot insist that it is published with reference to his name.

It's she - Vira Sulyma. And she would not object to publish it even without a reference.--Andrew Alexander 04:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is published under GFDL which is displayed vividly below the edit window. Read GFDL yourself. And there is no need to copy and paste something anyway, since the link I placed does just that.

The link does not work now. This is one of the main reason the article was brought over to Misplaced Pages.--Andrew Alexander 04:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

However, even without link, we did not have the license to have this text in Misplaced Pages. You may want to look at what's being done now at MaidanUA thread and comment there too. --Irpen 00:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I did have a license. It's called GFDL.--Andrew Alexander 04:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

From the author or from WUmag? It is indeed a good article, totally neutral and informative. If it is indeed released, there are no objections to its content now. --Irpen 04:50, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Renaming

Dear Andrew Alexander, I could not possibly care less about Russian vs Ukrainian names on Misplaced Pages. However, I do care about the fact that the names of the archaeology articles should correspond to current terminology. Please, read this.--Wiglaf 10:30, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Wiglaf, as you probably remamber, I was also doing similar changes. It would be nice if you provide any reference concerning that "Chernyakhov" is indeed the current terminology. What I see on the page, even good experts in the field misspell it as "Chernyakovo", which has nothing to do both with Ukrainian and Russian spellings. It looks like any spelling is not common yet and the best choice is just to stick at the correct name of the village. Regards, --AndriyK 10:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I have seen several spelling versions of the name. However, all of them are transliterations of the Russian name, and I so chose the standard transliteration of cyrillic. It may be hard for you to accept, but the Russian form of the name is the conventional name used for this culture, and so it is the form that will be used.--Wiglaf 10:54, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Still, it would be nice to provide any referencies.--AndriyK 11:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Some English language sources use also Cherniakhiv.--AndriyK 11:10, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

It may be reasonable to continue the discussion at the corresponding talk page?--AndriyK 11:16, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The English language source you cited is Ukrainian. At the moment, I am busy IRL, but I'll get back to you later tonight, with non-Ukrainian sources. Best,--Wiglaf 13:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The source I cited is Canadian, in fact. There are indded Ukrainian English-language sources, but I did not cite them. See you. --AndriyK 15:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Wiglaf, thanks for your reply. I never thought that correcting to the right spelling of a geographical name could be considered propaganda. In fact I tried to reduce the amount of bias by providing both names. Chernyakhiv has not been renamed, it always was Cherniakhiv, at least all the old people in and around that village call it that name. It is how the name is now reading on the international maps. However, I don't want to be confrontational about it either. Simply thought that calling it solely a Russian name used by the Soviet propaganda machine seemed not in line with Misplaced Pages policies because of that. Best regards --Andrew Alexander 17:42, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Please, see my answer below.--Wiglaf 19:03, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Chernyakhiv culture

I also tried to move the article according to the correct name of the site in Ukraine, but I've got the responce that "Chernyakhov culture" is the common English name for the term. I hardly believe it: in fact, some authors (even those considered to be very good experts in the field) misspell it even as "chernyakovo culture". Our opponents do not provide any refference confirming that "Chernyakhov culture" is widelly used. On the other hand, it would be nice if we could provide a reference to a map or a book using "Chernyakhiv". Otherewise we'll likely defeat. Regards, --AndriyK 10:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

AndriyK, I don't think that the translated Encyclopedia of Ukraine counts as an authority of what is the most conventional name in the English language. And for both of you I provide a few references. Here is a Swedish book using the name: Kaliff, Anders: Gothic Connections. Contacts between eastern Scandinavia and the southern Baltic coast 1000 BC – 500 AD. 2001. Here are a few sites mentioning the culture: Newsletter of the Early Slavic Studies Association Volume 12 Number 2 October 1999,THE CHORA OF OLBIA PONTICA: THE MAIN PROBLEMS1 S.D. KRYZHITSKII, The Making of the Slavs, Valentyn Stetsyuk, Research of Prehistoric Ethnogenetic Processes in Eastern Europe, Book 2, Lviv 2003, Chapter 7. Slavic Peoples, Annales du 14e Congrès de l'Association Internationale pour l'Histoire du Verre : Venezia Milano 1998. As you can see, there is no problem finding this name on the Internet, in this form. Just because it is the conventional name. If you feel uncomfortable with the culture having a Russian form, I am deeply sorry, but that is not what the naming is about. A Misplaced Pages article is to have the most conventional name in the English language for the simple reason that it is an encyclopedia.--Wiglaf 19:01, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Wiglaf, the name of the culture is the name of the village. In fact almost any reference to that culture mentions the village in Ukraine. The village name in English is Chernyakhiv. It is how the culture is now called and will continuted to be called in Ukraine as well as in some sources outside of Ukraine. Providing two names - old Soviet one and new Ukrainian on that Misplaced Pages page seems least biased. I hope for your fair and balanced review of that subject. Thanks --Andrew Alexander 19:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding the derivational relationship between the village name and the culture. Yes, the culture was named after the village, but the name of the culture now exists in the English language independently of the village from which it took its name. This is English language Misplaced Pages, where we use conventional English names where possible. The Ukrainian name is only relevant as etymology.--Wiglaf 19:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Wiglaf, sorry if it sounded like I would like to change the name of the culture. I only wanted to bring to your attention the fact that historians in Ukraine (and some outside) now call that culture the actual name of the village it was found at. To avoid confusion and possible bias there was a suggestion to list both names. We need to acknowledge the fact that the culture belongs to the history of Ukraine. It is just as much a national treasure as it is an international history item. I know Ukrainians will not agree to call their treasure a misplaced Russian name. The culture artifacts are stored in Ukrainian museums and researched by Ukrainian archeologists. Andrew Alexander 20:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Now I see, the spelling "Chernyakhov" is indded more common in the academic community that other ones. --AndriyK 19:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Cossacks

Андрію, якщо маєте час, візьміть, будь-ласка, на спостереження статтю про козаків. Там один юзер на ім"я Kuban Kazak намагається замінити історичні факти попсовими легендами. Я вже зробив кілька відкатів. Тому потрібно, щоб ще хтось підключився.--AndriyK 20:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

ok--Andrew Alexander 21:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Стосовно Черняхівської культури, то мені здається, що не варто продовжувати. Наукова спільнота дійсно поки-що частіше використовує "Chernyakhov". Просто раніше не було ніяких підтверджень, але тепер вони є. Єдине, чого варто добитись, це щоб у статті (не в заголовку а в тексті) було вказано обидві назви, ну і згадка про село Черняхів, звичайно. Більшого ми на нинішньому етапі все-одно не досягнемо, тільки час потратимо.--AndriyK 20:39, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Andriy, this is not a question of my personal preference. It is understandable that a certain name could become spread due to the USSR and Russian bias. However, it's a fact that an alternative name is used by historians in and outside Ukraine. We should not "trade" biases and propaganda. Chernyakhiv culture belongs to Ukraine and Ukraine has a right to call it such. Listing both names in the page header is fair and unbiased.--Andrew Alexander 21:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you completelly. But we have to respect the policies and principles of Misplaced Pages. According to them, Misplaced Pages is not an instrument to establish the correct name. It has to use the one, which is accepted by the scientific community (or by English speaking people in general), even it is wrong.

In other words, Misplaced Pages is just a "termometer" thet shows the "temperature" of the corresponding scientific community. If the "termometer" is wrong, we have to fix it. (This is the case of Chernihiv or Putyvl, for instance). But if the "temperature" is wrong, there is no reason to fix the "termometer". One can try to change the opinion of the scientific comunity, if one has a connection to it, or has to wait untill other people make it. There is no other way, in my opinion. Anyway, there is enough work outside Cherniakhiv culture. Let's switch to other things. --AndriyK 21:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course. But a large portion of the scientific community is now using an alternative name. Thus it's time to fix the "thermometer". This discussion just shows, Andriy, how fair and balanced your view is. Thanks --Andrew Alexander 22:13, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly, I did not fine many references using "Cherniakhiv". Only Canadian Encyclopedia of Ukraine and several Ukrainian English-Language internet sites. There was a reason for a discussion, before Wiglaf has shown his references. But now we see that he was right. "Chernyakhov" is indeed more common than "Cherniakhiv". Still, I added "Cherniakhiv" to the first line of the article.--AndriyK 22:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Your edits to St Volodymyr's Cathedral

Template:Lieuofblock

Please be aware that I'm not the sort of person who allows people to get away with violating 3RR based on technicalities; an important part of our policies is the spirit in which they're made.

I would strongly advise you to stop editing that article and to start talking about your changes on the talk page; explain to the others:

• Why you think your changes are correct
  • Cite sources if possible
  • Explain how they conform to a neutral point of view
• Why their edits are not correct

I won't be blocking this time under 3RR, although I should - please take the advice above. You will find that you earn the respect of many of us by not revert-warring. Rob Church 01:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)