User talk:Kuban kazak/2005

Kharkiv

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

Moscow Metro

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

Welcome

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

Transliteration

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

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

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

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

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

Camerafiend 13:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Ukraine

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

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

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

Russian portal

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

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

St. Volodymyr's

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Geographic names

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

Wikipedia is not a "Russian Orthodox Encyclopaedia"

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

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

Please read WP:NPOV carefully.

NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view.

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

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

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

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

...вряд ли

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

Challenge

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

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

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

Request for help

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

Metro :(

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mediation concerning St Volodymyr's Cathedral

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

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

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

Balachka

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

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

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

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

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

-Хрющиф чорт е'о падрал

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt

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

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

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

A bit more on the metro

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ulitsa 1905 Goda

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

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

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

Volyn Crop and Holodomor

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

Congratulations!

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

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

Architects' initials

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

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

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

RfAr

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

ArbCom accepted

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

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

Question

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

We are Cossacks. Кубанские Казаки. Checl 2002 census.

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

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

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

Dnipro

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

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

Kuban

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

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

Great Russian 816734
Malorussian   908818

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

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

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

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

Belarus

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

Holodomor - "REGISTER, then edit"

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

Welcome! Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and write articles, however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is Kuban kazak/2005). Logging in does not require any personal details. There are many other benefits for logging in to Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can type {{helpme}} on this page and an experienced Wikipedian will be around to answer any questions you may have. Please note these points: Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly. Please use a neutral point of view to edit the article; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy. If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do that. Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as: copyrighted texts, advertisement messages, and texts that are not related to that article. Both adding such unreasonable information and editing articles maliciously are considered vandalism. A user who repeatedly vandalises articles will be blocked from editing. The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, ask me on my Talk page – I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia. from Wikipedian: wangi 16:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

Arbitration accepted

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

Stay cool

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

War with Bryndza

See, Kazache, this is not war of revertions, this is just removal of unproved facts. Why unproved? See here [3], aha, removed already. Why? OK. Let's talk. What do you think about that post that you just removed? Meanwhile I'll write more to you.--Bryndza 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.--Bryndza 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 :)?--Bryndza 23:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cool down, and refrain yourself from sarcastic remarks

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

Stubs

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

Translit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your knowledge is needed

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

3RR

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dealing with trolls

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

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

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

Ukrainian language

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your edits of Holodomor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you mean these paragraphs:

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

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

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

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

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

Koniuchy massacre

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

Uniate church

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

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

Your recent change to Ukrainian language

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

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

Pure drafts

• History of Christianity in Ukraine (history · last edit) from [8], plagiarised by User:Yakudza and User:Bryndza, I tried reporting the latter to a 3RR. Kuban Cossack 00:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright problems