User talk:Nixer/Archive1

First of all, please do not delete text from your user talk page. It's considered bad form, as it looks like you're trying to hide criticism. (See Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes.)

I always delete discussed topics. No need to show old information--Nixer 07:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

If you want to reduce clutter on your talk page, you can put old talk into an archive. You can do this by creating a red link like User talk:Nixer/Archive and then cutting and pasting the old talk into the archive. But simply deleting old talk is not acceptable. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Secondly, please stop reverting Proto-Indo-European language back to the version most recently edited by you. There have been many additions and changes made in the meantime that have no bearing on the issue of the reconstructed texts, and when you do a simple revert, all of those changes get lost.

Ok, I will merge all the additions.--Nixer 07:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

As for including the reconstructed texts, if you read the talk page, you will see that there is broad consensus among the page's editors that reconstructed texts should be kept to an absolute minimum -- Schleicher's fable and the "King and Varuna" story at most (many people don't even want those). I understand that you want to have more texts than that, but Wikipedia works by consensus: everyone has to agree on a change (or rather, there should be no overt objections to a change) before it can stand in the article. In the case of the reconstructions, there are now several overt objections to them. Please understand that this means they will not be accepted, and stop trying to put them back. Thanks. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 06:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Those who havent any knowledge of the language need these samples to feel what it was like. Those, who already knows, in fact do not need the samples. They even do not need the article at all.--Nixer 07:35, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Without the text examples the whole article is obsolete - samples give more to imagine the language than any other information in the article, even if it is scientifically correct.--Nixer 07:40, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

When the text samples are now seen as totally unscientific, they do not help to "imagine the language". In fact, they give people the false impression that engaging in writing whole texts is still an accepted practise, and it isn't. Crculver 15:27, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I will continually add the samples and revert your deletions.--Nixer 07:36, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Nixer, we have a discussion, and a consensus, on the matter on the talkpage. If you keep adding your stuff, you will be blocked for violation of WP:3RR. dab (ᛏ) 07:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

You can not call it "consensus" without me agreed - just "majority" at most. I will revert it later. --Nixer 08:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Stubbornly continuing to revert when you have been repeatedly asked to stop is considered a type of vandalism and can get you banned. Even if you stop technically violating the three-revert rule, if you make three reversions, then wait for the 24 hours to be up, and then make three more reversions and so on, it's called Gaming the system and is also unacceptable (it probably won't get you banned but it certainly won't win you any friends). Consensus doesn't always mean 100% agreement on everything; Wikipedia strives for "broad consensus" which usually translates to at least 67% to 75% agreement. At this point there is broad consensus that the only reconstructed texts acceptable are Schleicher's and Sen's. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 08:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Notation (mostly)

Nixer, your reversions today removed all the improvements over the last two days. I thought you agreed with Angr not to do that.

And why do you insist on having your own version of the numbers? The main difference in your version is in spelling conventions: Your version uses qu where the rest of the article uses k^w, c where the article uses ḱ and v where the rest of the article uses w. The spelling conventions used in the rest of the article follow the usage in modern books on PIE. I find your spellings confusing.

First, Sampson in his article uses his own spelling style. There is a lot of different styles to write even such texts as Shleicher's tale. The style, which do I use is adaped for the Latin (non professional phonetic) alphabet, it is easily readable for indo-european-speaking people and have many analogues in classical Latin and Slavic spelling.--Nixer 08:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Sampson is not a professional Indo-Europeanist, therefore his transcription doesn't belong in the article. Wikipedia needs to represent the views of the scholarly community, therefore we should use one of the transcriptions used in the major handbook, not that of some hobbyist's site. Furthermore, I don't know how you can call your bizarre style "easily readable for indo-european-speaking people", because a large amount of speakers of Indo-European speakers don't even use the Latin alphabet. Crculver 03:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually Sampson is not to be faulted for his notation. He introduced it not because he preferred it but because he didn’t know how to display the standard notation in HTML. --teb728 07:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Sampson in his article uses his own spelling style. He explains it there and uses it consistently. The Wikipedia article uses a different style, which it explains and uses consistently (except in the text samples). I don’t like the non-conforming spelling in the text samples, but I accept it there because the samples are really an appendix to the article. The numbers are part of the article proper and should conform.

As a phonetic transcription you can use what do you want, but it is difficult to non-professionals to read these characters. I insist on both styles included.

The notation used in the article is not a “phonetic transcription.” Indeed the IPA symbol for ḱ is /c/. Rather the article’s notation is tailored to help English speakers read it correctly—more about this below.

The spelling style used in the article is carefully chosen. It avoids confusion inherent in the Latin alphabet: According to the rules of English pronunciation c is pronounced as s before i or e and as a non-palatal velar elsewhere, whereas PIE ḱ was a palato-velar everywhere. And v is pronounced like Cyrilic в, whereas PIE w is more like Cyrilic у.

No, in the style that you use, the w letter is used for at least three different sounds: like Cyrillic в, like Cyrillic у and like Cyrillic о. While in my style short w after k sound is depicted as qu. For example, the word "cventos" - you depict it as "kwentos", while its beginning is different than the beginning of the word "kwetweros" for example. All places which are marked by "c" letter in my notation, later mutated into "с" or "ц" in slavic and other satem languages. For example: сluthi -> cлушай, cventos -> свято, свет, цвет; ceredos->сердце, com->со, ceuti->сеять etc. Also all "qu"'s mutated into "ч" (quetveros->четверо, evequet->отвечает, queto-что), gu -> ж (guiva->жива, guen->жена, while you spell it as gwen, which can't be separated from "gwedhe" for example, which I spell as gvedhe), gh ->з (voghom -> воз, veghontum -> везёт, egh->из, bhegh -> без), th -> ш (cluthi->слушай thund->шум), en -> а or я and so on.

I wonder if your browser is configured correctly; you do not seem to notice some important distinctions in the article:

Unfortunately, I can see transparent squares only when at home.--Nixer 19:38, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Probably the computer with the transparent squares is missing a Unicode font. The fonts used in the PIE template are Code2000, Chrysanthi Unicode, Doulos SIL, Gentium, GentiumAlt, TITUS Cyberbit Basic, Bitstream Vera, Bitstream Cyberbit, Arial Unicode MS, Lucida Sans Unicode, and Hiragino Kaku Gothic Pro. You should need only one of them. Maybe you could copy from another computer or download a free Unicode font --teb728 07:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• The phoneme you write as c is written in the article as ḱ (with an acute accent) not as k. Thus the word you write as cventos would have been written ḱwentos not kwentos (if it appeared at all).
• The phoneme you write as qu is written as k^w (superscripted) not kw. Thus the word for four is written as k^wetwor- not kwetwor-. Contrary to what you say, ḱw is clearly distinguished from k^w by both accent and superscript.
• The phoneme you write as gu is written as g^w (superscripted) not gw. Thus the word you write as guen- would be written g^wen- not gwen-.
• The phoneme you write as g is written as ǵ (with an acute accent) not as g. Thus the word you write as gvedhe would be written ǵwed^he not gwedhe. Contrary to what you say, ǵw is clearly distinguished from g^w by both accent and superscript. (I refer here to the voiced palatovelar—not the voiced plain velar, which is written g. How do you notate voiced plain velars?)

The phonemes which are satemized in Russian and the other satem languages are all marked with an accent: ḱ, ǵ, and ǵ^h.

Well, do you see all this stuff in your version of Schleicher's tale?--Nixer 19:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

You didnt answer--Nixer 08:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I see that you have put your numbers and texts into the Russian version of the article. Your notation makes more sense there than in the English version. Since you do not speak English well, you probably do not appreciate how misleading your notation is for English speakers.

• In English c before i or e is pronounced /s/. So an English speaker is inclined to pronounce ceredos incorrectly as /seredos/. (Yes, I know that in the satem languages ḱ was satemized to /s/, but we are talking here about PIE before it broke up into the centum and satem daughter languages.) This is why it is important to use ḱ instead of c in an English article.

The mother tounge pronouciation does not match. For example, in Russian c also means the [s] sound. Also many of vowels (a,o,e,i,u) have in your PIE examples different pronounciation than in English, why not to mark them all with accents, acutes and diacrirtics?--Nixer 19:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

According to scholars PIE ḱ was a palato-velar (similar to кь and not similar to Cyrillic с).

I know, but I can hardly imagine a Russian, who would try to pronounce it like Russian c.--Nixer 08:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The satem shift occurred after the PIE period.

Pronunciation of vowel letters is so varied in English that English speakers do not assign any particular pronunciation to a vowel letter. If a text looks unrecognizably foreign, we tend to use Italian style pronunciation of vowel letters (which gives the correct vowel pronunciation also for PIE, as well as for Spanish, and Russian transliteration). --teb728 07:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• In English the digraph th is pronounced as a fricative, /þ/ or /ð/. So an English speaker is inclined to pronounce сluthi as /kluþi/. This is why it is important to use t^h instead of th in an English article.

If anyone knows the text is written in different language - he knows that the phonetic rules may differ. Or do you mean that English-speakers usually use English phonetics when reading texts in other languages? Not to mention that these examples also copied to other language pages - from English page.--Nixer 19:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

If an English speaker recognizes the language, and if he knows the pronunciation rules for that language, he will try to follow those rules. If he does not recognize the language, or if he does not know the pronunciation rules, he will pronounce the vowels as in Italian and the consonants as in English. Non-Roman texts are transliterated with this in mind. So, for example, цар is transliterated as tsar, and an English speaker will pronounce it (almost) correctly. When цар used to be transliterated Polish-style as czar, English speakers pronounced it as /zar/ (/kzar/ would be too difficult to pronounce).

This fact that an English speaker pronounces unfamiliar consonants as in English is just my point: If someone pronounces c, th, and v in your notation according to English pronunciation rules, the result is wrong. --teb728 07:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

And it is logically acceptable: English th came from PIE th, English c - from PIE c. Yes, phonetic rules were differ, but if to show ethymology of words and connection between English and PIE - no way is better.--Nixer 08:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

• In English v is always pronounced as a labiodental fricative—never as a bilabial semivowel. This is why it is important to use w instead of v to represent the PIE semivowel w.

Give me an example of such case.--Nixer 19:34, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason you do not understand is that Russian does not have a sound corresponding to English w (as opposed to English v). All instances of PIE w became в in Russian, and I suspect that English w is transliterated as в in Russian. In English, however, w and v are quite distinct sounds, and scholars say that the PIE semivowel w was pronounced like English w. For phonetic descriptions see Labial-velar approximant and Voiced labiodental fricative. Basically w is pronounced much like u but with the lips closer together. The lower lip is close to the upper lip rather than to the upper teeth as in v. --teb728 07:48, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The more familiar the notation looks, the more likely an English speaker will mispronounce it. The notation used in the article looks foreign to an English speaker. But if he just reads each consonant according to its unique English pronunciation, he will come the closest he can with English phonemes to the PIE pronunciation. And if he wants to distinguish non-English phonemes (like palatovelar ḱ as opposed to k or aspirated d^h as opposed to d), the information is there to do that. --teb728 22:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that this spelling is close to the classical Latin tradition (without k and w letters), and shows the similarity between the PIE and the Latin - the most close to PIE contemporary known language. It is strange to write kredheo, kom, kwe for Latin credo, com, que etc--Nixer 10:38, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

So the familiarity you find for Indo-European-speaking people is really a source of confusion and leads to false sense of what PIE was like. --teb728 10:00, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Also why do you insist on copying examples into the article? I agree with you that examples are useful. But why not link to them where they are already located on the web? You agreed that cicrm.access.telecore.net.ru was the correct source for several of your examples. So why not just link to them there?

Yes, the links are useful, but why not to include them into article? Note: in the article about proto-Semitic even dictionary included.--Nixer 08:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You objected to www.christusrex.org as a source of the Christian prayers; so where did you find them? Add a link to some other web address that you prefer. (Frankly I think it is silly to translate Christian prayers to PIE, for PIE went extinct long before the beginning of Christianity.) --teb728 06:01, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

3RR again

Nixer, your stubborn edit warring will not do. There is a clear consensus against you, and you have not managed to even explain what you think is wrong. You have been warned about breaking WP:3RR before. I am blocking you for 3RR violation for two hours to show that we are serious about this. If you continue to edit war, your blocks will become longer. dab (ᛏ) 11:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Kuiper belt/Scattered disk

The exact taxonomy of TNOs is still quite fuzzy, but there is a general sense that the Kuiper belt is a discrete area that ends at about 49 AU out (I've read some sorces pegging it at 44, though that would exclude cubewanos like (55565) 2002 AW197)—hence references to the as-of-yet unexplanined "Kuiper cliff." While SDOs may cruise through the KB for brief portions of their orbital period, they swing way out in wonky orbits that makes the whole scattered disc a very, very large area (if we consider Sedna an SDO, it stretches out to over 1000 AU). In other words, the scattered disc is a not a subregion of the Kuiper belt, even though their member objects probably share a lot of similarities -The Tom 19:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

But even discoverers call SDOs a Kuiper belt members. By the way, 2003 EL61 and 2005 FY9 travel much far then 49 AU. Yes, may be classical objects dont fly there.

Sedna is definitely not a KBO.--Nixer 10:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Removal

You are removing established text and rendering the Global City article poorer. Make clear that GaWC is not the be all and end all of the discussion but cease removing text. This qualifies as vandalism to my mind. Marskell 10:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I dont remove the GaWC rating. --Nixer 10:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

3RR

You've been blocked for violating the WP:3RR on Global city. You're welcome to return once your block expires, but when you do please use our dispute resolution methods instead of edit warring. --fvw* 02:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Anthony just mailed me to say he was sorry about breaking the 3RR; What say you two both promise not to edit the article until your mediation concludes, then I can unblock both of you and we need have no more of this silliness. Sound reasonable? --fvw* 02:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I was discussing the article on the discussion page. And I wanted the NPOV tag exist in the artice while it is being discussed. He continously removed the tag. :-( --Nixer 09:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Request for mediation/arbitration initiated!!!

By the way, Nixer, I suggest we refrain from making edits to this article, and retaliatory edits to the Toronto article, et al. as a request for mediation has been initiated regarding this. Other parties are free to comment

Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 19:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Hello! We have both made recent edits to the global city article; we were blocked for prior actions and I regret if this has escalated. Thus, to ensure this is resolved properly, I again strongly recommend we refrain from making additional edits and restore the prior text until our mediation concludes; otherwise, various users risk being blocked (again) by persisting. Thank you! E Pluribus Anthony 22:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Try to retrain yourself first. --Nixer 22:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

If that is the case, we both need retraining, some more than others. E Pluribus Anthony 23:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

I tried not to participate, but saw you continued editing. Is this one-way rule?--Nixer 23:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Of course it is not one-way. I edited what I thought was an inappropriate contribution by VS (i.e., could've been phrased differently); note I didn't delete it completely. My apologies. I also restored (after your edit) the article to its prior state and have since not edited the article – and will not do so hereafter – until the mediation is resolved. However, you have since edited it and persist in doing so. We both need to agree to stop and let this play out in mediation. E Pluribus Anthony 23:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello! I hope you're well. By the way: I created a list of notable museums and galleries around the world, which appears in the Encyclopedia Britannica Almanac 2005; these are the sorts of links (with links to) which can complement our efforts regarding global city stature. I'll continue on this front and will work on similar lists. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 09:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Hi there, Nixer. I'm Catherine, you might or might not have seen me around here the last couple of years; I'm generally a quiet toiler-in-corners. I've agreed to try mediating on the Global city article -- thanks to both of you for taking the first steps to restrain yourselves. I'm not here to choose sides or "fix" the article, I'm just here to help you two clarify your goals, talk to each other about your edits, and find a solution that satisfies both of you. Do you agree to participate? — Catherine\^talk 00:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes--Nixer 00:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I said this on the talk page and I'll say it here: start a user page. User:Nixer/Global city additions for instance. Leave the actual article for a few days or a week. Work on the user page, adding things you think are useful. Find sources. I'll help! Honestly, there is no problem with expanding the article, it just can't be done ad-hoc.

And to be absolutely clear, I have not moved Toronto up. While dealing with your edits, I have simultaneously dealt with a very f***ing annoying user who keeps moving T.O. up. Marskell 01:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I second that: I will help too; I already have a vision of additional stuff that can be added. (In my humble opinion...) Until then, we require a modus vivendi. E Pluribus Anthony 01:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. I will start the template shortly.--Nixer 01:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Non-free images

I see you have uploaded a number of images which have usage terms allowing only non-commercial use. Those terms are incompatible with the GFDL, and therefore unacceptable for Wikipedia, and the images are therefore subject to speedy deletion: [1]. Though I agree they were nice images... Thue | talk 20:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Those images are being deleted now. I'm sorry. Ingoolemo ^talk 20:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Please note that 'any purpose' includes selling. Any image that prohibits commercial use cannot be used on Wikipedia, and is not a copyrighted free-use image. Ingoolemo ^talk 20:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Nixer, your images were deleted because Wikipedia does not allow "used with permission" and "non-commercial use images". These kinds of images are elegible for speedy deletion without warning. Alr 21:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Moscow: recent edit

Hi there Nixer,

With your recent edition of the Moscow article, were you trying to add some of the images while removing others? also, you reverted some of the recent edits. I just did a little editing and I am not sure why my edition wasn't favored :) or was it removed by mistake; either way may be OK... but just thought I'd ask. Also, a few images do not exist apparently - are you planning on having them restored in the near future? It's a shame to see fine images deleted but it's kind of not looking so good when the major article like this shows quite a few blank placeholders or red image links... What's your thought? Regards - Introvert ^talk 01:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear colleague, until Nixer learns to use talk pages for discussing drastical changes of key articles, his deletions will spawn nothing but endless edit wars. --Ghirlandajo 11:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes it doesn't work well when you roll back to an much older version and discard edits in between, Nixer. You might be understandably upset about deletion of images... Do you have a list of what got lost? Perhaps we could try and work on compiling a list, and finding appropriate images to fill in the gaps if you feel it that way? - Introvert ^talk 05:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Introvert, you could use history link at top of page to see all changes. I think we should restore what was before Nixer --Elk Salmon 22:12MSK, 17 October 2005

USSR-Nazi Germany

Well, it's pretty obvious that the USSR and Nazi Germany were allied. They signed treaties, they cooperated militarily against Poland, they divided up central Europe between themselves and they started close economical cooperation. It might be sad to know to Russians, but that's how it was. Halibutt 02:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

USSR was not an ally of Germany. Germany had treaties with many countries: Poland, Sweden, Turkey etc. There was no alliance treaty between Germany and the USSR. Germany and Poland devided Czechoslovakia. Many countries cooperated with Germany economically. --Nixer 10:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

You can read here: Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact and here: s:ru:Пакт Молотова-Риббентропа. - Introvert ^talk 05:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

About what? Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is a neutrality agreement.--Nixer 14:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Formally, yes; in reality, no. That was the whole point of its secret protocol. ProhibitOnions 17:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

This is your POV.--Nixer 17:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

3RR yet again

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violating the three-revert rule on Proto-Indo-European language. --Angr/[[User_talk:Angr|_{{{IPA|tɔk tə mi}}}]] 14:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Your edits on History of Europe have violated the three-revert rule yet again. I suggest you step back and discuss edits on the talk page before engaging in revert wars. --bbatsell | « give me a ring » 08:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I DO discuss the edits, my opponents - dont. My posts in the talk page are without answer.--Nixer 08:42, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[2]

how dense can you be Nixer? You removed the statement of Starostin towards his own reconstruction, and you removed the qualification of Starostin's "major branches", as described on their own articles, and you call your version "NPOV"? Have you even read WP:NPOV, or do you use the term as empty jargon for "my version"? Please, go back to the Russian Wikipedia, where you are at least able to follow discussions. Likewise, I will not blunder on Russian articles, making wild and incoherent claims in my broken Russian, deal? dab (ᛏ) 20:27, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

3RR again

You reverted six times in 24h on Proto-World language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and I'm blocking you for two days. You have to learn that just pushing your changes gets you nowhere at all. This time you didn't make a single edit to the talkpage, you just kept crying for others to explain on the talkpage why they rejected your edit. dab (ᛏ) 09:56, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I didnt only revert, but included the phrase that you insisted and some addetions. You have no right to block me.--Nixer 10:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I see you're out and about again. Do NOT violate the 3RR again - I cannot be bothered to go through all this grief a second time. You've been here for months, there are no excuses for "newbie" behavior. Izehar 15:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

And what me to do? There is no concrete differences in our points of views. He simply reverts any edit of mine and does not discuss them in the talk page.--Nixer 15:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Well ask him; I'm sure he'll listen and give you a proper answer. Izehar 16:58, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Russian transliteration

I have corrected mistakes. You're reverting. For example, there can not be Russian village "Поганкино" and "Бурянск". Proper names are Паганкино and Бурьянск. I guess, do you know Russian?--Nixer 08:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I find it funny that you challenge the spelling of the names that I actually made up for illustration purposes. I will replace them with the names of actual places. Still, made up or not, Поганкино is written with an "о", not "а". It's a derivative from the word "поганка" ("a non-edible mushroom"), which is also spelled with an "о" (and the check word is "по́гань"). Needless to say, there are no places in Russia (not at least that I am aware of) with the names "П(о/а)ганкино" and "Буряновск" (or "Бурьяновск", for that matter). And yes, of course I know Russian. I may occasionally make mistakes in English, but not in Russian—it's my native language after all.

Ну раз так, то давай по-русски и пообщаемся.--Nixer 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Давай! Только здесь, а не в обсуждении статей. Английская википедия, всё-таки.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, here is what I did and why:

• removed "Pogankino" (non-existent name of a non-existent place); replaced it with "Vanino" (a port in Khabarovsk Krai);
• removed "Drovyanoye" (same reason); replaced it with "Dalnerechensk" (a town in Primorsky Krai);
• removed soft sign examples for "ё", because this letter is always transliterated as "yo", no matter in which position.

Вот это бред. Поясняю. Поскольку в английском языке есть только два мягких звука - й(y) и ч (ch), англоговорящим очень сложно смягчать согласные. Поэтому в некоторых случаях, когда мягкость согласной может повлиять на смысл, между этой согласной и последующей гласной при транслитерации вставляют y, то есть звук, который в английском всегда мягкий, что автоматически заставляет смягчать и предыдущую согласную. Это лишь приближение. Например: мякоть -> myakot, чтобы не спутать с "макать". Если же перед гласной стоит и так мягкий звук (ч), то смягчать его не надо. Поэтому точной транслитерацией будет Gorbachov, bruschatka и т.д., а не Gorbachyov, bruschyatka.--Nixer 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Мой дорогой Никсер, я же уже два раза объяснил, что к тому, как читается слово, транслитерация имеет очень отдалённое отношение. Транслитерация передаёт то, как слово пишется. Чтение же слова передаёт транскрипция. Вот ещё раз ссылки—transliteration, transcription. Для транскрипции у нас есть IPA. То, что в систему, описываемую статьёй, вкрались элементы произношения, есть a very unfortunate fact, с коим мы сейчас уже боремся путём разделения статьи про транслитерацию вообще и конвенций, используемых Википедией в частности. Конвенции эти, кстати, основаны на наиболее часто используемых элементах в приложении к английскому языку. Поэтому Горбачёв, который Михаил Сергеевич, это Gorbachev, а Горбачёв, который никому неизвестный город, названный в его честь (буде такой появится на карте)—это Gorbachyov. Первый вариант—это общепринятая конвенция (в соответствии с "Use the most common name" policy), а второй—это следование системе транслитерации. Спроси же меня, если что-то непонятно. Никто не предлагает переименовывать статью про Михаила Сергеевича только потому, что буква "ё" на самом деле транслитерируется не так.

Ничего подобного. Во-первых, транслитерация - это передача слов другим алфавитом максимально близко к произношению. Во-вторых, с чего ты взял, что ё должно транслитерироваться всегда именно как yo, а не как o или e? Например, английскую букву i мы транслитерируем иногда как "и" (Дик), иногда как "ай" (Майкл).--Nixer 21:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ну ёлы же палы! Ну прочитай же, наконец, transliteration! Вот, выписка: Transliteration is a mapping from one system of writing (sic!) into another. "System of writing, а вовсе не "произношения". Далее, из transcription: transcription is (a system of) writing the sounds of a word (sic!) in one language using the script of another language. Ещё далее: Transcription can be distinguished from transliteration, which creates a mapping from one script to another that is designed to match the original script as directly as possible. Убедил?

С этим никто не спорит. Тем не менее, транслитерация делается не лишь бы как, а чтобы максимально отражать произношение. Не согласен?--Nixer 21:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Не согласен. Как я сказал уже как минимум два раза (с цитатами), транслитерация отражает не произношение, а написание. Произношение отражает транскрипция. Статья же про транслитерацию. Ну чего же тут непонятного?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Теперь, с чего я взял, что "ё" всегда "yo"? Во-первых, не всегда, а только в рамках некоторых систем транслитерации. Другие системы используют и "e", и "ë", и "ye", и "yë". А мы используем "yo", потому что такой вариант наиболее распространён, и "e", когда к этому

"Мы" - это кто?--Nixer 21:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Большинство редакторов, работающих над статьями, в которых нужна транслитерация.?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

призывает common use. Во-вторых, транслитерация английского на русский—это совсем другая тема (о которой, кстати, в английской википедии нет статьи, и которую ты мог бы написать, если есть знания и желание). Тот же русский на немецкий или французский, например, транслитерируется совсем по-другому, нежели на английский.

Именно, и это потому что там другие правила чтения.--Nixer 21:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

И именно поэтому давай о других языках больше не говорить.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

К статье, о которой мы спорим, это не имеет никакого отношения. В третьих, покажи же мне, пожалуйста, какая уважаемая организация для транслитерации русского на английский использует букву "o" для передачи "ё", "a" для "я" и "u" для "ю". Что-то мне сдаётся, что либо такая система используется для транслитерации не на английский, а на какой-то другой язык, либо это вообще плод твоей фантазии. Если сможешь меня разубедить—буду только рад узнать что-то новое.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Отдельной минорной нотой хочу отметить, что слово "брусчатка" пишется через "а", а не "я".—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The exceptions are only for names with established English spelling (such as "Gorbachev"). The problem with this definition, which I fully realize and intend to work on, is that this article attempts to both describe a common system of Russian transliteration (mostly BGN/PCGN-based) and to establish Wikipedia transliteration guidelines (hence all the "common use" references). This will eventually be separated into Wikipedia namespace to avoid further confusion;

• replaced "Lapinsk" (another made up example) with "Lipetsk" (a city in Russia; an administrative center of Lipetsk Oblast);
• replaced "Uletaysk" (another one) with "Ukhta" (a town in Russia);
• left "h" (for "х" when commonly accepted)—thanks for catching that, although I am having trouble finding an example too;

Halhin Gol?--Nixer 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Может быть, но это китайское название, переданное русскими буквами. Я, в принципе, не против его добавить, но желательно бы что-нибудь породнее.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• restored "Ыттык-Кёль"—that's a real place in Sakha (sometimes spelled "Ыттык-Кюёль"). Not Russian, I know, but since there are no Russian words that start with an "ы", a name of a place that originated in a different language (and used in Russian in this form) was the best I could do for this illustration.
• replaced "Kozyuchinsk" (non-existent) with "Sukhoplyuyev" (a Russian surname);

Здесь грамотная транслитерация - Sukhopluev.--Nixer 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Это не "грамотная" транслитерация, это другая транслитерация. Систем транслитерации много, мы не можем их использовать все одновременно, надо на чём-то остановиться. "Suhoplüev" тоже правильно, но в английской википедии не актуально.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• took "iu" off—if you find examples, you are welcome to add it back;

Как правило, при транслитерации СВОИХ имён и фамилий, стараются использовать i вместо y (особенно если они латинского происхождения, т.к. в классической латыни буквы y не было).--Nixer 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Если в каком-либо конкретном случае наверняка известно, что человек предпочитает "i" вместо "y", или же вариант имени/фамилии с "i" более распространён, то он и будет использоваться. В общем же случае (или когда предпочтения отсутствуют или неизвестны) нужно пользоваться одной из систем транслитерации. Одни системы используют "i", другие—"y", распределены они примерно поровну, а остановиться желательно на какой-либо одной. На момент написания статьи про транслитерацию в английской википедии вариант с "y" был более распространён (поскольку при транслитерации русского на английский (подчёркиваю, на английский, другие языки к английской википедии отношения не имеют) он используется чаще), то его и взяли в качестве стандарта. В связи с этим хочу напомнить, что Википедия—это энциклопедия, отображающая положение дел в реальном мире; Википедия не изобретает/продвигает "правильные" стандарты, она описывает то, что уже существует и повсеместно используется.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Существуют разные варианты. Кстати, iu я пометил как вариант в случае если так принято.--Nixer 21:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Если добавишь пример—не имею ничего против. Я просто не хочу перегружать и так уже перегруженную таблицу бесконечными вариантами, к которым нет примеров. Пример этот, однако, должен отражать common use.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• removed soft sign examples for "ю" and "я" (same reason as with "ё");

Я уже сказал, что это не так.--Nixer 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Покажи мне, пожалуйста, описание системы транслитерации русского на английский, где это "не так". Я, в свою очередь, могу привести несколько, в которых это "так". См. выше об описательном характере Википедии.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Тогда и создай колонки для разных систем транслитерации, а не придумывай своего.--Nixer 21:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Своего никто ничего не придумывал. Колонки создадим—я в курсе, что текущий вариант далеко не оптимален. Интро, кстати, тоже было бы неплохо переписать.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• replaced "Buryansk" with "Krasnoyarsk" (a city in Russia);
• removed "ia"—"Natalia" is too ambiguous (is "ia" for just "я" or for "ья"? Is "Natalia" transliteration for "Наталья" or "Наталия"?) This is another unfortunate mix of Wikipedia policy description and encyclopedic material. Need a better example.

Eupatoria?--Nixer 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a "common English name", not transliteration per se. But hey, a good one. Add it if you want.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yakutia?--Nixer 21:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead. Also not a bad one.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• restored "-ый/-ий" endings descriptions to their original form. No major transliteration system ever uses "-iy" to transliterate "-ый". It's either "-y", or "-yy", or "-yi". In Wikipedia, "-y" is always used for "-ый". As for "-ий", both "-iy" and "-y" are acceptable and used. Again, this is related to the common use issues, and, as such, will eventually be separated into Wikipedia namespace as well.

Каждый транслитерирует как хочет, а мы должны написать как лучше. Традиция транс литерировать это буквой y пошла из других славянкийх языков (ср. "српски") и не подходит для русского языка.--Nixer 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Опять же, мы должны писать не как лучше, а как принято. Библиотека Конгресса США, например, с этим правилом не имеет никаких проблем.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Они по-русски не говорят. Для них что русский, что польский - всё одно.--Nixer 21:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Вообще, я подозреваю, что говорят. Кроме того, систему транслитерации они создавали для англоговорящих читателей, а не для русских. Почему же система, созданная американцами для американцев же не подходит для использования в английской википедии, нацеленной на ту же англоговорящую аудиторию?—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Вопрос не в том, что подходит, а что - нет. Вопрос в том, что лучше. Чтобы не было ОИ, напиши, что это система конгресса США и не вноси в эту систему никаких правок. Если так сделаешь, я соглашусь. И вообще, это описательная статья или инструкция(рекомендация)? Если описательная, то нужно как можно более точно отразить все имеющиеся альтернативные системы, и ничего не придумывать.--Nixer 21:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

И ведь напишу :) Перед этим, однако, я ядовито подмечу, что я (даже на этой странице) уже упоминал, что статья неидельна, потому что она используется и как энциклопедическая, и как рекомендательная для Википедии, а также то, что работа по исправлению сего недоразумения уже началась, хотя и очень недавно (посему и результатов нет—мы всё ещё в стадии документации). Знаешь, очень трудно вести дискуссию с человеком, который невнимательно читает то, что ему пишут в ответ.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Значит, твои исправления годятся, а мои - нет?--Nixer 22:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Мои были в рамках существующей системы. Твои перемешали всё в кучу без разбора, да ещё и с ошибками. Если бы ты сам сделал колонки, я бы тебе первый спасибо сказал. Не обижайся только раньше времени, работы всем хватит. Вернёшь мой последний вариант обратно, хотя бы частично? Я там далеко не только твои исправления откатил, но и кучу собственных ляпсусов исправил. А уже оттуда будем дальше плясать, желательно без ревёртов туда-сюда. Давай лучше по человечески всё обсудим и не будем бросаться друг друга откатывать. Я тоже погорячился. Приношу свои извинения.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

• replaced "Sin(i)y" with "Podolsk(i)y", as a longer word better illustrates the point of "-y" and "-iy" being interchangeable.
• removed your Trotsky example and replaced it back with Velik(i)y. "Trotsky", by the way, is spelled "Троцкий" in Russian, not "Тротский" (which confirms my guess that you do not know Russian or know it on a basic level at best).

:-)--Nixer 20:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Смех смехом, а что же ты правишь статью о транслитерации, и в то же время делаешь ошибки на уровне третьекласника? Я, конечно, беру свои слова обратно, но грамотным человеком тебя посчитать не могу.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Ты за собой следи, умник.--Nixer 21:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Если я где ошибся—поправь. Критика приветствуется. Но скажи мне по секрету, чем ты руководствовался, поправляя "Поганкино" на "Паганкино"? Может я не понял чего-то? Не хочу тебя обижать, но выглядит это как элементарнейшая безграмотность.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Бурянск" тоже выглядит как безграмотность.--Nixer 21:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Я это слово придумал, я его и пишу, как хочу :) Если серьёзно, то выбор был плохим—я поленился подобрать нормальный пример, а потом забыл заменить. Хотя "Чебурянск", например, звучит вполне грамотно.:)—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

"Velik(i)y" is a part of the name of the city of Velik(i)y Novgorod and is a common Russian word.

Hope this is a good enough explanation for you. Let me know if you have questions of any sort.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

За мир

By the way, your most recent revert undid most of my corrections (real ones this time). You also broke the three-revert rule, with which, as I see it from your previous discussions, you should be familiar by now. Please do no such thing in future. I'll let it slide for now. Please also be careful with what you call vandalism. "Vandalism" would be replacing the content of the article with something like "my penis is bigger than yours hahaha". I seriously doubt that what I did falls under that definition.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You also have violated the 3RR. By the way, before me.--Nixer 21:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, no. I stayed within my limits, although I admit the even three reverts is two reverts too many.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 04:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Nixer, allow me to say a word here. The last thing we need in the Russian-speaking community here is calling each other names. By no means I suggest that the Russian editors should edit in sync, vote in sync, revert war in teams, etc., like some other editors do.

We all are interested in a better encyclopedia and not in the pro-Russian POV being spread around. Also, we do not need to create "teams" to take a stand against Russophobia spread in some national historiographies, because when it makes to Wikipedia articles, there is no need to conspire to fight it. It is rathe rself-evident.

Lets just stay friendly, disagree peaceably and be courtious.

BTW, I am not Russian but a Ukrainian. That said, I am first to oppose the trolls that happen to be my comatriots.

Счастливо,
Irpen 21:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, hello, Nixer. You know, there is such thing as knowledge. When you don't know, don't call it a POV, just learn. - Introvert ^talk 02:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

My talk page

I replied to your comments on my talk page. After having about five edit conflicts, I kind of lost track what I already cross-posted on your talk page and what was new. Since the thread is rather long, I also decided against cross-posting it here as to not overwhelm your talk page. You are welcome to examine my replies with this diff. If you intend to reply, please start a new thread. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 20:35, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I refuse to continue this discussion until you start paying attention to what I write to you in response. If you intend to ignore my responses, why bother with this discussion at all? Please refer back to my responses about 1. common use; 2. right to choose spelling of one's own name; and 3. current transliteration policy being a representation of existing practices. All I insist on is that current policies are followed—they did not appear out of thin air, you know. If you do not like a particular policy, feel free to voice your concern in an appropriate place (hint: it's not my talk page). Which reminds me of 4. invitations to participate in policy revision discussions.

Should you have any questions I have not previously addressed, please feel free to ask me then.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

rv vandalism

Where do you get off calling my edits vandalism? [3] First of all, read what vandalism means. Next, your dozens of edits with no edit summaries are against wikipedia policy; it's especially rude to do that when you revert other users' changes. If you have a problem with my contributions or fail to understand them, indicate what it is in the edit summary, or explain in discussion. Don't just call me a vandal and revert. While you're at it, read Wikipedia:Civility. —Michael Z. 2005-12-19 21:48 Z

• Stop reverting my work without explanation
• Stop referring to my work as "vandalism" in your edit summaries

You've made some good contributions, but you're breaking the Wikipedia rules I quoted above, and wasting my time starting a revert war. I show other editors the courtesy of summarizing my edits, and then you just revert with nothing but an insult. I won't tolerate this. —Michael Z. 2005-12-20 21:12 Z

Nixer, Миру мир! MichaelZ is one of the most corteous and productive editors. Can you beleive me that, while he is a Ukrainian, he is not a Russophobe and committed to neutrality? You better do, because I am a Ukrainian too. Chill out. --Irpen 21:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Barbarossa

Your edits of my work regarding gasoline are factually incorrect and I ask you to revert the edit. I am not sure why you labelled it 'valdalism'. If you can cite a single German tank of WW2 that used a diesel engine, please let the rest of us know. If you are aware of the fuel used in soviet tanks, let me know that too. DMorpheus 19:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I did not revert your work. I edited another section, removing vandalism. In that section operation Barbarossa was called a Latvian upspring against Stalinist occupants. I have no against your edits.--Nixer 20:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Map of World War II participants

The USA are depicted in light green, and that means they've entered after the Attack. Thanks anyway. Gameiro 01:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Changes to Thermal energy

You've apparently spent much of today turning the Thermal energy page into a Warmal inwork page containing essentially the same contents, but written entirely in terms you just made up. This makes the page dramatically less useful for those of us who know the existing terms or would like to relate this page to work written using the existing terms. Would you please put it back?

Kragen Sitaker 02:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Age of Discovery

Please stop reverting this page. Wikipedia policy is quite clear that common names are to be preferred, and you have been reverted by more than one user. - SimonP 03:02, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Moscow Metro

Dear Nixer. I've noticed your massive work on the Moscow Metro articles, changing spelling to a different romanization system (which, unfortunately, is unknown to me). Please note that making unilateral changes on such a massive scale without prior discussion is usually frowned upon in Wikipedia and is generally considered to be disruptive. Please also note that your edits violate current Wikipedia Russian language naming conventions. However, since that policy is currently under discussion/revision, I am not going to undo your changes unless I happen to work on the articles affected by your actions. I will, however, bring your behavior to attention of other editors, who may or may not choose other course of action. I also strongly recommend that you bring your proposed changes to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Cyrillic). If you continue making massive changes without obtaining prior community consensus, I will have to resort to stricter measures.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please never ever move pages without discussion except the obvious and/or undisputable moves! This is much harder to undo than the changes in the articles. I reverted all your station moves except of Belyayevo and Okhotny Ryad (these would require an admin) and explained why in the move summaries. If you don't feel like discussing anymore and perceive your opponents as just stubborn assholes (regretable but a possibility), just list the proposed moves at WP:RM. That wikisoftware allows anyone to move pages to unused entry should not be perceived as an entitlement to impose your view on the others. --Irpen 21:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

There are no such stations in Moscow metro as Belyayevo and Okhotny Ryad.--Nixer 21:42, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Use article's talk and not the "move" button. That's all I am saying. --Irpen 21:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

It is ovious. I cant discuss all the pages.--Nixer 21:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You could discuss just on one page, since the motivation of the moves are related. Once you achieve consensus with others, we will move all articles together (or not move them). if you don't want to discuss, list them at WP:RM but don't just "move" them. --Irpen 21:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I already suggested to change the transliteration system in use in the Wikipedia.--Nixer 21:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Really? All I know is that I have not yet seen you at the policy revision page. Also, "suggesting" (wherever it is where you did your suggestion) is one thing, unilaterally moving articles is another.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please don't undertake massive changes until a consensus is reached. mikka (t) 21:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

You are blocked for 1 hour to stop your move spree while not listening what other people say to you. mikka (t) 21:56, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

But you can still edit your talk page. Lighten up! --Irpen 21:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for vandalism

Looking at metro moves, I first thought that you are just opinionated person. But seeing what you've done with Thermal energy, I am blocking you for 24 hours. Next your escapade, you will be blocked for real good. You are wasting time of many people. mikka (t) 22:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Now you're aimed to revert all my edits for a week period. For example your stupid revertion in Sharashka article. Note, I will revert ALL your changes when unblocked.--Nixer 22:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not threaten other users with a mindless revert war. It is a simple procedure to make the block on you longer. If you have a problem with a particular edit or edits by another user it is a simple procedure, while blocked, to bring them up here without using any threats, or to email an admin about it. -- Francs2000 22:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Nixer, please take an hour break and chill out. Really, what is this all for. Please chill out and come back! --Irpen 22:49, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, to make that easier for me, please list here your reverted edits that you think where useful. But AFTER you take a break! Ladno? --Irpen 22:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

First, he has blocked me for 24 hours. Second, he is now reverting all of my edits, including reformatting and bugfixes, for instance BA-64 article, which I created. I have to revert back tens of articles. It will be a great work.--Nixer 22:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't touch your BA-64. I my mistake reverted NI tank, but reverted it back. mikka (t) 00:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I promise, I will look at your edits that others are reverting and will see whether any good info is altered. But I beg you to please take a break and lighten up. --Irpen 22:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I was also just having a glance myself but I don't have a lot of time this evening and I don't know the subject matter either so I'll leave it to Irpen to take a look. -- Francs2000 22:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Please, re-revert his revertions of my edits in Natural reserves in Russia and Armored car--Nixer 23:11, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

(1) Nature reserve is the term. (2) Deletion of Tsar Tank was unjustified. Read the paragraph carefully. It speaks about armored trains, etc., ie., it is a hictorical intro. mikka (t) 00:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please, anybody, correct the article BA-I. It was not BA-1, but BA-I (БА-И).--Nixer 23:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I promise to look at them. And you do take a break and come back peaceful and not combative. --Irpen 23:36, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is better to add the Russian name to the article. BA-I is confusing :-/--Nixer 23:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Added. mikka (t) 00:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Please correct the BA-11 article. It is called "Broneavtomobil 20" inside.--Nixer 23:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. mikka (t) 00:01, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Mikka, why did you revert the Sharashka article to the POV version? I mean the phrase "in excange for their slavery-like work". They were imprisoned not to use their work but for crimes, and there was not "exchange". Of course, there could be other POVs, but they are POVs. Many prisoners in camps dreamed of opportunity to work in line with their proffession and speciality, even in camp instaed of other camp works. They worked not like slaves, but like prisoners work in any colony/prison.--Nixer 00:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a grain of reason in your opinion, but sorry man, they were slaves. Period. Shag vlevo shag vpravo rasstrel. Even Poles deported from Western Belarus to Kotlas had more personal freedom, although harder work. On the other hand, "in exchange" is indeeed a silly phrasing. I am rewriting this piece. mikka (t) 00:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

These rules were common for any Soviet prison/camp. "Slaves" is a very charged term. They were prisoners, not slaves. And they were glad that they were given an opportunity to work in Sharashkas. Many of them continued their carrier later. Sharashkas were privileged prisons for intelligentsia. How can you say Solzhenitsyn was a slave, when he wrote, participated in theatre and so on - and this was his work (when he was in sharashka)! While other prisoners in other camps really worked much in harder conditions, damaging their health.--Nixer 00:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, slave is a charged term. A happy slave is still a slave. I am sorry that you fail to understand this. Download yourself "В круге первом". Anyway, for now I omitted the slavery issue in the article. But I will reinsert it when I find a good reference. mikka (t) 00:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, may be they worked like slaves. But this is not an encyclopedic language. Otherwise it could be applied to any prisoner in any colony.--Nixer 00:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Russian transliteration

Хочу поставить вопрос о нормальной русской транслитерации. Подскажите, как это правильно сделать, чтобы не вызывать раздражение?--Nixer 00:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Чтобы не вызывать раздражение, во-первых не нужно устраивать войн и, желательно, дискутировать спокойнее. Я знаю, что сейчас ведется несколько дискуссий про транслит и пишутся заново несколько guidelines на эту тему. Спросить лучше у Ёжиков и МайклаЗ, которые этим занимаются больше всех. Хоть ты и успел с каждым из них по немногу повздорить, они очень доброжелательный народ, так что проблем не будет. Майклу пиши по-английски. Но еще раз советую тебе подождать денек или хотя бы до завтра. Такие вопросы не слишком срочные, а эта глупая война накалила достаточно нервов. Удачи! --Irpen 00:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Скажи твоё мнение, ты-то сам как считаешь?--Nixer 00:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sam? I have no opinion on this matter and never took much interest in it. I am sure that Cheromushki is wrong but I am fine with both Cheryomushki and Cheriomushki. I will leave it to the conserned ones to decide it between themselves, and will try to remember the conclusions. If I remember them wrong, and someone corrects my "i" for "y", I will take no action. In summary, I don't feel hot about this and I will unlikely take part in this discussion, so don't try to recruit me. But I do care that this discussion remains civil and there are no disruptions like mass edits in many articles (or mass moves), until these issues are agreed upon. --Irpen 01:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, you must clearly state the goal. Then you have to discuss the drawbacks of the existing systems. Then it is to be decided whether it is worth hassle to replace the existing one: these English will not read it correctly anyway. You must also get yourself familiar with wikipedia:Naming conventions; the main issue here is preference of traditional English spelling before any translit schemes, whatever smart. You will never make them have Moskva. The proper place to do this is Talk:Romanization of Russian. BTW, I hope you understand the difference between transliteration and transcription. mikka (t) 00:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I ask for assistance. Do you agree, that the version in the List of Moscow metro stations is better?--Nixer 00:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Микка, прояви гуманизм, разблокируй человека :). --Irpen 00:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Razblokiroval nixera tebe, nixera sebe. Did you read his version of Thermal energy? It was a work of a genius. Most geniuses are known to be pretty unsocial. mikka (t) 00:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Гы :-)--Nixer 00:59, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You can checked that you are unblocked [4]. But don't inflame anyone anymore. Pretty please with sugar on top. --Irpen 01:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

And your input to thermal energy as well as some other articles will not get you more friends. Now, with everyone's nice and cool, why don't you develop these two pity stubs of the armored vehicles. The more contentious translit discussion is better postponed till later. Deal? --Irpen 01:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I started about twenty stubs on Soviet AFVs, added images and tables. So I cant develop all of them, though I wrote some information on the most notable.--Nixer 01:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Your carnage of Moscow

Please stop editing Moscow as if it were your own talkpage. This is an important article, and opinions of other editors should be taken into account. If you continue editing this and other articles in an unconstructive style, I will have to start a RfC against you, and I'm sure that many other editors will join. I reverted your addition of the Ostankino Tower image to the 14th-century history section about five times now. You still didn't explain how Ostankino Tower is relevant to Dmitry Donskoy and Ivan Kalita. As an aside, I have strong doubts that high-quality images uploaded by you are free as you claim. I will email webmasters today and ask their opinion on the subject. --Ghirla | talk 15:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Is the Christ the Saviour Cathedral relevant to 16th century?--Nixer 15:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 3RR violation

You have been blocked for the period of 24 hours for violation of the three-revert rule:

1. 07:43, December 23, 2005

This is not a revertion, it was an initial edit. I did not violate the 3RR rule.--Nixer 16:20, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Your own edit summary begs to differ. Besides, it is a continuation of your revert spree started in the previous day. In any case, you have the right to appeal your block with any other admin of your choice.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

1. 08:41, December 23, 2005
2. 09:31, December 23, 2005
3. 09:54, December 23, 2005

Please also note that content and layout disputes do not fall under the definition of vandalism. Calling edits you do not agree with "vandalism" may be considered a personal attack.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Blanking IS vandalism when a person reverts to a 3-month old version, deleting all the added stuff, which was added under consensus.--Nixer 16:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

A diff would be helpful here.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is it:[5]--Nixer 16:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see blanking/vandalism at the diff you provided. All I see is a content/layout/picture inclusion dispute. Please read one more time what vandalism is.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This stuff was removed by this edit in October [6] by user Seabhcan. There was also a discussion in the article's talk page. Inserting this stuff now I consider as vandalism and provoking reversion.--Nixer 16:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I would recommend that you reconsider considering it vandalism. This does not fall under the description of vandalism, which you can find (and read) here. Also, as I said before, you may appeal your block with another admin. My decision is final.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism according to its desription is unexplained removing of information. Here we face obvious vandalism!--Nixer 17:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As per Wikipedia:Vandalism: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Good-faith effort you say? Good-faith effort to remove more than ten images and to isert stuff which had beed already discussed and refused? The purpose of these edits was not to improve, but to provoke me to revert.--Nixer 18:10, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

How do you know it was not to provoke you to discuss instead of revert? Assume good faith.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

This stuff already has been discussed.--Nixer 18:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

If you ever find yourself wanting to revert, re-revert, and then revert again, it only means that the subject has not been discussed in enough detail. I hope this block gives you enough time to think about it. If the time alloted to you is not sufficient, please let me know—I'll extend it.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

What does it mean - "re-revert and than revert again"? The subject was discussed and Ghirldaljo put forward no arguments. the totic was open for a long time. Later Seabhcan started page "History of Moscow" and moved some stuff there. It was consensus.--Nixer 18:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey, it's your conflict, you deal with it. I am only here to make sure that no rules and policies are broken. If you need a mediator, request one.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ghirldaljo did not insert this stuff until now. Now he did only to provoke reversion.--Nixer 18:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Assume good faith. Or at least ask him why he did it. Or request a mediator. Or file an RfC against him. Possibilities are limitless. Just don't break the rules.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Nixer, я рад, что все неприятности с блоками позади, и ты снова редактируешь. Только пожалуйста без приколов теперь уже, ладно? Если нужен совет, обращайся. --Irpen 19:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Спасибо. Это была временная шутка с тепловой энергией. Я бы всё вернул назад. А вообще, есть идея сделать отдельшую википедию на "чистом английском" :-)--Nixer 19:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

As for "jokes", read WP:Point. I think there are already enough Wikipedias and we don't have time to improve the existing ones. --Irpen 19:25, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

So why do you think there exists Simple English Wikipedia? Do you think there is any purpose in it?--Nixer 19:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

A friendly tip

Hi, Nixer. Just wanted to give you a friendly piece of advice—when you edit, please use the "Show preview button" (it's located right next to the "Save page" button under the edit summary box). What it does is to show you the version of the page you are about to save, so you can review it and make additional changes if necessary before the page is actually saved. When you are done with all your edits, then save the page. Making multiple (often minor) edits one after another both clutters the page history and wastes Wikipedia storage space (every time an edit is made, a new copy of the article is saved, so if you, for example, make 20 edits to the Moscow article, 20 separate copies are saved). It's OK to occasionally have to edit a page several times in a row, but when done systematically it hurts Wikipedia more than it benefits it.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 22:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a bug of unknown origin with the Moscow article. When I add ", 2005" addition to an image "Moscow monorail" or "Underground station in Vnukovo airport", not only the image diappeares, but also disappeares another image "Triumph palace building" which is located in another section. Other additions to the imeges do not make such effect. :-/.--Nixer 00:19, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Trotskyist/Trotskyite

You changed Trotskyite to Trotskist (sic) on the Stalin page, in a quote by Stalin. Stalin used the term "Trotskyite" as a deliberate "slur". Changing it to "Trotskyist" is to change the word that Stalin quite deliberately used. Camillus^{talk|contribs} 01:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Could you please cite Stalin in Russian? What Russian word is translitirated (or translated?) as Trotskyite?--Nixer 02:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

All Russian books of the Stalin period refer to followers of Trotsky as "Trotskyite", as opposed to "Trotskyist". No follower of Stalin ever called them "Trotskists". This is the English wikipedia, that's why we don't call Stalin "Iosif", and we talk about the CPSU, not the KbP etc. Camillus^{talk|contribs} 12:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

What books did you read? I am sure they called followers of Trotsky trotskists. Is "trotskyite" an English word? I am sure it is not Russian. So the point is they did not invent a special word to call the followers of Trotsky--Nixer 08:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)--Nixer 08:04, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

To clarify - when I say "Russian" books, I mean books produced in the Soviet Union in the English language, copies of which I own. Every single one of them uses "Trotskyite", for example, History of the CPSU(B) Short Course (1938), Stalin's Collected Works (1949), The Case of the Trotskyite-Zinovievite Terrorist Centre (1936), The Case of the Anti-Soviet Trotskyite Centre (1937), The Case of the Anti-Soviet "Bloc of Rights and Trotskyites (1938), History of the Civil War (1949), For the Unity of the Working Class Against Fascism (Georgi Dimitrov, 1935), History of the CPSU (1960 - ie. after Stalin) and many more. Camillus^talk 18:48, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

They were "Тротскистско-зиновьевский террористический центр", "Антисоветский троцкистский центр", "Правотротскистский блок" and so on. In Russian they were called trotskists. I have no idea why they call them trotskyite in English-language books. Maybe they translated "троцкист" ("trotskist") as "trotskyite" for any reason.--Nixer 02:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Both "Trotskyite" and "Trotskyist" (but not "trotskist"!) are acceptable spellings, with the former latter being more common in 1920s-1940s.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, having done a (not-exhaustive) search, I find that in most cases, prior to 1936, the Russian is translated as "Trotskyist" in Stalin's works eg. The Social-Democratic Deviation in Our Party (1926 The Trotskyist Opposition Before and Now (1927)

Some Questions Concerning the History of Bolshevism (1931). The only time I have been able to find Stalin himself being translated as "Trotskyite" is Pravda'smistakes on the trial of the Zinovievites and Trotskyites 1936 - which is not in his Collected Works, but apparently was only published in 2003. The History of the CPSU(B) Short Course (1938) uses "Trotskyite" throughout - this book was later credited to Stalin, though earlier editions credit it to a Commission of the Central Committee. So before about 1936 (ie. before the "Trials") Russian books in English use "Trotskyist", after - "Trotskyite". In English, the "ite" suffix is definetely pejorative, as opposed to "ist" - no follower of Trotsky would ever refer to themselves as a "Trotskyite" - a supporter of Margaret Thatcher would refer to themselves as a "Thatcherist", while someone attacking the supporter would call them a "Thatcherite". But maybe the nuance doesn't exist in the original Russian? This would certainly be interesting. (BTW, translating "троцкист" as "Trotskist" is just bad translation - it's either "Trotskyist" or "Trotskyite") Camillus^talk 20:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Just as I supposed. "-ite" seems to be an English suffix. I have never heared of it before. Also, you're right, there is no such nuance in Russian. By the way, how do you pronounce it? Do you pronounce the final "e"?--Nixer 20:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

For pronunciation, "Trotskyite" rhymns with "tight" or "fight" or "bite".

Moscow photographs

Nixer, stop deleting photographs from Moscow, or you will be blocked again. As promised, I asked the copyright holder of the photographs recently added by you to comment. And here is his answer:

Действительно на этой странице Википедии размещены 8 моих фотографий. И не все со ссылками. Моя Площадь Европы и монорельс на фоне трех зданий без ссылок. В октябре Илья Черных запрашивал у меня разрешение на размещение моих фото в Вашем проекте и получил категорический отказ. Я против коммерческого использования моих фотографий без запроса ко мне и, тем более, без указания авторства. На моем сайте конкретно сказано, что размещение без ссылок и перепродажа (т.е. коммерческое использование) фотографий запрещены. В порядке исключения, я считаю возможным оставить эти 8 фотографий в Вашем проекте, при условии, что под каждой моей фотографией будет размещена прямая текстовая ссылка на мой сайт http://fotocomp.chat.ru/ Вот список моих фотографий, размещенных в Вашем проекте 1 Площадь Европы 2. Фонтан "Дружба народов" на ВДНХ 3 Комплекс Riverside Towers 4, 5 Две фотографии Московского монорельса 6. Останкинская башня 7. Нагатинская пойма (на моем сайте Строгино) 8. Новая высотка на Соколе. Этот список исчерпывающий. Более фотографий с моего сайта в Вашем проекте (со свободной перепродажей) быть не должно. Если же у Вас нет возможности разместить прямую текстовую ссылку на мой сайт под каждой моей фотографией, то фотографии лучше удалить из Вашего проекта. С уважением. Евгений.

Take care, --Ghirla | talk 09:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Author of "Square of Europe" is User:Lishnevetskiy. It is from his site. When you press a photo you'll get links to the author.

About Ostankino Tower, I agree it is better to be places in architecture section--Nixer 13:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

3RR on Basque language

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Your edits to Basque language (talk · history · watch) constitute four reverts within a 24-hour period. They are:

1. 00:09, 29 December 2005
2. 22:50, 28 December 2005
3. 18:16, 28 December 2005
4. 04:26, 28 December 2005

--Gareth Hughes 00:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright issues redux

Can you provide your rationale for this edit? The image doesn't look like 18th century on any accounts. It is a typical 20th-century, European-influence iconography. Can you provide any refs for your {PD} tag? --Ghirla | talk 08:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I read this in the Zoroaster article. If this is not true, the article should be corrected.--Nixer 22:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Zoroaster, in a popular Parsi Zoroastrian depiction. This personified image of Zoroaster emerged in the 18th century, the result of an Indian Parsi Zoroastrian artist's imaginings; it quickly became a popular icon, and is now thought by many Zoroastrians as being historically based, although it is not.--Nixer 05:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Copyright issues redux II

I received another letter concerning the pictures you downloaded:

Прошу исправить ошибку на странице википедииhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow Там ошибочно указано, что источником фотографии Площадь Европы является сайт http://moscowvision.ru/

Однако, данная фотография является моей собственностью, с обрезанной нижней частью и ссылкой на мой сайт.

В этом легко убедиться сравнив 2 фотографии. Одна с моего сайта. Вторая скопирована с Вашего.

Фотографии приложены к письму.

Прошу Вас исправить ссылку на источник и указать правильную, а именно http://maycomp.chat.ru/index04.html

I hope that you'll be able to correct your mischiefs yourself. --Ghirla | talk 16:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes this seems a mistake. I probably confused it with another one. I will correct this when unblocked.--Nixer 22:22, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Age of Discovery

Please stop reverting this page. You have yet to demonstrate that Ioann is the most common English name, or given any reason for why the Wikipedia:Use common names policy needs to be ignored in this instance. Every other user who has commented on this issue agrees that Ivan is the standard term, and the one that should be used in the article. - SimonP 04:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Please, anybody, unblock me!

{{unblock}}

I has been banned by User:Rdsmith4 for more than a week for edit warring in Age of discovery though my recent edit was not revertion, but a post to the talk page. This violates the rules, which gives administrators right only to ban for 3RR violation for upto 1 day. Also I had not been noticed about the ban in my talkpage.

Also I need to revert an extremly incorrect edit in Comparative military ranks of World War II.--Nixer 07:16, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Well I just checked the blocklog and you've been blocked a handful times just this month. And you admitted to be editwarring.. why should we unblock you? -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Because this block violates the rules of Wikipedia.--Nixer 07:36, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The block reasons doesnt' state it' was a 3RR block. It was for warring. So it's up to the admin discretion. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 07:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Dont you agree 3RR is always edit warring? By the way I didnt even violate the 3RR rule in this article.--Nixer 07:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Никсер, ну что тебе не сидится? Как ты только все эти блоки на себя успеваешь накликивать? Отдохни спокойно, встреть новый год, напиши статейку другую в off-line. Потом сразу их и запостишь. Comparative military ranks of World War II - статья не настолько противоречивая и центральная. Подождет тебя. Совет тебе в который раз. Когда вернешься, а я надеюсь, что ты вернешься, не лезь в войны. Поредактируй спокойно и не воюй с таким жаром. Те кто с тобой не согласны, обычно тоже люди и имеют какие-то основания для своих суждений. Ну всего тебе хорошего и с Новым Годом! Удачи! --Ирпень

Other users, please don't be annoyed by this text in Russian. This is just a friendly suggestion to Nixer to cool it down once he is back. --Irpen

This is a violation of rules by an administrator. If it possile to ban a user for a week without any announcement, then why it is impossible to ban for a month odr a year?

About Comparative military ranks of World War II. The last edit is completely irrelevant. There was no rank in the USSR corresponding to brigadier/commandore. I worked on this article through a whole night, and it is still nob blilliant. This edit inexpained and incompetent. My source on miletary ranks correspondence is [7].--Nixer 07:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You will restore in when you are back. I don't want to interfere in this block dispute since my past attempts to help you get unblocked didn't teach you anything but I wish you good luck and hope you will become more tolerant. S Novym Godom! Take a wikibreak! Cheers, --Irpen 07:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Please unblock me, I confused links in the Basque language talk page and need to correct otherwise they could thik something I hardly can imagine.--Nixer 08:19, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Nixer, if you want to contest this block, paste the text {{unblock}} and then give a reason why you should be unblocked (e.g. you promise to stop edit-warring). Izehar 11:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

PS (friendly advice): be polite. Izehar 11:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody unblocks me. So does it mean anybody can block me for any time for anything?--Nixer 18:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Your block expires at 19:21, January 6, 2006. Email the admin who blocked you, I suggest. I hope he will and I hope it will be your last block. Please don't revert war anymore. --Irpen 06:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)