Venzz

Welcome!

Hello, Venzz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Брате

Здравствуйте, брате. Всіх іллінівців вже дуже довго турбує питання про неправильну назву села. Це Иллиновка (Іллінівка) ніяка не "Ильиновка". Брате, ви професійний Вікіпедист. Від усіх жителів села просимо вас перейменувати статтю на Иллиновка. 45.151.238.170 (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

GA at Yuri Gabel

Hello,

I see you are somewhat active on the English Wikipedia, but you are much more so on Ukrainian and Russian versions. Thing is, GnocchiFan seems to be AWOL for more than a month, which is totally fine by me but that will essentially make his GA nomination dead. I see that you were the majority contributor to the Russian and Ukrainian versions of the article. I intend to review this article for GA criteria. Please consider taking over any response for any remarks and suggestions I may have from them because of their inactivity, since you appear to be knowledgeable about the topic. Talk:Yuri Gabel/GA1 is where the review will take place. Thank you.

PS. Just in case, I know both Russian and Ukrainian, so if you feel more comfortable speaking to me in those languages, I can readily accommodate this. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 21:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article and in my understanding of GA criteria it falls way short of them, specifically the broadness criterion. After reading that article, I feel I have too many questions that the article doesn't answer, and most of them can be roughly summed up as "So what?" I left the remarks at the indicated GA review page. I decided not to put it on hold because IMHO there's too much work that needs to be done before moving on with the review with some chance of success. You may also want to consult some person who is good in chemistry to understand his research.

Still, you dug up a lot of sources about that guy, and you did a lot of commendable work. It's just maybe that I'm too harsh. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 01:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Szmenderowiecki Hello. I do not know how to react correct to this. You have asked many questions, but I can not answer to them. Some of the questions are correct, but another is very strange. Also, I do not understand your description of Boris Krasovitsky and Viktor Domontovych, as not prominent persons. Venzz (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Answering the second sentence, what I meant that these people are notable, but they are definitely not first-tier personalities (i.e. commonly recognised as of "top importance" in the field). Domontovych is no Franko, Shevchenko or even Kulish - and I'd say Kulish is not as important among the three; but even then a passing mention in any work they made would be trivial. (As opposed to having him as a main character, which is interesting enough to mention; but that's not the case here).

Same for Krasovitsky - may be notable, but he appears not to be really known outside of Ukraine and Russia - which already indicates he's not very important in his field of research, though he appears to have been pretty important in the post-Soviet states because he appears to have occupied a position in a technical committee of the Soviet government, which is quite a feat. That said, for me mentioning that somebody was promoting his PhD/grading his PhD thesis presentation only makes sense if the guy is a household name or something close to it, as in, well, preeminent authorities in the field. He was moderately influential by chemistry standards, but not particularly so.

I will elaborate on my answers to any questions you believe are "strange". Just tell me what bothers you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

a) On my side, Domontovych is more prominent than Kulish, he was "forgotten" author in Soviet time, but now he is very popular, and his work is actively researched. Instead of Kulish and his legacy. Krasovitsky lead the laboratory of organic synthesis of the Institute of Single Crystals, which acted as a coordinating center for scientific research in the field of organic phosphors and luminescent materials in USSR and postUSSR countries.

b) What about your question, on many of them I can not answer. Sources do not tell something about his personal life or childhood. It is common to the biography of the Soviet scientists to ignore this part of their life.

c) "He wrote a monograph on this topic, which became his doctoral dissertation. He defended his dissertation in 1940". I do not understand about what monograph is written. I did not write something in ukr article.

d) About "Heterocyclic Compounds". I myself would like to know the answer to this question. The source simply says that this is the first textbook.

e) About "Master's degree". As I understand, there is mistake, or wrong interpretation of his science degree. Without master degree, he can not been was retained to prepare for a professorship. In several sources, authors compare master degree in Russian Empire with candidate degree in USSR. Maybe Syrova also did it. Venzz (talk) 17:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

f) About Legasy. It is not correct translation, this section is something like "in memoriam".

In final. I can make several correction in article, as you propouse. But merge biography and scientific activity it is something strange and I do not agree to do it. --Venzz (talk) 18:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

a) Not going to argue about personal opinion, but whatever. My point stands.

b) Well that's a major omission. It's a bummer but in my playbook if there are no sources that describe major parts of his life and authors/biographers do not hypothesise about what he was doing back then, it's the piece of information that the reader will not get despite having reasonable expectations about a biography that you'd want to show off to the world. You need broad coverage, which is that all major topics are covered without major omissions, and if there are these omissions, it simply disqualifies the article. Lack of sources is IMHO no excuse to compromise on quality assessment.

c) The relevant Ukrainian article fragment is Написав по цій темі монографію, яка стала його докторською дисертацією. Саму дисертацію за темою «Хімія барбітурової кислоти» він захистив у 1940 році. The English version omits the title. That wasn't a major problem I had, I was just making the English used more idiomatic, "less wooden", so to say.

d) Well this is kinda important to know. People will challenge this statement if you, for example, promote this article to DYK. You need to know.

e) You also need to clarify that.

f) In memoriam sections would generally fall under the kind of sections English Wikipedia discourages, which is trivia-like sections. The problem with these is that you collect several facts (most of which are pretty trivial anyway in the case of Yuri Gabel) under a section which houses information that should generally be incorporated somewhere in the article but instead it just hangs at the section which basically says "I don't know where I want to put this shit, I'll sort this out later". Not exactly a good thing and definitely not for a good article, at least for English Wikipedia.

Finally, what I outlined are suggestions for improvement. I'm confident that you should introduce most of them, but you are free to disagree with some if you have a good reason to. Believe me, the change of layout will make reading the article smoother. But then again I think that you need to do a lot of work before renominating the article. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 04:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2024 (UTC)