Revision as of 12:54, 6 April 2010 view sourceHodja Nasreddin (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers31,217 edits →Would you like to talk?← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:51, 6 April 2010 view source Russavia (talk | contribs)78,741 edits →Would you like to talk?: rspNext edit → | ||
Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
:Just to clarify. If the case is taken, would you agree to file a motion asking to dismiss the case because we are capable of resolving all our problems (and in fact, ''we do not have any serious problems at the moment''). Otherwise, we are going to waste a lot of time and receive "draconian sanctions" (at the very least, I would have to respond to the comments by you and every person who commented about me at the AE). Do you really believe this is the way to go? I do not.] (]) 23:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | :Just to clarify. If the case is taken, would you agree to file a motion asking to dismiss the case because we are capable of resolving all our problems (and in fact, ''we do not have any serious problems at the moment''). Otherwise, we are going to waste a lot of time and receive "draconian sanctions" (at the very least, I would have to respond to the comments by you and every person who commented about me at the AE). Do you really believe this is the way to go? I do not.] (]) 23:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
::Since you did not respond here, I will have to submit some evidence, and it will not be pretty. Main problem: I can not really explain the situation without talking about other users who commented in your AE request. You are still very welcome to discuss anything with me.] (]) 12:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | ::Since you did not respond here, I will have to submit some evidence, and it will not be pretty. Main problem: I can not really explain the situation without talking about other users who commented in your AE request. You are still very welcome to discuss anything with me.] (]) 12:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
In regards to the AE report, you can see that I have not been involved in a single article due to my not editing Russian subjects for 6 months. My thread at AE was simply myself being the messenger; if it wasn't me it would have been someone else. As you very well know, edit warring and proxying for a banned editor are unacceptable actions, and it would have been reported eventually. This is not interpersonal in nature mind you. As you write at ], this is not about occasional edit warring; it is actually about long-term and sustained edit warring on numerous articles, and proxying for a long-term banned user; which you admit to, and which you know is totally unacceptable. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Talkback == | == Talkback == |
Revision as of 15:51, 6 April 2010
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
ПРЕВЕД! |
Welcome to my talk page. Please leave me a message, alternatively you are welcome to email me. If you leave a message here for me and it requires a reply, I will reply here, so you may want to add my talk page to your watchlist. All users have my permission to remove any bot messages from my talk page at any time. |
---|
Archives |
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
notes to self - nothing to see here
DYKs
Ah, indeed. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:09, January 14, 2010 (UTC)
Yemen
Any luck with that Yemen diss?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:22, February 4, 2010 (UTC)
One question
WTF?! :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 19, 2010; 00:59 (UTC)
Nina Valentinovna Anisimova
Hello. Just to let you know that unfortunately your moving N.V. Anisimova's article to simply her full name has already caused confusion - someone gave it a ballet tag, confusing her with Nina Aleksandrovna Anisimova. I have therefore moved the article on N.V. Anisimova to Nina Anisimova (sportswoman), the reason being I'm afraid most English speakers (i.e. those most likely to use the English language Misplaced Pages) are not used to identifying Russians by their patronyms, and it's much clearer to them to have two Nina Anisimovas distinguishable by their profession. Hope that makes sense. :-) Alfietucker (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
- It is standard practice on English Misplaced Pages that Russian people be disambigged by their patrynomic name. It shouldn't matter that someone tagged an article incorrectly; we as editors are responsible for our edits, and the editor responsible for that should really have read what they were tagging. If you have any further comments, perhaps you wouldn't mind contacting User:Ezhiki, as he is full bottle on things like this. --Russavia 05:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Gee, thanks, way to pass the buck here :) However, Russavia is correct that disambiguation of Russian people by patronymic is our standard practice—occupational monikers should only be used when the patronymic is not known (or for people who share the exact same first and last name and the patronymic). There are great many reasons for this, not the least being that a person only has one patronymic, but disambiguation monikers can be many, varied, and not always intuitive to guess. Creating redirects with various monikers is by all means encouraged, but the target article's title should be as unambiguous as possible. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 25, 2010; 13:16 (UTC)
- It's a fairly late hour here, and I've just seen your replies, so forgive any lack of focus in the following. I can see your point to an extent, but it seems to me common sense to make an exception here to the 'standard practice' you mention (btw, I can find no ruling on this 'standard practice' at the link Russavia provided) when - as I say - the vast majority of English-speaking users, certainly those wanting to know more about the ballet dancer, will not be familiar with patronymics, and IMHO will find the Nina Anisimova they are interested in more quickly if the heading to her article includes her profession. I notice that Russavia seems to have tacitly accepted this on the disambiguation page, not having changed the link "Nina Anisimova (dancer)". Besides, adding a descriptive parenthesis not only works well enough for articles on non-Russian individuals (such as the various men named Michael Oliver, for instance) but is also so widely used on Misplaced Pages that I would imagine most Misplaced Pages users think in those terms more readily than having to discover the correct patronymic to find their article. In other words, I'm all for making access to desired information as straight-forward as possible, rather than placing yet another hurdle in the way of users less familiar with the conventions of Russian naming. Alfietucker (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- But of course it works just for Russian individuals; not many other nations have a concept of a patronymic! Russavia, by the way, was not correct in citing WP:RUS as the grounds for the move he made. That guideline only deals with the romanization issues. And you are also right to a degree—there is no spelled-out guideline in place regarding this practice. What is in place, however, is hundreds of articles named using this convention, which, I should mention, had been discussed quite a few times before. There is also no requirement that for disambiguation purposes editors must search for the person's patronymic when it is not known; the practice merely calls to utilize the patronymic when it is already in the article. We don't ask you to spend your time on trying to meet the guideline you were not even aware of; we simply ask to accept the change that's made to conform with the status quo.
- Russian patronymics are very different from Western middle names in that they have a more official status and also enjoy a much wider use. Consider, for example, this. We do try to create articles about people (in general) using both their first and last names. Technically, with a disambiguation moniker, using just the last name should suffice, yet we are not doing so. One reason for it is the fact that using the first and last names allows to resolve many potentially ambiguous situations. Using a middle name or a patronymic allows to resolve even more such situations, but that returns me to my original observation—middle names are not used formally as often as patronymics are. Russians, you may say, have a "disambiguation advantage" here (pardon the wikinerd talk, but it's necessary :)). We are merely employing this advantage to our benefit. A full name is less ambiguous than an incomplete name with an occupational disambiguator by definition—with Anisimova, for example, should readers expect the article to be located at (dancer)? (ballet dancer)? (choreographer)? (ballet)? (theater/theatre)? (something else I haven't thought of but readers surely will; they always do)? Either one of them could be a target, which is exactly why none of them is perfect. Patronymics have no such problems. You can create redirects from all those occupational disambiguators to one title that is the most unambiguous and logical of them all. With non-Russians, no such benefit exists, so do has to be made with less perfect solutions ;) Have I convinced you at least one bit?—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 26, 2010; 01:20 (UTC)
- I guess the bottom line is to make sure that non-Russian readers looking for the Nina Anisimova who is the ballet dancer and choreographer are given some help in finding the right article even if they don't know her patronymic. So I guess so long as anyone who simply types in "Nina Anisimova" in the search box (ie with no patronymic) is sent to the disambiguation page rather than either of the articles - whether for the athlete or the dancer - that's fine. I'll check if that also works for those who only know the surname. Alfietucker (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Anyone searching for Nina Anisimova, the ballet dancer, will expect to see an article about her after typing her name into the search box. They will not expect to land on a disambiguation page. However, since that is unavoidable, the important thing is that Nina Anisimova they are searching for is listed on that disambig. As long as that is the case, it ultimately does not matter (from the reader's point of view) how the article is titled; what's important is that there is a good description allowing to instantly pinpoint the entry being searched for. We might as well be using serial numbers to label the disambig page entries :) With a good description attached to the entry, the actual title doesn't matter that much. And if it doesn't matter to the reader, why not title the article in a way that matters to the editors?
- The problem occurs when a person being searched for is not listed on a disambig page. In that case, readers would have to resort to searches, and as I illustrated above, they can try searching for any number of things—a (dancer), a (choreographer), a (ballet dancer), or (Nina Alexandrovna). Some search terms are more likely than others, but it is not always possible to pinpoint one that's going to be the most likely. Readers' success here, again, depends mostly on our search engine efficiency, not on the exact title of the article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 26, 2010; 13:23 (UTC)
- I guess the bottom line is to make sure that non-Russian readers looking for the Nina Anisimova who is the ballet dancer and choreographer are given some help in finding the right article even if they don't know her patronymic. So I guess so long as anyone who simply types in "Nina Anisimova" in the search box (ie with no patronymic) is sent to the disambiguation page rather than either of the articles - whether for the athlete or the dancer - that's fine. I'll check if that also works for those who only know the surname. Alfietucker (talk) 07:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- It's a fairly late hour here, and I've just seen your replies, so forgive any lack of focus in the following. I can see your point to an extent, but it seems to me common sense to make an exception here to the 'standard practice' you mention (btw, I can find no ruling on this 'standard practice' at the link Russavia provided) when - as I say - the vast majority of English-speaking users, certainly those wanting to know more about the ballet dancer, will not be familiar with patronymics, and IMHO will find the Nina Anisimova they are interested in more quickly if the heading to her article includes her profession. I notice that Russavia seems to have tacitly accepted this on the disambiguation page, not having changed the link "Nina Anisimova (dancer)". Besides, adding a descriptive parenthesis not only works well enough for articles on non-Russian individuals (such as the various men named Michael Oliver, for instance) but is also so widely used on Misplaced Pages that I would imagine most Misplaced Pages users think in those terms more readily than having to discover the correct patronymic to find their article. In other words, I'm all for making access to desired information as straight-forward as possible, rather than placing yet another hurdle in the way of users less familiar with the conventions of Russian naming. Alfietucker (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- Gee, thanks, way to pass the buck here :) However, Russavia is correct that disambiguation of Russian people by patronymic is our standard practice—occupational monikers should only be used when the patronymic is not known (or for people who share the exact same first and last name and the patronymic). There are great many reasons for this, not the least being that a person only has one patronymic, but disambiguation monikers can be many, varied, and not always intuitive to guess. Creating redirects with various monikers is by all means encouraged, but the target article's title should be as unambiguous as possible. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); March 25, 2010; 13:16 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Russavia's request for arbitration enforcement concerning Biophys
I have referred your arbitration enforcement request to the Committee; please see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Russavia's request for arbitration enforcement concerning Biophys. Sandstein 07:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hello Russavia - would you please advise whether you intend to comment on that proposed case? Steve Smith (talk) 04:25, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- My internet access is intermittent at the moment - during the big Perth storm last week I experienced some problems with house and car, and need to get those things fixed first, as well as regain access to internet, which in my area is still topsy-turvy. I will have full internet access again by Friday of this week, so I will give input at a time suitable to myself (this weekend more than likely). In the meantime, the Arb committee is more than welcome to peruse the evidence given at WP:AE, whilst they wait for a condensed version. Thanks. --Russavia 15:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I will be waiting for your statement. So, the storm had happened on March 22 , and it is unfortunate that you was less active since then.Biophys (talk) 17:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)- I owe no-one anyone any explanations as to why my personal circumstances are what they are at the moment. It might interest you to know though that my car windscreen was damaged during the storm and it will not be replaced until Wednesday of next week. It may also interest you to know that I was borrowing a friends Dodo connection for a couple of days last week. Right now, I am sitting at the end of the street, down the road from my boyfriend's place, using an unsecure wifi connection that someone has not password protected. It may interest you to know that my b/f's house is in one of the worst hit areas of Perth, and because of the storm our internet connection hardware was fried and needs to be replaced. It may interest you to know that none of this is anyone's business, and I will respond at the ARB pages on the weekend sometime once I have had a chance to replace hardware destroyed in the storm. If people don't like what I have said, then tough titties, they will have to deal with it. --Russavia 18:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please accept my condolences. I only said I will be waiting for your statement. Please take your time. It would be best if I do not come to your talk page any more, although any offers towards the reconciliation remain in force. Biophys (talk) 19:42, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- I owe no-one anyone any explanations as to why my personal circumstances are what they are at the moment. It might interest you to know though that my car windscreen was damaged during the storm and it will not be replaced until Wednesday of next week. It may also interest you to know that I was borrowing a friends Dodo connection for a couple of days last week. Right now, I am sitting at the end of the street, down the road from my boyfriend's place, using an unsecure wifi connection that someone has not password protected. It may interest you to know that my b/f's house is in one of the worst hit areas of Perth, and because of the storm our internet connection hardware was fried and needs to be replaced. It may interest you to know that none of this is anyone's business, and I will respond at the ARB pages on the weekend sometime once I have had a chance to replace hardware destroyed in the storm. If people don't like what I have said, then tough titties, they will have to deal with it. --Russavia 18:52, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
- My internet access is intermittent at the moment - during the big Perth storm last week I experienced some problems with house and car, and need to get those things fixed first, as well as regain access to internet, which in my area is still topsy-turvy. I will have full internet access again by Friday of this week, so I will give input at a time suitable to myself (this weekend more than likely). In the meantime, the Arb committee is more than welcome to peruse the evidence given at WP:AE, whilst they wait for a condensed version. Thanks. --Russavia 15:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Your request
Just for information: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#The Mode in Moscow For Soviets, Pursuit of Fashion Is Now Acceptable but Goods Still Hard to Get. --тнояsтеn ⇔ 07:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please put a short note to the linked request if fulfilled. Thanks --тнояsтеn ⇔ 12:56, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 29 March 2010
- Sister projects: A handful of happenings
- WikiProject report: The WikiProject Bulletin: news roundup and WikiProject Chicago feature
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
WikiCup 2010 March newsletter
We're half way through round two, and everything is running smoothly. Hunter Kahn (submissions) leads overall with 650 points this round, and heads pool B. TonyTheTiger (submissions) currently leads pool C, dubbed the "Group of Death", which has a only a single contestant yet to score this round (the fewest of any group), as well five contestants over 100 points (the most). With a month still to go, as well as 16 wildcard places, everything is still to play for. Anything you worry may not receive the necessary attention before the end of the round (such as outstanding GA or FA nominations) is welcome at Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Reviews, and please remember to continue offering reviews yourself where possible. As always, the judges are available to contact via email, IRC or their talk pages, and general discussion about the Cup is welcome on the WikiCup talk page.
Although unrelated to the WikiCup, April sees a Good Article Nominations backlog elimination drive, formulated as a friendly competition with small awards, as the Cup is. Several WikiCup contestants and judges have already signed up, but regular reviewers and those who hope to do more reviewing are more than welcome to join at the drive page. If you wish to start receiving or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Misplaced Pages:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. J Milburn, Fox, iMatthew and The ed17 Delivered by JCbot (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Mykola Kulish
What are you talking about Ukrainian was not a nationality? Just because the Russian Imperial government called it otherwise it does not really mean that he did not considered himself as such. And what is prevalent? Would you please stop with the googling thing. That does not justify scientific research. I wrote it under the official transliteration rules. All of his works that I read his name was Mykola not some Nikolai. On the other thought, you are right that he probably was officially recorded as such, because Russian was the official language in the Empire. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- However in Soviet Union during the times of korenizatsiya his name was Mykola and the Russian language was no longer officially the only language. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
There are numerous encyclopedias that have his name recoded as Mykola. His nationality is Ukrainian. His citizenship might have been other then that, but his nationality is Ukrainian. He wrote most of his works in Ukrainian, he come up with Ukrainian alphabet. So I do not understand what your problem with it. Prevalent is not a scientific justification, only the truth (fact) is. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
- Dude, he was even executed, because he was recognized by Soviets as the Ukrainian nationalist. What Nikolai are you talking about? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
DYK for Dmitry Gennadiyevich Medvedev
On April 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dmitry Gennadiyevich Medvedev, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
In groups of no less than three...
Talk about congestion in the skies... Choose google maps: 50°3′5.463740051204695″N 8°36′59.70863342285156″E / 50.05151770556977908200°N 8.6165857315063476562°E / 50.05151770556977908200; 8.6165857315063476562
NVO (talk) 23:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
Would you like to talk?
Would you like to talk about the AE/Arb case or our problems and misunderstandings in general? No blame games, just the business or perhaps explaining something which is not clear. Thank you.Biophys (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
- Just to clarify. If the case is taken, would you agree to file a motion asking to dismiss the case because we are capable of resolving all our problems (and in fact, we do not have any serious problems at the moment). Otherwise, we are going to waste a lot of time and receive "draconian sanctions" (at the very least, I would have to respond to the comments by you and every person who commented about me at the AE). Do you really believe this is the way to go? I do not.Biophys (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- Since you did not respond here, I will have to submit some evidence, and it will not be pretty. Main problem: I can not really explain the situation without talking about other users who commented in your AE request. You are still very welcome to discuss anything with me.Biophys (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
In regards to the AE report, you can see that I have not been involved in a single article due to my not editing Russian subjects for 6 months. My thread at AE was simply myself being the messenger; if it wasn't me it would have been someone else. As you very well know, edit warring and proxying for a banned editor are unacceptable actions, and it would have been reported eventually. This is not interpersonal in nature mind you. As you write at User:Biophys/AE, this is not about occasional edit warring; it is actually about long-term and sustained edit warring on numerous articles, and proxying for a long-term banned user; which you admit to, and which you know is totally unacceptable. --Russavia 15:51, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, Russavia. You have new messages at Ronhjones's talk page.Message added 16:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Ronhjones 16:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
- In case you haven't found it yet, you can show hidden categories by enabling the "Show hidden categories" checkbox on the Appearance tab of your preferences. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); April 5, 2010; 17:23 (UTC)
- Yep, I have that already. The reason it wasn't showing was because I forgot to actually add the category to the template (i.e. ). Silly me. --Russavia 17:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
2010 Moscow Metro bombings
While I myself had moved some of the pix closer to the standard 180px, I would suggest that you revert your further changes. The 180 number is not a hard-and-fast rule, and where a different number makes sense (e.g., detail is small, or it fits better next to adjacent text) it is appropriate to vary it, as it was before your revert). Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Russavia-Biophys/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 05:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)