Misplaced Pages

User talk:DonaldDuck

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hillock65 (talk | contribs) at 14:37, 2 January 2009 (→Re:Google books links). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 14:37, 2 January 2009 by Hillock65 (talk | contribs) (→Re:Google books links)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Blocked

Please do not disrupt wikipedia to illustrate a point. You are welcome to return after your block expires, provided that you edit in a constructive manner. --fvw* 14:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

{{]}}.

Your nomination for deletion appears to say that the book is not notable because it was not published in English. Was that what you meant to say in the nomination? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, this book was not published in English, it can not be found in google books, it fails to meet notability criteria for books. If User:fvw disagrees with that, and thinks that the book is notable, he could use deletion discussion page. Blocking nominator is somewhat unorthodox way of dealing with deletion discussions.DonaldDuck (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Your full statement was:
No notability. This book was not published in English.
This seems to imply that books which aren't published in English are non-notable. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, some of the books, which are not published in English are notable. But this particular book is not notable. It seems, it was not published in any language (GRANI is some non-existent publishing house) as a book, and exists as some kind of online text.DonaldDuck (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Is it possible that this is a confusion in the wording of the nomination rather than an intentional disruption? This user's subsequent comments indicate that he was trying to say that the book was not notable, and also was not published in English, and that message just didn't come through clearly. Is there any other reason to think that this user was trying to make a point? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
This was just nomination for deletion, not a disruption. If User:Fvw thinks that this book is notable, he could write speedy keep in deletion discussion. Instead, he blocked me.DonaldDuck (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess it was a good faith nomination, even if mistaken (and I decline to make any judgement on the book's notability). Perhaps the confusion was caused by the user's insufficient knowledge of the English language - I don't think he should have been blocked without a warning. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

komthiu

Narkom naming

Thank you, Editor Duck, for leaving a note on my page as regards your actions as of pages as regards renaming a number of pages as People's Commissar for this that rather than using the popular abbreviation Narkomthis of Narkomthat. However I still feel your actions were somewhat precipitous.

  1. I am not convinced that it is easier to understand for English speakers and would welcome being exposed to any evidence that supports that view. I notice that your keenness to introduce these changes stopped short of recategorising the NKVD, but you may feel this is anexception that proves the rule.
  2. A useful test is the google test: i.e. Narkomzem yields 269,000 pages compared to 943 for "People's Commissariat for Agriculture" Clearly this would favour using the popular abbreviation
  3. Using the popular abbreviation also avoids confusion which can arise from people misplacing the apostrophe or even omitting it entirely.
  4. I am also concerned that you have not properly provided an explanation of the relationship between the long name and the abbreviation, making several of the pages less intelligible.
  5. I also feel that it would have been more in keeping with the collective nature of the wikipedia project if you had flagged up your innovation on the talk pages, allowed a week or two to go by before putting such sweeping changes in to effect.

I certainly need a bit of time to consider these issues, and have no desire to emulate your behaviour by reverting your changes with the danger that you might then feel just as upset as I currently do. I think a big plus with the Narkom abbreviations is that the abbreviations convey an important aspect of the sweeping changes that the Bolshevik restructuring of the Russian Empire was meant to indicate. Further as these terms have an international validity, the fact that they are not "pure" English is such an advantage when accessing pages in other languages - which can now be translated at the press of the button opening up a far broader range of material, even if the querent is only able to understand English.

  1. I feel this matter should be raised with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Soviet Union and also with other language sections of wikipedia
  2. Also in the interests of consistency then Muskom should be called Central Commissariat of Muslim affairs in Inner Russia and Siberia, Goskomtrud - State Committee for Labour and Social Problems, Goskino State Committee for Cinematography.
  3. Also are you intending to sweep your brush into the recesses of Modern Russia, changing Roskultura to Federal Agency on Culture and Cinematography

I would be grateful if you could put a note about this discussion on the relevant talk pages of the pages you have changed. I will start a space on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Soviet Union for a discussion of these issues.Harrypotter (talk) 19:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

  1. If we search in google books, i.e. in more or less scholarly sources, search for "Narkomzem" gives 546 results, while "People's Commissariat of Agriculture" gives 1,036 results. So both names are used in the books.
  2. Yes, use of numerous abbreviations is one of the distinctive features of post-revolutionary Russian language, compared to pre-revolutionary language. Yet I'm not sure we should keep all this abbreviations in English titles, just to reflect the style.DonaldDuck (talk) 08:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Russian Army or Russian Army Corps (First World War)

Copied from Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Russia#Russian Army or Russian Army Corps (First World War)
It would proably be most helpful to respond on that page to this issue.

Recently I have developed the page for the 1st Army (Russian Empire) and started the 3rd Army Corps (Russian Empire), only to discover that Editor Duck has been renamed the 3rd Army Corps (Russian Empire) as the 3rd Army (Russian Empire) respectively. I used the naming convention I was exposed to on List of Imperial Russian Army formations and units and really have no particular view favouring one naming convention over the other. However, as this issue has now been raised, I would like to know why the original convention was adopted, and feel we should only pass to the revised version if there are good reasons to do so. Having used google to review a number of relevant articles, it is apparent that both terms have been used as regards these military formations in the Imperial Russian Army.I shall be informing Editor Duck that I have been somewhat disappointed at the way he has introduced these innovations without discussing the matter with others. (User talk:Harrypotter) 21:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Google books links

Yes, but we should prioritize good of the reader before the good of the editor. I've long supported proposal for upgrading our reference system, unfortunately, we have to work with what we have to work with.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 13:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the spirit of wikipedia is that reader can easily become an editor. And long links to google books in the text make it somewhat more difficult.DonaldDuck (talk) 14:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
All elinks are irritating, but they are useful. PS. Please copy you replies to my talk page, I don't watchlist other users talk pages.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

3RR

Stop icon

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

  1. 1st
  2. 2nd
  3. 3rd
  4. 4th --Hillock65 (talk) 14:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)