Misplaced Pages

Imperial propaganda in progress

Hi there. I need neutral users' help to react on intolerable "Russification" of history here and, most important here. Imperial Pride Watch :), presented by our common ... friend, is refusing to edit the POV-table, making me delete it instead. What do you say?AlexPU 21:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

AlexPU, you edit and discuss a table at its talk and not blank it unilaterally. That's how easy it is. --Irpen 21:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's work on template {{Armies of Ukraine}}. A book by Крип'якевич "Історія українського війська (від княжих часів до 20-х років XX ст.)" could be a perfect source. KPbIC 05:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

КРЫС, I object this idea. This is a provokation already successful against you. Neither Druzhina is Russian Army, nor Red Army is Ukrainian one. Please let's find other ways. I stick to my initial idea: we should rework the Russian template somehow. E.g. let's mark Druzhina as pre-history or something. What do you say?AlexPU 12:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

No objection. I think I've seen the book online. --Irpen 05:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot find it online. Unfortunately. KPbIC 05:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a part two of the book about the Ukrainian period. I could not easily find part I, but judging from content table it is about the princely time and there must be plenty of other sources for that. Besides, since it exists in electronic form, it must be online somewhere. One just has to look more. Or we can buy it from the site. It's not much money.

Also, 134, maybe you could add a word or two to this fellow here about manners, you know. The messages from Ukrained, myself and several other people doesn't seem to be getting through. Judging from his recent talk page entries and edit summaries, there is no reform in manners whatsoever. Not that I care when he badmouthes me personally (I even made an amusing gallery at my talk out of his entries) but his harassing others, referring to people by nationality and other similar uncivil stuff may get our friend in trouble again. Since he is now known for his bad mouth, I don't expect any more tolerance and/or time delays between another outburst and another block. So, please try since I am giving up. TIA, --Irpen 06:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

And here is another interesting book. Ukrainian Armies 1914-55 by Peter Abbott. There is plenty of online sources, but this one is particularly useful for being in English and written by an established historian. This TOC can be used directly.

Should we list armies that represented the Ukrainian states only (UkrSSR, WUPR, UPR, Carpatho-Ukraine) or should we also list the Ukrainian units in other armies, like Sich Rifles with Austro-Hungary, SS Galicia with Nazi Germany, separate Ukrainian units in Red Army (until '30s), etc.

UPA should certainly be listed but should we list an anti-Polish resistance force of OUN that preceeded the UPA?

Also, there was a Western Ukrainian Republic's separate Ukrainian Galician Army, which joined reds in Jan 1920 following what they perceived as Petlyura's selling them out to Poles, but retained a separate identity within reds for a while.

Pro-Soviet "alternative" Kharkiv government organized the Ukrainian Workers' and Peasants' Red Army which by mid-1919 had some 100,000 men (it was later integrated with the Red Army). There was also a "Red Cossacks of Ukraine" formations, etc. Perhaps, this is too many for a template and this would all be interesting for the History of the Ukrainian Military article to be.

Also, his other book would be interesting for the partisan article which I still haven't got time to clean up following AlexPU's POV "revision". --Irpen 20:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for the links. It looks like a lot of reading in front of me. :)

I only created the army template as a starting point, with a hope that it would be improved. Probably, the biggest question is about Red Army. Should it be in the template, and then the template in the Red Army article, indicating that the Red Army was the army of the Soviet Union, not only the army of Russia. Or, should we take the Red Army out of the template, claiming that it was an army that occuped Ukraine since 1920s. You probably understand that so far there is almost nothing written on Ukrainian military in the WP, and actually, I'm some kind of hoping that AlexPU may add to it.

Speaking of Alex, calling Kuban's words as ... he was wrong again. In the same time, the claim by Kuban on behalf of "whole Ukrainian community" was wrong and provocative, and Alex responded... well, you more-less characterized it. Actually, it looked like you and him have settled down the previous conflict. You worked together on Tomenko's article (actually, Tomenko gained PhD and worked 6 years in his professional field, so I would say, he can be characterized as a scientist, if we call history as a science). And now that Kuban kazak... And Alex probably have not seen yet the latest Kuban's map on Kharkiv metro... I'll write to Alex. Actually, don't you agree that there should be no room for "imperial propaganda" in this wikipedia. Hope if you see such propaganda, you would fix it, right? :) KPbIC 02:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Red Army should be in a template because it was the Army of the USSR of which Ukraine was a consituent republic. You can say it "occupied" Ukraine in '20s. Same applies with Petlyura's army who helped Pilsudski occupy Ukraine. It doesn't discqualify it from being listed. Besides (see above) Red Army had even Ukrainian formations. Also, UHA was also a Ukrainian formation (of WUR) that allied with the Bolsheviks (see above). That doesn't disqualify it. Same applies to Sich Rifles initally a formation of Austro-Hungary, and SS Galicia, a formation which fought for the Nazi Germany. These were all Ukrainian armies. This all deserves a description in the History of the Ukrainian military but it is harder to decide for the template. It is much easier with Russia which most of the time had its own state.

As for me "cooperating" with AlexPU, I don't mind that if he behaves but I have little hope.

As for Tomenko, that he has a Ph D doesn't qualify him for the "scientists" cat. If he established a notability as a scientist, that would be a different story. From what I see the cat:Scientist applies to him no more that cat:Beekeping to Yushchenko.

I will take care re dealing with Kuban on the Metro issues to much more effect that AlexPU with his buddy Ukrained and yourself will ever hope to achieve, because unlike the three of you, I see the positive side of this editor as well and not once I managed to talk him into civilty or to withdraw inflammatory proposals. That you treat AlexPU as a harmless fellow just because he pursues a right from your viewpoint POV is a big shame. I will comment on what's below separately and I am afraid you will be pleased much less to read what I am going to say on that. --Irpen 02:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It's human nature to point out the positive sides. People are talking about achievers, and if there is a doubt whether someone is qualified to be called a scientist or not, I would rather let it be called. While Tomenko is not Einstein, he wrote a bunch of scientific publications working as a scientist for 6 years, being a "decan" of a department of Kyiv-Mohila academy. So, I don't see a particular reason being too strict on him.

Kuban kazak was recently blocked for incivility once again, thus I see no progress. I do recognize his recent work on station articles for Kiev metro. Still, he sees the metro as a great achievement of the Soviet system, especially with that "stalinist" architecture underground. He seldomly recognize that the metro is first of all a transportation system. In New York, London there are so many lines that it's hard to count, yet Kuban is talking about standard Soviet triangle line design (i.e 3 lines) as some kind of achievement. He considers metro as a Soviet museum, but museum are for museums. Soviets put unreasonable amount of energy and resources into metro, and Kuban is trying now to spend his time in about the same way. And, again, each his metro article is saturated with pro-Soviet POV. It's either "right POV" for you, which I actually don't think, or you just let it go, as a better alternative to nothing, and this is what I'm tempting to weigh. This is about what I think on Kuban’s metro contribution.

With Alex, if your goal is taking him away from the wikipedia, then I think it's a wrong goal. KPbIC 03:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no goal with Alex as you put it. I deal with his edits and entries purely based on their own merit regardless of his previous trollings. If he reforms himself and stays reformed, nothing could be better. If he continues trolling, it won't be me who would "take him away". He would do it himself exactly like two last times. Or he may end up permabanned for his filthy mouth. And don't even compare him to Kuban's occasional incivilty. Just check all of AlexPU's talk and user_talk entries and lack of effect from multiple warnings. I am conserned because this puts us all, Ukrainians, in the bad light. I had enough embarassment in the past from similar misrepresentations and spent a considerable amount of effort to try to convince some well-informed editors that happen to make the connection between the David Duke's being able to obtain a Ph D(!) from an antisemitic Ukrainian institution and some ultra-nationalist Ukrainian wiki-editors statements here. Some conclude that Ukraine is generally a nationalist nation. It took me pains to explain things in such cases to make other editors recognize that neither MAUP nor some of our compatriots here are representative of the nation. I am glad I was succesfull that time as I got the message from the user that my information was thought-provoking and helped him see things in new light.

However, when the editor not only displays all the trademark features of the Ukrainian nationalism (Russophobia being the main one) but also at the level of AlexPU's language, this makes things look even worse for us all. Pity you don't recognise this and only see the fact even with such an exptemist views and a filthy moouth his POV "seems right" just pursued in the wrong way.

I haven't finished with a couple of things yet to respond to your message below but a response will follow. --Irpen 06:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

KPbIC, thanks for many good words about me here. Not sure if I deserve all of them, especially regarding episodes of my short-temperedness. Of course, I don't like Irpen's impudent threatening&mentoring my ass here.

Sorry, KPbIC, but I need to discuss the Armies of Russia table with YOU, and I don't like the way Irpen is talking you into :( about that discussion. Let me remind: it's about him wanting to keep that propaganda table. All the rest (including military history of Ukraine and my expected input there) is a SIDE ISSUE HERE. You see, I'm waiting for your clear actions on that table from the moment you claimed a desire to step in. I.e., I don't delete that bloody table since :(. So please hurry up with your clear suggestions on how to change the table. E-mail, maybe?

I surely agree to co-operate with you on all issues mentioned, and more, I have few other small requests for your help. But, again, the table is the most pending issue.AlexPU 22:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Gomel

Please when reverting moves use WP:Requested Moves in the WP:FAITH pattern. --Kuban Cossack 12:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have explained my original move on talk page. Any subsequent moves should be done with WP:Requested Moves. Which is something that you clearely forgot to do. Finally it would be Homel in Belarusian not Homyel, which plain wrong. Also please don't tattle, it does look rediculously silly. --Kuban Cossack 23:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Maladzechna

Also you are just being plain silly here in your vandetta against me. Reverting a literary Belarusian translit to a latin alphabet that has no official use anywhere really shows how rediculous you really are. If I was a Russian POV-pusher wouldn't I have moved it to Molodechno and blocked the the redirect page? No, even though Googling that would be most sensible, however unlike you I am aware of WP:Naming Conventions. Reagardless PLEASE STOP STALKING ON MY EDITS! --Kuban Cossack 23:19, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

If you have anything to say in support in your provocative page moves, do so at article's talk page. KPbIC 23:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That is not a provocative page move, that is the move that will get a massive support on any WP:Requested moves. --Kuban Cossack 23:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

134, Kazak's moves where in accordance with WP:Naming conventions. Lacinka is not a basis for any names in any encyclopedia. I can't see why you reverted his moves rather than to provoke him. I am glad he learned how to hold his temper and didn't reply to you with insults. And I hope this wasn't your intention to provoke him and get him banned to "compensate" for the likely block of a filthy-mouthed user:AlexPU who you are viewing as a useful pusher of the right POV, perhaps in the wrong way. --Irpen 23:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I have requested a move now go to the talk pave of Maladzechna and vote. --Kuban Cossack 23:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Irpen: On Talk:Kiev Expedition you wrote that "The article has just been moved to <Kiev Expedition and I moved it back with no prejudice to the editor who moved it. I just think the move has to be proposed at talk first so that others who watch this article could have a say on the issue." It would be nice if you apply about the same principle to all articles. KPbIC 23:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well did you plan on expanding on the city? Are going to de-stub that article? Does the fate of the article itself matter to you. Answer me honestly if it was not me who moved the article would you have cared at all? Противный ты, правда как Крыса.--Kuban Cossack 23:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like those questions answered btw. --Kuban Cossack 00:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Kuban cossack

Што ж можна зрабіць з гэтым Кубанскім казаком і яго minions, каб спыніць гэтую бессэнсоўную русіфікацыю? Zlobny 06:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Minions...and Russification. I like that. Really, what is this then. As we like to say дружим против?--Kuban Cossack 13:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Naturally! А як жа інакш? :))) Virtual war is funny and fascinating! ) Чаму б не паваяваць? Я, можа быць, і ня вельмі падобны на заўзятага апалагета лацінкі, але ж усё-ткі гэта - каштоўнасьць, вартая sttrugling --Zlobny 15:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

a) this is an international encyclopedia and if that is your sole purpose here I might as well let the admin know. b) As for the rest lets discuss on talk pages, this is a problem that needs to be resolved. Lacinka is going regardless of the case. When it comes to the final votes it stands no chance and the wiki admin will agree that a translit system should be used instead of an archaic script that is not used anywhere. c) As to answer the question А як жа інакш? Let's just say that conflict is not my matter, I wonder what will happen though that given when Batka and Putin finally agree on reuniting our countries, and we shall become Zemlyaki. :) (provided that Batka becomes the new chief). --Kuban Cossack 15:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not my sole purpose! Commonly, I'm staying for lacinka, and don't find it is an archaic script. Anyway I'm against reuniting Russia an Belarus, and majority of Belarusians as well. I suppose, that if it happens, Belarus would become for Russia second Chechnya, no matter who would be the chief. But it all doesn't concern our wikipedian activity, I hope. --Zlobny 15:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of the voting on renaming Maładečna to Molodechno, I've just put an annoncement on Polish portal. Let's see how it'll go. Romanians and Germans may be interested in this voting too. All what is needed is informing them.

Speaking of the proposal to change the naming convention, they need to come up with clear proposals, and I expect Kuban Cossack and probably Irpen will do it. We have to express our disagreement down the road, and at the end the community will decide.

So why is it automatically disagreement? Is it sort of an enemy of my enemy is my freind scenario? --Kuban Cossack 19:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Not automatic, but it's my expectations based on your previos Russification activity. Go ahead and surprise me, I don't mind.

Speaking of Kuban kazak, AndriyK has proposed to open RfC against him, but I personally at this point would rather wait for more. Restricting Kuban Cossack to 1RR would probably be sufficient. KPbIC 19:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Why file an rfc, and let AndriyK draft it. Sure I wonder how it will get of the road the moment I put a link to this. --Kuban Cossack 19:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll put that link by myself; you would need to explain your actions. Better think, for example, what you would write about Kharkiv Metro map, and why it violated the naming convention. KPbIC 19:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Look what is this attitude you have. Maybe consider instead of bullying me for doing something wrong for a map, accept the policy of DDima, who first thanks and then corrects the mistakes. I PD all of my work. You do not like how the order of languages appears on the Metro - CORRECT yourself. Вообще поясни мне, что это за неполноценность детская у тебя К ВСЕМУ ЧТО Я ДЕЛАЮ? Ну мать твою не нравиться поправь. Надоел уже право слово. Ну нельзя так подло себя вести. Прекрати поливать грязью все мои работы, лучше сам чего нибудь начни, а то тошно смотреть на тебя. --Kuban Cossack 19:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Lie and lie. I've corrected wording on Kiev metro. How did you respond? Need links to recall? I let it go far, you know it, but I keep it on my "to do" list, so don't worry, it would be improved. And insults, again. You are adding to my collection. KPbIC 21:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Corrected wording? No you disregarded architectural facts, I went into a very long conversation with you, and in the end who turned out to be right? Yeah only your to do list for some reason so far has always involved you stalking on all of my edits. I wonder if it actually involves innovation and new articles? Since you should such interest to Maladzechna, maybe you should de-stub the article itself. Just a suggestion :) --Kuban Cossack 21:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)