User talk:134~enwiki

moved from user talk:DDima

Anon, that's at least a sound advise (to not push Russian more than reasonable). Same applies to few others here. Don't fervently purge Russian from Ukrainian topics as well. Ukraine was largely Russified and this is a historic fact. Now, those who lived in Ukraine all their lives and raised to the mixed Ukrainian-Russian culture rightfully claim that this is their country no less than of the more svidomi patriots. Wiser solutions than "Chemodan, Vokzal, Rossiya" or forced Ukrainization are needed. Purging Russian from Ukraine, be it from Wikipedia articles, or from schools schools or by changing billingual signs in largely Russophone Kiev for the Ukrainian ones, aren't among the wiser solution. Just make sure all kids in Ukraine learn Ukrainian language and literature well in schools (be them Russian or Ukrainian) and we will all be all right and don't forget to teach the great Russian literature to the kids that attend the Ukrainian schools.

As far as those eternal Wikipedia conflicts, I have a right to talk here because on one hand it was me who proposed and pushed through the renaming Kharkiv and Luhansk articles to their current Ukrainian names, and, on the other hand, it was me who did most to stop AndriyK's unwarranted wild Ukrainization of Kievan Rus topics. I am first to correct our Cossack friend when he overdoes with the Russian.

We will all be all right if we concentrate on writing articles, rather than roam from article to article to correct Kyiv and to delete Chernigov. Everyone around likes what Dima is doing, that is just writing dozens of articles about Kiev while others join them to change names.

For addressing the historical injustices of Russification in Ukraine the Wikipedia is the wrong forum. Wikipedia is to describe them and reflect them, but if de-Russification is the top of someone's agenda, s/he should run for the Parliament seat in Ukraine or write vocal and powerful articles and publish them in the media, not in encyclopedia. --Irpen 21:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Kazak, anonymous, you are both somewhat right and largely wrong, IMO. One thing is that Kazak's useful contribution to article is undeniable. He not only adds Russian names but adds content, similar to the anonymous who also doesn't only delete Russian names but also writes from time to time. That Kazak writes more for Ukrainian topics than some of our patriots just shows that he is more committed to Wikipedia than his opponents.

Kazak, would you mind if I move this stuff to your talk page? I don't think Dima needs it and I would have moved it to my compatriot's talk but he doesn't have one. If I see no objections, I will either move this to Kazak's talk or to an arbitraty created page, like user talk:UA_MN or smth similar. Then, anon would know where to read my suggestions, which would also be good. Dima, you needn't take any action. --Irpen 18:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I am moving this chatter to user talk:134. Please continue it there. --Irpen 21:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Irpen: I read it carefully, as I usually do. And as usually there is not much to comment on my side, as I agree with almost everything you wrote..

That's good to hear...then there is no more question on Луцк, Ровно, Владимир-Волынский and other places... --Kuban Cossack 23:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Kiev on one side, Lutsk and Rivne on the second side, Donetsk and Odessa on the third side are all different. Is it clear enough?

No, there is Kharkov, Odessa, Lugansk. There is Lviv, Rivne and Chernihiv. Then there is Kiev. Three cases. The former Russophone and should be titled in Russian words. Latter is a unique case. The middle section are Ukrainianophone cities where Russian/Soviet history is so strong that it is fully justifiable to give the name. Think like Koenigsberg appearing in the lead of the Kaliningrad article. --Kuban Cossack 00:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Reminder on the names usage

I am repeating them for the umpteenth time. I don't think they made it to the policy, but most editors follow them and they create stable articles:

1. Article titles: All places/people in English Wikipedia should be named by the prevailing English usage, as far the article's title is conserned. For all Obslast centers, as of now, those are Ukrainian names except Kiev and Odessa. The Russo-, Ukraini-phoneness matters little in itself. Check the English media and check Britannica. That's the title of the article.
2. names in parenthes in the first line: all names under which the city can be frequently found in English language literature published these days, be it current or historic context. The order of them goes alphabetical: German, Polish, Romanian, Russian (excluding those imapplicable).
3. usage in context: Based on the usage in English language literature in similar historic context. That is for WW2 Battle of Kharkov, for WWI offensive near Tarnopol, for interwar Lwow University, for Kievan Rus, Prince of Chernigov.

Please remember these simple rules and when you push the edit button to correct names, as a courtesy, do something else for the article's improvement. Make it a committment and the articles will grow. Revert unwelcome change as you like, but when making it first, do something for an article. Regards to all, --Irpen 00:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of of Chernigov, what should we do about Oleg and Misha? Shall I just copypaste since the history of "of Chernihiv" is a mess anyway? --Kuban Cossack 00:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't. I will deal with it when I get to it. --Irpen 00:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever you say...-Kuban Cossack 00:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Oleksander Koshetz

Please don't revert war from IP accounts. The reasons were given mutliple times. --Irpen 20:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok can you please tell me what is your problem here: and why is this incorrect both factually and grammatically version:

• and collected Ukrainian folk songs in Kiev an Kuban’ regions.

should not be:

• and collected Ukrainian and Cossack folk songs from the Kiev and Kuban regions respectively.

If you do not want to be called дебил or дурень don't live up to those words. --Kuban Cossack 10:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Also what is this bullshit about not only Cossacks lived in the Kuban region. Sorry but unless you mean the Armenian and Ciracassians (Adygeyans and Cherkess) there is really no one else, minus the 20th century migration.--Kuban Cossack 16:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Now would you like to explain why your sock, 65.25.223.16 continues to vandalise that page? Ты от меня не уйдешь, лучше сразу все тут выложи.--Kuban Cossack 10:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, unless you want me to ask to lock that article for the second time I strongly suggest that you discuss your problem here.--Kuban Cossack 22:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Kryvyi Rih Metro Tram

Also what is your problem with having a geographical map along with a line template? You avoid 3RR and then restore it. Do you want to be reported to WP:Vandalism? Because issues like that will be taken care of, or I can just ask to protect the article so that only REGISTERED users can edit it.

Finally the maps are not the same. However it is not that which is your problem. It is your de-russification drive which is... :) Get a life for that fact. --Kuban Cossack 10:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Map of the Kryvyi Rih Metrotram.

Can I also suggest that you go to this page before making your round of reverts. --Kuban Cossack 16:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

username:134

Hi, why won't you edit under the user:134 name? If you like to appear as much faceless as possible, 134 would be no worse than 134.84.5.19 (talk · contribs), 134.84.5.88 (talk · contribs) or any other IP accounts you are using. One of the most knoledgeable contributors around user:172 also chose an IP-based user name because he wants to remain as private as possible. Still, he is an impressive contributor, very much respected too. But this makes him subject to the 3RR rule as well as makes sure everyone knows how to talk to him. Please don't revert more than once from anon IP. --Irpen 15:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the admin has semi-protected the two articles above so either you take Irpen's advice above. Or you explain your grievences here. You can also of course simply accept my versions of the articles as they have clear reasoning power bohind them...but that would be an insult your svidomyi POV...my condolences...:)))) -Kuban Cossack 16:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Crossposted from user talk:Kuban kazak:

134, your warring with Kazak using an anonymous account is unethical since with dynamic IP you can't be blocked unlike Kazak. Seize any fights, even those where you are right, until you register. If you don't want to register, don't engage in any conflicts, either on the right or on the wrong side. --Irpen 18:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about that, he was blocked for 3rr succesfully. The problem is with anons the whole bandwith is blocked. So whoever from Minnesota use the same provider as he does are also autoblocked. --Kuban Cossack 00:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

The point is I could have been even naughtier and logged off and switched my satellite uplink from Oxford to say Madrid based...automatically a different IP. However I pride my account and because that is who I am. Seriously Irpen is right grow up and ... what is your problem with Minsk Metro. I thought it was in your manner to delete irrelevant information like you did on Lutsk. --Kuban Cossack 00:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, let me tell you one thing. When I was blocked for 3RR for Lutsk and previously on Kiev metro I didn't edit for the time of the block. And I was not screaming with "unblock" template either. On Kiev metro I wasn't aware precisely on how the 3RR works and that it gives advantage to a new editor, rather than supporting the one who is reverting back to a "stable version". On Lutsk the ruling was surprising, but again, I accepted it, waited 24h, and only then asked William for explanation, which he didn't provide. Given all of this it's actually annoying to read the theory you are spreading around that I may exclude myself from 3RR. Anyone may do it, as Kuban Cossack poined out. Am I doing it? No. Second, you were watching the edit wars between Kuban Cossack and me. You knew that if you take either side it's likely to end the war. You had knowledge of the subject, and you had a positon that you from time to time express in words. And yet, you decided to stay away and be an observer. Of course, it's the best position. You even didn't forget to come to Kuban Cossack's talk with "take it easy" words. All I want to say is that your position is determined by your actions, not your words. When you say "my position is..." and do nothing you are just cheating yourself.

It looks like you are right on one thing, on which I was wrong. You are right that I better use an account. May be I was too naive thinking that it's trully an open encyclopedia. It is what it is.--Anonymous 04:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

This encyclopedia is a fair and open, it is not the problem of the encyclopedia, but its a problem when someone comes and not reading any of its policies starts editing in his own manner and reverting everybody else with words like revert trolling and vandalism. That was your reason for the second 3RR. Rembember that the 3RR is made to stop edit wars. That was William's ruling because he knowns that I know perfectely what is a fourth revert and what is not. What changed. You were told when you see an edit war utilise the talk page of that article did you do that on the Tram or on Koshetz? No. Forget how other people respond to criticism think of yourself, think of your reputation (and believe me that does matter - Bonny, AndriyK...).

Seriously register because if you continue as you do, the difference between a warring anon and a trolling anon becomes a blur to the admin...and you will deny Wikipedia to other Minnesotans. --Kuban Cossack 09:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Belarus-related articles

Так, ну мне что надо полную арбитрацию против тебя начинать, ты доиграешся. The problem with svidomi people is that their little brains are so pollutted with rubbish that they never stop to think. So you have wikistalked me once again and reverted all of my NPOV articles back to their Belarusian nationalist versions. Now that is called...WP:Trolling, and unless I see some messages here that you aknowledge this wrongdoing it WILL GET REPORTED.

For the record my name is Kuban kazak or Kuban Cossack. I can accept Cossack, I accept Kazak, although there is another user with that name so that will cause great confusion in cases. I can accept Kubansky Kazak, Kazak s Kubani. If you really want to you can call me Alexandr (or any of its Russian derivations..Sasha, Sanya, Sashok), you can even call me Dmitrievich (likewise Dmitrich, Mitich etc.), I can accept that as well, but why call me by the name of a river? --Kuban Cossack 22:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Your RfC against Rydel is the best described by an outside reviewer: "Having carefully read a few "hot" topics like the Belarusian language and Orsha pages, I have no doubts: the user Kuban Cossack is just an ordinary Russian chauvinist; as regards wiki, he's a vandal whose "activity" with regard to the Belarus-related pages can be best described as mainly destructive and trolling abuse geared in promotion of Russian chauvinist propaganda. User Rydel is hot tempered, but constructive & well-informed. This whole case has something kafkaesque about it: a troll in the role of a "prosecutor". Distasteful, to say the least" [ref]. Nothing to add.

An anon with how many contributions? hmmm --Kuban Cossack 23:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Second, I have never reverted any of "your NPOV articles". I don't even remember seen your NPOV articles.

Nasha Niva, Mikhail Martynich that in your opinion is not NPOV, when people use words like domination, dictator, authoritarian leader, Russification (which is a POV given how it was presented). --Kuban Cossack 23:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Third, you do lack even a basic level of civility. You are the one who blame others for "open facism", or little brains or whatever. You are continuing such practice ignoring bans and warnings you have recently got [ref]. Such practive is unacceptable, and as you know, it will not tolerated.--Anonymous

Yes Rydel is an open racist, all you have to do is read his block or his website. Have I ever insulted anybody based on their nationality? Have I ever said that one nationality is inferior to another one (unlike AndriyK's claim that all Russian wikipedians are nothing but mafia, or Ukrained's claim that Russians are nothing more than sword swinging barbarians who came here and practice dedovshchina (I'll send you copies of his e-mails if you want)). Rydel on the other hand not only has labelled all Russian users as imperialist and Soviet spies (:-)), but has managed to indulge himself into a pathetic edit war over several months that included a whole article to be locked TWICE. Well you seem to be no better. --Kuban Cossack 23:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't need to show how bad the others are. It's not noticable that you are any better. In fact, in what you are worse is that you begin to personally insult others if they does not share your bised views.

Insult, my biased views... Oh dear, dear. First of all biased or not there is a thing called compromise. Take Warsaw Metro. I expanded it like always, but someone, of our Polish colleagues did not like the word Soviet. Now that can be a bomb. However first we discussed, then we talked about it finally we both agreed, in this case I was proven wrong. Take Baku Metro when an Azerbaijani colleague (and I do reffer to them as collegues as they show pure civilised behaivour, which for you is difficult to understand) though against the Russian version in the title, however after one revert we went straight to the discussion page and talked about. In this case, I won, compromise was agreed and we went on with other articles.

This is the wikipedian practice:

1. I do an edit
2. If you do not like an edit, revert it, immediately explain on talk page
3. If not I would have reverted and immediately put comments on that articles talk page and the User's talk page as well (and in ALL my scenarios if you dig up that is the starting pattern)
4. If a civilised user (like the Polish and Azeri collegues described above) they will continue to discuss on the talk page and will not touch the article UNTIL a compromise be reached, neither will I do so (again see history of those articles)
5. During this time the arguments can become rather passionate and laguange civility is not always obeyed, however they are carried out in the talk page, NOT in the edit summaries of a revert war.
6. However if a user is stubborn and it is important for him to keep that POV of the article (not naming any names) so that people will read them as much (I mean the article is not going to dissappear, it matters not to me wether the facts go in today or in a week's time - for you that is clearely not the case.
7. That starts an edit war which eventually leads to admin intervetion and in ALL cases result in the warring user, not me, recieving a very raised eyebrow, from the admin.

A вот уж ты то точно...if you are going to be another AndriyK then get an account. --Kuban Cossack 23:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

As it looks for me, you are the most likely candidate for "nightmare of Russian wikicommunity", and you are going straigh this way. If you don't want it to happend then drop personal isults, especially in summaries, and talk pages. Actually, some of your edits are beneficial, but it would not work as excuse for your behaviour. --Anonymous

Really, tell me more about it. I think AndriyK is a permanent nightmare for both societies, although you are working to replacing the Ukrainian nightmare. :) Good luck. Although I'll be honest, I don't get nightmares and sleep very well. --Kuban Cossack 00:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

до тех пор пока идут войны, ты нужен, солдат. как встанет вопрос очистки мундира - ты лишний, солдат. --Anonymous 01:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

И? Казаки не солдаты. Т.к. наша служба постоянная. А моя черкесска всегда чистая, и шашака заточенная, и винтовка смазанная, и никто не лишний, наоборот казачество растет, за счет новых людей.--Kuban Cossack 01:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Kazak, again, if the question on the table would be about publicity, and that the Russian wikicommunity is a well respected community, then with your personal insults and behavior you will not fit the picture. --Anonymous

And that is a POV, :) as for insults, then if you will look into history you yourslef managed to sign how many edits with rv vandalism and trolling (although they proved to be neither)? As for bahaivour, look who started the edit war on Koshetz? Who started the edit war on Lutsk? Who started the edit war on the Krivoi Rog Tram? Не ищи правду в других коли в тебе ее нету. (I am sure I have told you that before, but very correct) --Kuban Cossack 01:25, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Если подбивать итоги, то по тому же Кошицу уж точно не я edit war начал; Кошиц реально собирал украинские пiснi на Кубане. По Луцку, как и другим городам западной Украины, названия города на русском там лишнее, или если не лишние, то тогда и венгерский, и иврит, и тот же белорусский там вполне тоже могут быть. По криворожскому трамваю, и киевскому метро, надо бы конечно карты сделать с названиями станций на английском и украинском, но все времени нет. --Anonymous

And that is a POV!!! Which goes against all principles. As for Koshets I explained, as Kuban is Ukrainian as much as Galicia (the one in Spain that is ;) is Russian. Russian in Western Ukrainian cities, particulary Volhynian ones are relevant, Belarusian might be too, given the closeness of the Volhynian dialect with Polessian, however as the debate with Smolensk/Smalensk proved that is under question...As for tram and Metro, well like Ipren said if you pull a sledge you get the downhill ride, as you did not draw those maps, that is the price you pay. As for time management, you seem to have plenty to argue with me and stalk on ALL my edits, but to write articles and maps...you don't. Not an uncommon sight I am afraid... AndriyK...--Kuban Cossack 09:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't damage articles which has been already created (ex:Koshetz), and we both we be fine. --Anonymous

I did not damage it I did a minor edit, had you used the talk page we would have agreed on a compromise weeks ago. --Kuban Cossack 17:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called 134. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name 134~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

21:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

10:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)