User talk:Rydel

My discussion page...

Belarus

Yes you can! I'm learning. I want to know everything. User:Bonaparte

Well, you are not asking very smart questions. Is Romanian different from Latin? Do you speak Latin? --rydel 21:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the quality of the question doesn't matter, but the answers matters. Regarding to your question romanian (ROMA-nian -- ROME - capital of the Roman Empire) is a latin language. It differs now after 2000 years :), but the root is latin. Just an example: Ego sunt (LATIN) - I am; Eu sunt (ROMANIAN). You see, these kind of examples I would like to see on that page. Some comparative studies, this would be interesting. Somehow I got the feeling that my questions dislike you rather. I hope I'm wrong. You didn't explain me why do you think are not smart questions. See you. User:Bonaparte

Bonaparte, eu stiu. Eu vorbesc Romaneste (dar foarte rău). Please tell me what's your level of proficiency in Russian? --rydel 13:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very intersting. How come that you know romanian? I'm glad to hear this. You did speak very good, not bad as you said :). Anyway why are you interested in my level of proficiency in Russian? I see no connection with what I've asked on that page. However I want to answer your question, I don't want to avoid ...well is poor. Romania looks towards West not East. Since 1960s the russian language was replaced with english in Romania. User:Bonaparte

The connection is obvious. I'm perplexed, as how would it be helpful to compare Belarusan and Russian languages for someone, who doesn't speak any Russian? --rydel 15:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do I have to speak to see a comparison? No, of course not. That's why it is an educational tool. To see, to understand, to learn. Unless you have something against which I found very wired I would like you to help me. Are they so identical or not? I don't know but a comparison will be helpful. User:Bonaparte

Yes, Bonaparte, you do have to speak it, in order to benefit from such comparison. Otherwise, I really can't see how that could be helpful. And, no, the languages are not identical at all. In fact, a Russian speaker who didn't have any exposure to Belarusan or Ukrainian before, will probably understand very little (25-30%). Here are some places for you to start:

Well it all depends on the accent. I mean I could easily understand 90% of what people were telling me in Vitebsk or in Gomel Oblasts, but then in the Kuban we speak balachka a local dialect of Russian and Ukrainian mixtures. When my wife speaks Volynian dialect of Ukrainian to me (which is very similar to the Polessian dialect of Belarus) I understand ALL of it. Galician Ukrainian on the other hand is as you say 20-30%. However since Belarus has no equivalent of Western Ukraine, culturally and politically, this is not a problem for a Russian to go to Belarus and get compleately lost. --Kuban kazak 19:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusan Basic Phrases (please, compare in case, you are interested how many times Russian is much more similar to Bulgarian, than to Belarusan)

Site is wrong in comaprison, it only trasnliterated words letter for letter, ignoring combinations like Dz, which is pronounced as a soft form of D. --Kuban kazak 19:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no comparison there. It's just a list of basic phrases for interested people, such as tourists. You still haven't answered my question below (18:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)). How many Belarusan language publications there were in Russian empire in 1897?

Well 1904 was when the language was legally recognised as separate from Russian. From then on I presume that books were translated from Russian into Belarussian (of which you can find plenty in any historical library in Belarus), I happen to owe a copy of Pushkin in Belarussian published in 1907, which my great great grandfather bought during his travel to Minsk in 1910. Original authors must have emerged, not immediately but good respectible works would have flourished, after the revolution, definetely. USSR even initially redrew the BSSR's borders with conscesions from RSFSR: Vitebsk, Gomel Oblasts etc.-- Kuban kazak 20:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else, this phrase 1904 was when the language was legally recognised as separate from Russian clearly and totally disqualifies you from being a meaningful contributor to Belarusian language and History of Belarus. --rydel 00:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, by officials from Petersburg who naively thought that Belarussian (and Ukrainian) was nothing but a dialects of Russian, and victims of Polonisation. The census of 1897 showed them the reality. Hence they allowed them to freely function. Schools began teaching in Belarussian and nearly all printing press in the Belarussian provinces was switched to Belarussian. -- Kuban kazak 01:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to Belarusian Alphabet (this is done exactly in the fashion, that you wanted it to be: comparing with Russian)
Letter Frequency (Belarusian and Russian comparison again, as you wanted it)
Swadesh List! (And here, the part you probably wanted the most: the Swadesh list for Belarusian - Polish and Russian - Belarusian. The Swadesh lists are used to measure lexical similarity of the languages and the approximate dates of the "divergence" of similar languages. The result is obvious that Polish and Belarusian vocabulary is more similar than Russian and Belarusian.)

Once you are done reading those articles I'd be happy to answer further questions. --rydel 15:32, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Rydel. You still did not answer my question. I did look at your links at I found them very useful. Thankx!

Now tell me why is not good to have such comparison also in the article?

I already saw now very quickly that yes/no (Tak / Nye) is taken rather from Polish then russian, even if the comparison on that page is only between Bg-Ru-Brus. Which by no means I knew before.

You should add them now in the article. Is good to have such examples. User:Bonaparte

Basic vocabulary is something you can easily find on the Web. Usually, encyclopedic articles on languages don't include such trivial informaiton. They try to give a more serious overview, not provide basic phrases for tourists. At least, that's my understanding. --rydel 16:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that question. :) I don't know it, actually. I studied in AUBG ([1]) and I had a few Romanian and Moldovan friends there. So I picked up a few hundred words, just for fun. Now I probably remember not more than 50-100 of the most basic words... --rydel 19:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice. Did you visit also Romania or not? Bonaparte talk & contribs 19:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

End Russification Propaganda!!!!

Sorry but your claims in several articles hold no validity. In the census of 1897 in the following Guberniyans the Belarussian speakers accounted for absoloute majority: (roughly after 100 years of Russian rule) and called their language nor Russian but instead Belarussian:

Guberniya	Total Population	Belarussian	Great Russian	Polish
All Empire	125640021	5885547	55667469	7931307
Vilna	1591207	891903	78623	130054
Vitebsk	1489246	987020	198001	50377
Grodno	1603409	1141714	74143	161662
Minsk	2147621	1633091	83999	64617
Mogilev	1686764	1389782	58155	17526
Smolensk	1525279	100757	1397875	7314
Chernigov	2297854	151465	495963	3302
Forevisla guberniyas	9402253	29347	335337	6755503

!!!!!MAP1!!!!! !!!!!MAP2!!!!!

Conclusion: By the end of the 19th century on the territory gained in Polish partitions and in 1815 Russian language shows no dominating use. Therefore no evidence for Russifacations exist. Так что спи спокойно и прекрати бред нести. -- Kuban kazak 17:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Russian user, can you name me at least one publication (newspaper, magazine) in Belarusian language in 1897, published in Russian empire? Can you quote the circulation of that newspaper or magazine? --rydel 18:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is more Here is more, same site, only about Post revolution data about the BSSR:

Census Year	Total Population	Belarussian	Great Russian	Polish
1939	5568994	4615496	364705	58380
1959	8054648	6532035	659093	538881
1970	9002338	7289610	938161	382600
1979	9532516	7567955	1134117	403169
1989	10151806	7904623	1342099	417720

BTW feel free to put this data on your blog, and share it with your fellow "Litvians". -- Kuban kazak 17:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey kuzakk first of all you should refrain yourself from making personal attacks or sarcastic remarks. That's the first lesson. user:Bonaparte

I'm still waiting my answer. Bonaparte 19:02, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting my answer. Bonaparte

Which of your questions haven't been answered? --rydel 17:01, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How come that you know romanian? I'm glad to hear this. Bonaparte

Halibutt and Piotrus have some crazy idea of making HoB into FAC. Could you take some time to read the article and say what it's missing and what is wrong there from the Belarusian perspective. Thanks. --Lysy ^(talk) 07:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

mediation

Support my mediation. You know I will keep a fair judge. I am a third party here. -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 11:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

It is a generic message to inform you that there was a User Conduct Request for Comments at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ghirlandajo started recently. As you are one of the sides in the conflict and your name appears in the evidence of disputed behaviour section you might want to take a look at it. Halibu tt 00:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, Halibutt, can you remind me where's that talk-page link where Ghirlandajo claims that he kicked me out from Wikipedia. I can't find it now. You know, considering that I said on some other forums that I left Wikipedia because of "crazy Russian Nazis", I guess that could be an indirect proof that Ghirlandajo considers himself a "crazy Russian Nazi." Just a thought... --rydel 20:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your thoughts lack any logic... — Monedula 07:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

here you go. BTW, in the future please respond at my talk page, otherwise you'd have to wait ages until I notice your response. Halibu tt 10:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ушел ну и добро... а фашистами не стыдно называть? Насебя посмотрел бы. -- Kuban kazak 13:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cossack-style kindness... :) Halibu tt

Image License

Hi Rydel, I'm was about to transfer the photo Veronika cherkasova.jpg from the German and English Wikipedia to commons. In the German WP there was no copyright tag, in the English there is one that says the the picture is released under Public Domain. Could you please specify why it is supposed to be PD (because I assume you are not the photographer)? Or you can upload it at commons.wiki.x.io so the two copies at the German and the English Wikipedia could be deleted. --Matt 314 21:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rfc

thanks for your link! --Monkbel 22:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian Language

Would you like to explain your actions of reverting my corrections, factual addition and a more NPOV approach? Considering that I have not ommited a single fact from the original text I would like a reason of not reporting your action to the WP:AN/3RR. Хотя сам говорил что закончил на Википедии...проясни.-- Kuban kazak 23:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look if you thought that time will help you, then you are wrong. If anything at least engage in a discussion. One more revert and I will ask the admin to lock the article. Tell that to your anon friends as well. (Although it looks so much like sockpuppet activity)--Kuban kazak 19:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please contact me by email

I tried to send a mail to you, but it did not work, because you did not type in the mail into your preferences. Could you please correct your preferencies and send me an email? Thanks.--AndriyK 11:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation concerning Belarusian language

Hi Rydel! I suggest you to request a mediation. If you agree, please put me in the list of the involved parties. Ask also Lysy whether he agrees to participate.--AndriyK 09:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling on Vorsha

Rydel you are walking thin on ice. First of all stop personal accusations, they will get you nowhere (if you are keen file an arbitration and watch what happens). Second stop pushing your POV into wiki. You can write anything you want on pravapis or wherever else, but not in an international encyclopedia. And finally I would like that you engage in discussions. The Belarusian Laguage is still open to discussion and I have responded to everything there. А вообще-то я лично таких как ты в Беларуси никогда не видал...--Kuban kazak 12:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only troll here is you. "The battle is indeed regarded as one of the symbols of Belarusian national revival by Belarusian nationalists, but its significance is indeed being suppressed by the Belarusian authorities of Alexander Lukashenka." This is a fact. This is a true fact. Please, provide the information that it is not. And Muscovites/Russians did occupy Belarus' lands after the partition. It's also a fact. Stop removing the true facts from Belarus-related articles. --rydel 13:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the article segment, and I am waiting for replys to Talk:Belarusian Language

As this looks more like a content dispute, less a clear vandalism, check Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and see what applies in your case.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rydel, I got your message. We have to stop those "k-words" from thinking they own the world. They constantly insult, spread rumors, and falsify history. They call me a "Revert Warrior" - good! That's what they're gonna get. Space Cadet 16:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friendship among the nations...

You might want to read this article. Fascinating, isn't it... Halibu tt 13:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear oh dear, has wiki became a site of formations of political coalitions...or freindship against nations... Whilst you are undoubtedly taking seriously I cannot help not to laugh my head off... --Kuban kazak 14:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, wiki talk pages are simply the easiest way to leave messages to people. When I post links to interesting articles I do so because the articles seem interesting to me and not because I try to form some sort of coallition with anyone... Halibu tt 15:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Romanization of Belarusian

I just created this new article. Would you please have a look over it for mistakes? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2006-02-12 22:55 Z

For the last time

Look if you have a problem with the article then talk about them, discuss them in detail even the banned by arbcom troll AndriyK in the end participated in the discussion Talk:Belarusian language#Comments. Why do you have to be different? Have you ever read this WP:FAITH, have a look there. Once again it is not the content dispute, but the manner at which you handle it. --Kuban Cossack 00:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know I am waiting for some responses to my comments there, otherwise I will ask the admin to unlock the article, and revert some of your changes, but seroisously why did it take three months to do that? --Kuban Cossack 12:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Так ты сколько будешь играть в эту игрушку. Так и будем туда-сюда откатывать страницы, мне что сново просить заблокировать чтобы ты опять ждал ждал и снова давай. Учти если ты не начнешь конструкивно вести дискуссии, то при следующем откате страницы получишь RfC. Я повторять это не буду. Так что думай голубчик либо все таки встань на ноги человеком либо...сам незнаю, таких я в Беларуси ни разу не видел.--Kuban Cossack 00:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lukianenko

Political views of Lukianenko are his view of future world, if it's not a joke. He is a science-fiction writer, and must predict future. He is not a politician to think how not to offend somebody. ellol 21:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rydel... Sorry... From that level of conversation that we have now, we'll not come to anything, except revert war. I'm constantly reading his livejournal, and from what i've read, i can't say that his position is anti-ukrainean, blah-blah-blah... My word against yours, => dead end. Let's discuss certain occasions.

1) As far as i remember, Lukianenko was NEVER against ukrainean nation. As far as i remember, Lukianenko opposed Uschenko's side during orange revolution. Is it enough to claim him to be "an enemy of ukraina"? Say truth: Lukianenko opposed Uschenko's government during orange revolution.

2) A fraction of his interview with magazine "Polden": Russian journalist: There’s a widespread (sic!) opinion that in the 21st century Russia will start collecting its “own” former territories. What do you think about that?

Sergei Lukyanenko: First of all, I would not put quotation marks around the word “own”! And I would not call them “former”, but “temporarily lost.” Yes, Russia will start getting them back. And it will get them back. And it will add more to what the communists have lost.

{However, translator was a bit of wrong: Da, nachnet. Da, soberet. I escho koe-chto pribavit, poteryannoe kommunistami is Yes, will start. Yes, will collect. And will add something more, which was lost by communists.}

I would call your attention to the following things: 1) there's no word Ukraina or Belorus, 2)It's a calm prognosis, not containing special parts to offend somebody. Have man a right to have his point of view? I think, that it would be hard to express the same point of view more politely. Sincerelly yours, ellol 11:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the last question is ambiguous. But i think i see the contradiction. I'll tell about russia, it's more familiar to me. Imagine a man who said a)"Russia will be divided into several less countries by US" or b)"Russia must be devided into several less countries by US". Although i will argue against point a), i can't say if he is anti-russian; it's discussion of future history; we know that often future is almost unpredictable; nobody can forbid discussing it. But in case b) the man is clearly anti-russian, because the statement carries threat against russia. See difference between making threats and discussing history? ellol 08:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3)"He said in several TV interviews during Orange revolution"... Rydel, what are you saying? I can remember only one Lukianenko's tv interview, it happened a couple of months ago. And that time he wrote in his blog that he'll have a tv interview, a day or two before it happened... Lukianenko had several radio talkings.. But. But. Presumption of innocence, yeah? ellol 09:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

False Friends of the Slavist

Please have a look at wikibooks:False Friends of the Slavist. With your language skills, you can help us very much there. See wikibooks:Talk:False Friends of the Slavist for details on what is still needed. --Daniel Bunčić 18:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR on Belarusian language

You have been temporarily blocked [2] for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. William M. Connolley 17:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was no reversal war in the article about Belarusian language, at least not in the conventional sense. It was one lying Russian POV-pusher who knows virtually nothing about Belarusan language (and doesn't speak it), and there were many Wikipedia editors who tried to block and revert his unreasonable additions (most of his "improvements" being Russian imperial POV).

Many... surely you mean the infamous arbcom-banned AndriyK...-Kuban Cossack 23:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely yours,

A native speaker of Belarusian, the owner of the linguistic Belarusan website http://www.pravapis.org/ site (#1 site on Belarusian language on the Web), a specialist in Belarusian-language localization of software, and a Belarusian language editor from the Radio Free Europe / Radio Liberty. --rydel 21:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our beloved leader, four times hero of the Soviet Union, luareatte of the State prize, Hero of the Socialist Labour, Marshal of the Soviet Union... and so on. I was born in the USSR Rydel, no need to overmerit yourself. Ohh btw that site is so packed with original research and the amount of Russophobia there fully descredit it from being a reliable Wikipedian source. Your POV-pushing edit of Orsha also due you credit. Good luck to Bat'ka on elections! --Kuban Cossack 23:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointer

Hi, Rydel. :) I just stumbled across Belarusian Republican Youth Union and I noticed that it is a bit Russian-biased, so I thought of you... — Timwi 18:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"kuban coSSack"

Source: http://www.br23.net/en/2006/03/24/game-over/

Name: Kuban Cossack | E-mail: Kuban_kazak@mail.ru | IP: 144.82.106.25

Good work Belarus, all evil comes to an end and so did this one. I particulary liked the flag of the UPA - German collaborators who butchered close to 90 000 poles in Volhynia during the second world war - Lukashenko was right about the neo-fascist elements of the white-red-white flags. Hey given the Russophobia on Pravapiss.org that the author exhibits I am not surprised that this was another puny attempt to turn Belarus into another Apraheid-infested Latvia/Estonia. However at least 82.6 % of the Belarusian population have much more common sense than this author.

I do sincerely congradulate all of the Belarusian peoples that will eventually get rid of the Litviyak skeletons in their closets. And personally to Batka!

I want to yell.
together with our huge country.
to our Father (Batka):
"Thank you, our dear Father!"

Live a long life
But not longer.
Life is getting better.
Life is becoming fun.

Source: http://www.br23.net/en/2006/03/24/game-over/

Don't worry, the guy is mostly harmless and his edits are monitored anyway, as pretty much all of everyone's contributions are. And he has also the better face of a metro fanatic (just like me). //Halibu tt 16:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do ask Rydel why am I laughing? (BTW the IP has nothing to do with my location as our stanitsa uses a British Satelite uplink) :)--Kuban Cossack 18:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and the verse is wrongly translated Wanting to say with
our huge country.
tell to (Batka):
"Thank you, our dear!"

Live a long life
and don't fall ill
Life became better.
Life became more fun.
--Kuban Cossack 18:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best thing I can recommend is that you increase your participation in en-wiki and help us improve the B-related articles. History of Belarus is pretty close to a FAC status, all we need is few more editors willing to finish the task.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if he really did participate and civily discussed issues as opposed to creating a three month revert war on Belarusian laguage which was locked TWICE as a result I would have very much liked to work together with this user. I mean I daily come across people that have opposite POVs, however more often than not it is possible to strike a balanced deal with everybody, compormise on some facts stick with others building a balanced and neutral article. Warsaw Metro as pointed out by Halibutt I see as a perfect example. There were clear bomb triggers there, but unlike Rydel I avoid setting them off.--Kuban Cossack 18:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you did some valuable contributions on Warsaw Metro (very good!), but I don't recall one single good edit from you on Belarus-related articles. --rydel 00:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minsk Metro I wrote the whole article myself. Belarusian Language who fetched the census data? Who provided the most important theory about how a Belarusian peasent dialect turned into a full language and about how the national self conscionce turned a rural tribe into a full nation in the 19th century? --Kuban Cossack 16:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rydel

Dear Rydel, your today's personal attacks against User:Kuban kazak prompted him to request the Wikicommunity to comment on your behaviour. You are welcome to provide your response on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rydel. I hope this RfC will bring your mutual animosity to an end. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your blog is DOS'd?

I can't reach br23. Is it a work of Baćka's KGB?--Amir E. Aharoni 18:44, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm investigating the problem. --rydel 00:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you would be interested

Please see this

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russsian_claims_about_Warsaw_Uprising_1794 The author tries to put information from non-objective source as objective article. The source is from Imperial Russia regarding Polish uprising against its occupation. Imperial Russia was known for fabricating and being source of many antipolish fabrications. Because I didn't want to delete this(no blanking) I moved it to a proper article that would deal with claim. --Molobo 03:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tomasz Wawrzecki - Widsi?

The article Tomasz Wawrzecki mentions a "small Belarusian city of Widsi." The link is red.

Is there such a thing?--Amir E. Aharoni 17:49, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure. I've never heard such a town/village name... --rydel 13:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing

Wether it is the humiliation of how Lukashenko literally flushed your pathetic opposition head first down the toilet or is it your open racism against Russians (in all respects of that word) such POV-pushing is not going to pass on this encyclopedia. Feel free to put anything you want on your blog (I could not care less what you pollute the internet with it), but if you shall continue to insert POV material, like the Khatyn massacre or different language rules for Belarusian, the reader must be presented FACTS not opinions. А то доиграешся до арбитрации голубчик.--Kuban Cossack 12:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kuban kazak is well known for his pro-Russian POV pushing as well as for complete lack of civility [ref]. Anonumous, 19:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Please don't vandalise my name or my comment. --Kuban Cossack

22:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khatyn

Hi Rydel,

I've re-added a sentence to the Khatyn article about why it was probably chosen as the BSSR war memorial (to sow confusion with Katyń). While the previous mention of this, which you readded, was (IMHO) strongly POV and should have been rephrased, it was instead deleted by User:Burann (who, interestingly, states on his userpage: "As a Wikipedian, I am a strong believer that every information should be included and none should be deleted. For example, if someone adds some POV information (unless its completely wrong), I believe that it should be not deleted, but instead rewritten in a way telling that it is only a point of view of some group of society rather than an accepted truth.").

I hope my rephrased statement of the existence of this widely held belief will be acceptable to all (even Belarusians I talked to at the Khatyn site itself told me it had been chosen because of the name!); otherwise, we start to run into the rather dangerous precedent that only information about countries that has been approved by the dictatorships running them is acceptably "NPOV". ProhibitOnions 20:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homel

For the record Wikipedia is supposed to show names that are native to ENGLISH not Belarusian, google Gomel vs Homeil or Homyel, look into any foreign media to see what...Gomel. As for language name, please Belarusian not Belarusan, makes me question just how much Belarusian you really are. Finally 3RR four reverts per day, and as for Minsk its NPOV rather than the POV of the people that got what 6, sorry 3% on the elections... Now since I do believe that there is some good in you, do take care and revert all of those changes. So get cracking. Finally don't stalk other peoples' edits --Kuban Cossack 18:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 2006 presidential "elections" were totally and massively falsified according to all parties and observers except Kremlin. Belarusan opposition got anywhere from 20% to 60% of the vote in those "elections", but unfortunately no one counted the votes, so we don't know for sure. Although this is entirely off-topic here. I don't even know why you mention it in relation to Homel/Gomel spelling issue. To the best of my knowledge and my experience in translation, the English name for Homel is Homel. Can you please explain, who decided that English name for Homel is Gomel? --rydel 21:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check google, then check BBC, as for elections, then UN certainly did not recognise it as falsified and please don't engage in Political debates, in any case wiki has no right to have a slant on any political level even if ALL parties recognise the elections. As for those that did, then Venezuela and China recognised them, amogst many political groups in Europe and in the Americas. In any case that is a POV (20 to 60%) and WP:NPOV. --Kuban Cossack

21:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What should I check on Google? US State Department, OSCE, Council of Europe and European Parliament called these presidential "elections" unfair and did not recognize the results. "Don't engage in political debates" -- Thank you, very good point. You came to discuss Homel/Gomel issue, but you immediately switched to politics, although it is off-topic, and you go on talking about politics. I wonder how it relates to Belarusan and English orthography. --rydel 21:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google for Homel/Gomel not elections. Those elections are OT that you are bringing in, and US, OSCE is no less POV than Kremlin or Lukashenko. --Kuban Cossack

21:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You brought it in the very first comment: "the POV of the people that got what 6, sorry 3% on the elections..." And I immediately informed you that this is not related. That's one reason I try to avoid having a dialog with you. 99% of the time you switch to off-topic in order to confuse the matters.

Which not an exuse to copypaste the panos that you write on your blog into wiki :).

As for Google, it's not a good measurement of correctness, especially when it comes to obscure foreign geographic names (Google people acknowledge that result count gives a very-very rough estimate). Still, as you can see "Homel" is quite popular. "Gomel" is 1.8 millions, and "Homel" is standing at 0.5 millions, which means it's on the same order (and even that shouldn't be relied upon, according to Google programmers). "Gomel" is a Russian, Soviet spelling, so if you have old books, or old sources that use books or papers or journals from the Soviet times or from Russian language sources, they naturally use "Gomel" (sometimes because they are used to, sometimes because they don't know, sometimes because they want to for political reasons to ensure that Russian version should be imposed upon English). So it's natural that "Gomel" is ahead (probably). "Homel", on the other hand, is the correct English spelling of the Belarusan city name. And "Gomel" is an archaic Soviet spelling or Russian-based spelling that it is still popular on the Web. That's it. The fact that it appears to be relatively popular doesn't make it correct. --rydel 22:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archaic, I do not thing so Modern websites in the URL use Gomel.by [3], also official city portals Oblast, city portals s well as the ENGLISH languaged Columbia encyclopedia. --Kuban Cossack

22:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you brought it up, I recommend you take a look at the most authorative and well-known English language encyclopedia on this planet.

http://www.britannica.com/search?query=Homel&ct=

The main entry is "Homel", and "Gomel" is merely a redirect to "Homel". "Homel" is the main article. --rydel 22:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Preview Remember that this is only a preview; changes have not yet been saved![reply]

Look if you want to change everything back to Homel do a WP:requested moves for the main article and we shall see what the wiki community thinks of that. Unless otherwise stated, I have put my view on the topic. Russian is the official language of Belarus, we can't forget that. Like it or not you have another five years of Batka (which I do not mind as I am off to Grodno in June). I do not mind having local spellings for small cities and towns (although no Latsinka, please). However for large cities one has to remember that they are a) Russophone b) despite Britannica English press respects the current position of Russian in Belarus. Its like if Tatar wikipedians try to move Kazan to Qazan, that would be silly now. Same with Gomel. --Kuban Cossack

22:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

====Regarding reversions[4] made on May 10 2006 (UTC) to Minsk====

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 18:54, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that Kuban Kozak broke the 3RR first. Why was I banned and he was not? And then he reinserted false Russian POV in all the articles in question, including but not limited to "Minsk". --rydel 21:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR is for 4 reverts. I made an edit you made 4 reverts whilist I had three. You are allowed 3 max in 24 hours. 4th revert gets you blocked, and please Kazak or Cossack, unless you want to be a Рыдель.:) As for POV, then there is a talk page, although I know that you do not know how to use one given your 4 month edit war on Belarusian language resulting in it being locked TWICE. --Kuban Cossack

21:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My first edit was an edit, not a revert. It's easy to check. --rydel 21:41, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction your first edit was a revert to this edit [5] and then this edit [6]. Reverts do not have to be identical, it could mean sections, and 3RR is to stop edit wars not to enforce a policy. Now like it or not there is such a thing that is called WP:FAITH. When a first conflict comes, don't wait for the opposite party and use the talk page. Senseless reverting is exactly what you did and you got blocked. If you want something to change I can do that, I mean unlike you I believe in a COMPROMISE (I know your racist POVs go against that but here everybody plays by the same rules). Now that you are blocked, we have to do with this talk page so let me know what is it you do not like and let us reach a compromise and I will hapilly do that edit. In the future take this as a template for perspective disagreements. --Kuban Cossack

21:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

America + Omerika = Omerica

"Senseless reverting is exactly what you did" -- Correction, it was a meaningful reverting of incorrect spelling which involved one letter (G->H). There's no compromise between correct spelling and wrong spelling. If I spell USA as "America" and you spell it as "Omerika", it doesn't mean we have to settle for "Omerica"

Sorry where did you see America? Did I mention America anywhere? What are you on about? Finally let I remind you that currentely WP:Naming Conventions state use the most common English name. BBC Gomel vs Homel. --Kuban Cossack

22:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, Google count is not a good measurement of correctness, especially when it comes to obscure foreign geographic names of small towns (Google people acknowledge that result count gives a very-very rough estimate). Still, as you can see "Homel" is quite popular on Google. "Gomel" is 1.8 millions, and "Homel" is standing at 0.5 millions, which means it's on the same order (and even that shouldn't be relied upon, according to Google programmers). "Gomel" is a Russian, Soviet spelling, so if you have old books, or old sources that use books or papers or journals from the Soviet times or from Russian language sources, they naturally use "Gomel" (sometimes because they are used to, sometimes because they don't know, sometimes because they want to for political reasons to ensure that Russian version should be imposed upon English). So it's natural that "Gomel" is ahead (probably). "Homel", on the other hand, is the correct English spelling of the Belarusan city name. And "Gomel" is an archaic Soviet spelling or Russian-based spelling that it is still popular on the Web. That's it. The fact that it appears to be relatively popular doesn't make it correct. --rydel 22:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Naming conventions exactly states that popular does not equal correct, yet we do have Kiev instead of Kyiv, Odessa instead of Odesa, Warsaw instead of Warszawa, Moscow instead of Moskva and Saint Petersburg instead of Sankt-Peterburg. --Kuban Cossack

22:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, please check Britannica. The main entry is "Homel", and "Gomel" is merely a redirect to "Homel". --rydel 22:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice to all sides, from your friendly admin: WP:1RR is generally a good idea. Bludgeoning people with 3RR is not good. Spelling: always a bit of a nightmare. Your english-speaking admins can *not* really help. Myabe look at the good-old example of Gdansk which went through endless discussion and arbcomms and so on... and WP:DR. Its all better than reverting to death William M. Connolley 22:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree more. --Kuban Cossack

22:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

William, thanks, but I was hoping you'll try to get into the substance of the argument, not just copy-paste the information on WP procedures. --rydel 10:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is not his job, an admin taking a side in an argument... never. --Kuban Cossack

12:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are exploiting the system's weaknesses to keep your edits? --rydel 16:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you expecting the admin to take a side in an argument? Ask any admin to do so and you will recieve the same message from them. Exploitation...well if you like, I am just following the rules that are dictated, which I know you have not read. --Kuban Cossack

17:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let us shelve the issue

Right then, so when the block expires, you do a WP:Requested moves, put a notice on all relevant portals and let the voting begin. As both of us have clearely opposite opinions let us see what third parties think. Remeber Orsha, same way, feel free to copypaste relevant sections out of this talk page onto Gomel's talk page. --Kuban Cossack 12:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are putting it upside down. You've created the mess in the first place by massively changing the existing articles' references from Homel to Gomel without consulting anyone and, I strongly suspect, for purely "political" POV reasons, which have nothing to do with the English orthography. So, I propose that you go back and change everything back to Homel as it was before, and then you can go to WP:Requested moves and provide arguments for "G". --rydel 16:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article is already moved, and politics have nothing to play, I moved the article per User:Kazak's argument of moving Vitebska and Mogilev, both are more common in English. Anyway first lets decide wether Gomel should be moved back to Homel and if yes then change. The former is achieved with a majority vote. --Kuban Cossack

17:18, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_%28city_names%29#Belarus --Molobo 11:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. I think "Homel" issue is much more important than Molodechno. First of all, it is much bigger city. Second, G/H is a crucial issue. G doesn't even exist in Belarusan language. --rydel 16:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. If you ever need any help don't hesitate to ask. --Molobo 17:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I have seen you use translits of Belarusian rather than Lacinka before, so maybe you will agree with my proposal that wiki ceases to use Lacinka and we adopt a standard Belarusian translit for all titles except those that have a clear use preference in English. Have a look here Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Cyrillic)#Proposal for Belarusian. --Kuban Cossack 19:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Прапанова аб Вікі ў правапісе 1959

Чалом! Вы цікавіцеся беларускай мовай й пішаце й гаворыце менавіта ў ёй. Тады азнаёмцеся з прапановай: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages. Дзяк.

Sincere wishes

I saw the post on your blog linked to by "missing Wikipedians". I you have my deep wishes for a complete recovery. Good luck! --Storkk 18:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Dziady1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dziady1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Pesniary volahda lp cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pesniary volahda lp cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aspects (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of KRIWI

The article KRIWI has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A7 -- no indicia of notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Epeefleche (talk) 05:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Niamiha flood 2004.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Niamiha flood 2004.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Kriwi (band) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kriwi (band) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kriwi (band) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Very Average Editor (talk) 05:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rest in Peace

Thank you for editing here and being a great person. I may have never known you but I want to pay my respects. Joey (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]