User talk:Hillock65/Archive/2007/May

KU and J casualties
It so happens that I recently found some relevant numbers for that - added to discussion, feel free to adapt into the article proper. And 1916 book is a no-no as a reliable source, especially for numbers... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am afraid Simon Dubnow's 1916 piece is not the worst part, there is also a CBS News timetable as a reliable source for numbers! Let's see where it goes. Thanks for your comments. --Hillock65 01:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Newspapers and old books are sunk by modern scholarly papers, if there is any contradiction. Due weight may be invoked if sources of similar reliablity are contradicting each other, this is not the case here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if we could file for some king of mediation or help from somewhere, I hate these revert wars led by admins. I don't have much experience in this squabbling, do you have any suggestions?--Hillock65 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note I don't monitor other user talk pages for replies, if you reply on your talk page to my message the chances I will read it are less than 100%. I think the article is improving, but you can always ask for WP:RFC to get more attention - it is a good advice before mediation. If the situation changes (revert warring, etc.) then check WP:DR. I hope this will not be necessary, although stubborness of some editors in relying on obsolete sources and accusing others of bad faith is somewhat irritating.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * BK I now something about, Ethnic Russians in Ukraine I am afraid is far from my area of knowledge. Have you tried asking for input from Ukrainian and Russian noticeboards? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I will try that. Thanks anyway.--Hillock65 20:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Danzig, per Talk:Gdańsk/Vote (precedent) that led to the creation of WP:NCGN (specifically it would be "Danzig (Gdańsk)" on first occurence, then Danzig in the article).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Use the talk page
Please stop revert-warring and act in Good Faith. Otherwise I will make a formal complaint to the admin and ask for the page to be locked, use the talk page prior to doing so. Just because you think I am a bad editor (which I could not really care) that does give you the excuse to continue disruptive behaivour. There is a talk page on the article so please return to discussing. --Kuban Cossack 21:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that out of your contribution in the last hour you made more than four reverts and only one talk page entry. That really is enough to summarize your behaivour in a nutshell as disruptive. If you want to discuss the article go to the talk page. But for all intents and purposes I am disappointed in you. --Kuban Cossack 21:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did make some of those reverts, but however after explaining most of them on the talk page. So please, не ищи правду в других коли в тебе ее нету. --Kuban Cossack 22:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * So is Russian language strange for you? Well like I said, don't take out your insecurities on fellow wikipedians. --Kuban Cossack 22:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Several questions
I am now back editing, not sure for how long, and there is a huge backlog of things I must do onwiki which I plan to address in the arbitrary order, not by the priorities. I want to minimize the amount of empty arguing to spend time most productively. Here is a random and incomplete list of requests I have to you. I may add some more later:

However, let's put aside for now the contentious issues and, at least implement the agreeable changes. Please defork Khmelnytsky since most of the additional info now there was added by you. --Irpen 03:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Re: Khmelnytsky. I certainly plan to attend to the uprising article. This is going to be solved sooner or later. I am worried, however, about the duplication of material in the bio article. I raised this issue at B Kh talk a while ago that the article unnecessarily duplicates what belongs to the Treaty, Uprising, Ruin and several other articles. Unlike Pugachev, BKh is not a person of a single event. As such, whicle Bolotnikov and Pugachev's articles may be practically merged into their uprising, it is not so for BKh. Since you developed the bio article some months earlier, adding to it a lots of material from general historiography, I request that you give some thought of what should belongs where and move the material around explaining at talk why. Since most of the material is yours, asking you to do that is most natural. --Irpen
 * I am tired of revert wars there. I'll give it some time until issues over forking staff from the Uprising article get settled. It needs reworking, however, let's give it some time.--Hillock65 01:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please act as if the uprising article is settled. The direction is crystal clear and I will help to get it resolved. We should suppress forking from the bio article regardless from the rest. Since this is your material, you are the best person to do that. --Irpen
 * Let's wait until dust settles there, I think they are still fighting in the Uprising article and forking off into another article may still continue. Let's give it some time.--Hillock65 05:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As you wish wrt to the uprising events but there is lots of other historiography. --Irpen 06:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Unrelated q.: regarding amateurish self-drawn pics, I can see the validity of this concern. I prefer to use published maps under the FU rationale, but sometimes it is impossible. Good maps can be drawn and are, of course subject to discussion, but since maps are informative, we need to discuss how they should be improved, not whether we need them. On a related topic, please remove from the ua-Ukrainophobia article the pics you found somewhere at LJ (like "Stydno" and the other one). Those are clearly self-made and unencyclopedic, unless their authorship can be traced to known nationalist organizations or people, such pics are pure junk. --Irpen
 * In regards to the hand-drawn picture, the amateurish representation is the least of my worries. The undue weight it gives to the so-called "self-determination of ethnic Russians" is a far greater concern. See discussion page. In regards to the uk. page, please raise concern there. Even though I am the main contributor, there are other people and their views should be listened to. It's hard to discuss both pages at the same time. --Hillock65 01:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you click on my contribs there, from my last entry you will see why are decided to decline any participation there (despite I am still getting the requests to the contrary.) The sad incident and, more than that, the responses that arose, exemplified the deeply rooted problems and I want to have nothing to do with this all until the community addresses the deeply rooted problems first. I avoid even going there now to reduce further stress. I simply mentioned the issue as it is related to this one and if you prefer to go with the double standards depending on your approval or disapproval of a specific POV, do as you please. Uk-wiki is all yours, at least for now. --Irpen
 * If I may, I think you are using English WP methods there and they backfire. Revert wars rarely happen there, that's why they don't even have 3RR rule, or at least I don't remember when they used it last. The best way is not to cause revert war, but rather discuss and try to get people on yuor side. Once the revert war starts there it is hard to get things settled and pashions inflame. There are people, who have different views from AlexK and there is sort of power struggle going on between the admins. If you try, you may find allies or people sharing your vision. In any case give it some time. --Hillock65 05:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the power struggle you mention. I do not want to use it and I do not want to do anything there until the community settles its problems on its own. What happened there has nothing to do with the content dispute but with the user's using admin powers to win it and another admin stepping in with threats when the valid criticism was raised. The issue at hand, however, is a narrow one. Obscured unsourced amateurish pictures' being unencyclopedic. Map is one thing, political posters representing no one is something else. I am surprised you don't see it. I raised the issue there some time earlier. --Irpen 06:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Little Russian, the discussion is going to continue but lets not invoke (or invent) the term's offensiveness. The term should be discussed strictly in terms of propriety. I am to review the article and will make sure the term is not used for Bolshevik revolution time, I agree with that, but let's stick to the arguments of the proper context. Unlike offensive "khohol", the LR term has a clear historic meaning, including the origin. We should discuss the usage and carry the discussion within the proper scope.
 * Let's be frank, attitudes toward term Little Russian is more negative than positive, it envokes imperialist attitude towards Ukrainians . And especially lately, since this term acquired new meaning and importance for Russian imperial revisionists like Smolin. For me personally, it is even more insulting than "khohol" — stupidity and lack of culture is not as bad as pure hate. The use of it beyond generally accepted norm in the historiographic literature is clearly designed to show Ukrainians where their place is, and its use in the article is pure provocation. I explained it on the discussion page.--Hillock65 01:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * it invokes just as much as you want to see in it. The propriety of this term is strictly defined by the context. In the context of the 19th century and earlier there is no uniformity that Little Russian and Ukrainian are even fully equivalent and substituting the terminology given in the census by stretching the terms into the 19th century times is unencyclopedic. --Irpen
 * That's exactly my point of view as well. However, I believe some are using it as a pretext for Russian imperialist ideas and its negative connotation after Smolin, Ulyanov, Shulgin and others has strengthened. Had it remained in the textbooks about 18th century that would be quite different matter. On the related topic, take a look at Russians in Ukraine. It is hopelessly deadlocked, precisely because of this terminology. Some are so vindictive and spiteful that would not yild an inch in the pleasure of calling Ukrainians Little Russians. This is totally unrelated to the topic of the article, however, unwillingness of some to move for neutral name used in all scientific literature about the period, virtually paralized any progress. The article should be protected, until acceptable solution can be found. Please, feel free to contribute there as well, it badly needs new editors with fresh ideas.--Hillock65 05:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The solution of this particular dispute is obvious to me but may be time consuming to implement and I am now severely backed up. I will get there soon. --Irpen 06:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please!
Your last comment at Talk:Russians in Ukraine was very uncivil and uncalled for. Instead of discussing my paranoia, you should be trying to reach concensus on some other points of discussion. This is not the first time I am sking you to stay off personal attacks and discuss issues related to the article and not about me. (see WP:NPA) If your insults don't stop I will file a complaint. Hope that won't be necessary.--Hillock65 22:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * In that case either actually discuss the topic w/o excessive emotions or simply ... уступи дорогу. The choice is yours, or go ahead and file the complaints for all I care, if it is impossible to have a civil discussion with you, then you might as well get a proper third party sooner than later. --Kuban Cossack 22:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Russians in Ukraine
Please stop repeatedly reverting others at this article. You should use the talk page instead of (not in addition to) reverting. If discussion alone isn't helping, take a look at the other options at dispute resolution, and consider mediation. There are better ways to resolve disputes than trying to win them with more reverts than the other party. Dmcdevit·t 05:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a misunderstanding
When i called this discusion stupid, i didn't mean the discussion you started, i ment the discussion of "are Ukrainians mini-Russians" (I explained that this name is not saying that), thats what i ment, so i'm sorry you were offenced because you i didn't even think of offencing. M.V.E.i. 18:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, case closed. Happy editing!--Hillock65 18:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hours of work?
If reverting other people is hours of work, then really it sums your point on wikipedia in a nutshell, now
 * Russians and Ukrainians, both Eastern Slavic peoples,

vs your
 * Belarusians, Russians and Ukrainians, Eastern Slavic

so, Belarusians, Russians and Ukrainians are now not Eastern slavic peoples? Hours of work on adding nonsense? Original... --Kuban Cossack 20:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you have any comments or suggestions about the article, mention them at the discussion page there, and refrain from bothering me with personal attacks. Instead of revert war you might mention there what's your problem and we will discuss. Reverting other people's work is counterproductive and is leading nowhere.--Hillock65 20:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am revert warring? You have so far reverted everything I added. Stop playing the innocent and claiming personal attacks, you never respond on the talk page. --Kuban Cossack 20:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought I asked you to stop bothering me here and start discussion of the issues that concern you on the discussion page.--Hillock65 20:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your arrogance does not help, FYI your talk page is part of an international project, and anyone can post if he/she or they wish to.... But's that's beyond the point.
 * Ok, lets start again. don't revert anything in the next 20 minutes, I will raise the talk page, and we shall dicuss it. If you do so I promise in turn NOT to post anything on your talk page? Deal? --Kuban Cossack 20:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You must be taking me for a sucker to suggest that. You revert the article yourself to before your last revert rampage and then we will talk. Some other editors apart from me and you made changes as well, if you don't respect me - respect them. Asking for discussion after destroying my work - you've got to have the nerve! Use the talk page.--Hillock65 20:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Russians in Ukraine
I dont know the details of the edit war beetwen you and Kubam Cossak, but this war reallyhurts eventually the article. As i can see the page is now protected, so please try to find a compromise with Kuban Cossack on the talk page as he offered you (As long as the page is protected he couldn't revert anything). We are all here tyo make the article better, so please, try to find with him a compromise. I inderstand that this war is not of my buisness, but it's sad for me that instead of improving the article and it's level we cant continue our work. M.V.E.i.
 * Unfortunately, the revert war is everyone's business, by reveting the article yesterday, hours of my work and of one other editor have been ruined. I trust you are not taking sides in this, and have chastised Kuban Kazak on his discussion page as well for starting all this. Or is it just me?--Hillock65 15:53, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have sended a messege to Kuban Kazak and told him that i asked you to try to find a coimpromise with him on the tolk page and that if you will try he should not t urn his back on you. I elso told him that this is not my buisness but this edit war hurts the article. I cant take a side because i never read those edit-war messeges, thats why all i can, and try to do is ask you to to find a compromise. M.V.E.i. 17:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am happy to see that you are not taking sides and remain neutral. Thank you for trying to resolve this issue. Contribution from all editors is very welcome. It might be worthwhile for you to look at the history before the revert war, maybe you will find something of interest or have an opinion about.--Hillock65 17:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the messege i left to you and Kuban Kazak at the talk page. M.V.E.i. 18:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please check
Please check whether you put your agree statement in Talk:Russians in Ukraine to the plase you really ment.--AndriyK 17:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you check?--AndriyK 18:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Hillock65, Lets not talk about what he did or didn't do, the trick is we speak about the article. Say what are your complains on his article edit, and what are your demends about what to do in the article. M.V.E.i. 20:45, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't control the article, tell me what do you want to add or change. Also please use the discussion page about the article.--Hillock65 20:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian-Soviet War
Is it possible we just don't have a redirect - or are we truly missing an article on that? Could you check ukr and ru wikis if they have something? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope Hillock does not mind me answering your question, but we have an article Ukraine after the Russian Revolution which covers that time frame. --Kuban Cossack 20:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there is exactly a paragraph in that article covering that topic. In Ukrainian Wiki there is a far better article with this title: Українсько-більшовицька війна 1917—21 I am sure there must be one in Polish as well. --Hillock65 23:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Point is that the very such title would be a POV term since Ukrainians were split in this conflict between the pro-Soviet and anti-Soviet faction. The former got support from USSR and the latter was eventualy supported by Poland. So, it was in a sense a Ukrainian civil war with many factions fighting each other and external enemies. We have an article under a neutral title that can be developed but there is no need for the new one to make a WP:POINT. --Irpen 00:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, at that point, the only Ukrainian gov't on the territory of Ukraine was the UNR. With the same logic you could object to the title Soviet-German war, since Soviets were split in this conflict between the pro-German RoA and anti-German Red Army factions.--Hillock65 00:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * On the contrary it was the Russians who were split between the RoA and the Red Army not the Soviets. Just like Ukrainians were between the Soviets and the Germans (UPA, SS-Galizia and the like feaces...) Except unlike in Ukraine, in Russia we do not have revisionism about our war-time collaborators.... However that is off point, and Irpen is right, already in 1918 you had the two South-Russian Soviet Republics, Denikin and others, all had Ukrainians in their ranks.--Kuban Cossack 00:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * On a separate note, thanks for the article, I think the image uk:Зображення:Ukraine 12-1917-5-1918.jpg will find its use in an English wikipedia, particularly the internal borders of Ukraine...thanks a great lot!--Kuban Cossack 00:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * However much Russian nationalists tend to think about the Red Army, it was by far made of different nationalities, including Russians. As well Germans in their ranks had not only Germans but all other axis forces as well as RoA, Russian Cossacks and Kaminsky Brigade. And Roa too was not made exclusively of Russians as well. It is the perspective from which you treat the subject that matters. From Russian nationalist - indeed there cannot be a Soviet Ukrainian war, since Ukraine was supposed to be only within USSR. From Ukrainian point of view, it sure can - during Ukrainian civil war, as Irpen pointed out, a Ukrainian gov't fought against Soviets. Mind you, not Russians but Soveits (which again, were made of Ukrainians as well). Poles also did (see Polish-Soviet War). If this encyclopedia is based on Russian nationalist ideas (as I suspect it is), then Soviet-Ukrainian war is indeed impossible. On a separate note about uk. article - sorry to burst your bubble yet again in regards to sources: they have to be from scientific and reliable published sources, which WP, even Ukrainian one is evidently not. --Hillock65 00:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

A narrow comment: uk-wiki is not a source, I agree, but this map is obviously taken from some book. Could you please find out more on the map's source? Thanks, --Irpen 01:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * NVM, found it myself: "УКРАЇНА. ІСТОРИЧНИЙ АТЛАС для 10 класу.", К.: Мапа, 2002 р. Certainly a reliable source and if anyone wants to upload it to wiki, I will help with fairuse rationale. --Irpen 02:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * At the moment the abovementioned article does not exist, so downloading images without text would be premature.--Hillock65 02:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It can be used for Ukraine after the Russian Revolution and it can be used as a source to self-draw maps of post-revolutionary republics. --Irpen 02:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Unless we were to merge Polish-Ukrainian War into it (which I don't recommend), I think Soviet-Ukrainian War needs a separate article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Point is, Piotrus, that it was not Ukrainian-Soviet war but a Ukrainian civil war with non-Ukrainian participation. --Irpen 07:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, the Ukrainian article includes maps which name the war "War between Soviet Russia and UNR" (actually, several wars of such name are distinguished there). As another FWIW note, the modern Belarusian historiography refers to the former "Russian-Lithuanian" and "Russian-Polish" wars of 16-17th cent. as "War(s) between Muscovy state (eventually, Russian Tsardom) and Great Duchy of Lithuania (eventually, Commonwealth)". Yury Tarasievich 08:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)