User talk:Mbuk

Wlecome
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place   on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Irpen 23:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

RU/UA portals
Also, you might be interested to check out the Russian portal and the Ukrainian portal here at Wikipedia. Please check the "Things you can do" windows as well as the important notice boards that you might consider adding to your watchlist. Cheers, --Irpen 23:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

signing
When you leave a message at the talk page, please sign it. All you have to do is add for tildes (like this: ~ ) in the end and the software will replace it with your username and the timestamp. Thanks, --Irpen 23:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Khreschatyk
Thanks for your comment at the talk page. The dispute is still not resolved, unfortunately. :( --AndriyK 20:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of the word "Russian"
I've replied to your question at user talk:Mzajac. —Michael Z. 2006-03-26 19:50 Z 

The flafor of the word "take"
Hi! I a have a question to you as to a native English speaker. Does the word "take" assume any negative flavor in English when applied to war events like: "taking control over a certain territory", "taking positions", "take a city" etc. Why do you prefer "reclaim"?

P.S. It might be reasonable if you respond directly on the talk page Talk:Battle of the Lower Dnieper.--Mbuk 19:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Mbuk, I have included "take" in a list of alternative words to "liberate" in the Consensus section of Talk:BLD. My preference of reclaim is because of what I perceive to be it's neutrality, not having an overall positive or negative connotation. The way WP defines "liberate", it is hard to justify in the context of the article. As for "take", I personally find it rather blunt and not exactly appropriate for this context. --tufkaa 22:24, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Is this edit yours?
Hi,

A IP modified your comment on Talk:Battle of the Lower Dnieper (see here)

Did you forget to log in or do we have a vandal on the page? Thanks in advance. -- Grafikm_fr   (AutoGRAF)  22:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's my edit.
 * I persistently have this problem: I loged in but, after some time, it appears that I have to log in again. I do not know what is wrong with my computer.--Mbuk 06:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration
Hi! I filled an arbitration request concerning the usage of "liberation" in WP articles. If you are interested in, please add your name to the list of the involved parties and type your statement.

Please inform everybody who could be interested in.--AndriyK 20:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. Unfortunately, I am very buisy at the moment.
 * In general, I do not like these permanent Russian-Ukrainian conflicts. Therefore I can take part in the discussion at most. I would not like to be involved in the arbitration. Sorry.--Mbuk 19:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Adding "liberation" to "Words to avoid"
I filled the proposal for Words to avoid. Please find it here. I would be thankfull for your commennts, suggestions and corrections.--AndriyK 16:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

3RR
You reverted the article four times within 24 hours: thus violating the WP:3RR rule. As I said, it is never my intention to have my opponents blocked and, as such, I am not reporting this to 3RR board. However, may I suggest that you seize from further reverting the article and spend time reading the talk page. Thank you, --Irpen 21:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * yesterday at 21:40
 * today at 6:07
 * today at 6:16
 * today at 21:30


 * Thanks. It's my fault. The clock on my computer was wrong. As you see, I "blocked" me myself. I did not edit WP for more than 24 hours.--Mbuk 03:50, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This was up to you and unnecessary. Now, that you are back, please consider editing some non-controversial articles. We only have a single UA-related FA (Hero of Ukraine) and, AFAIK only one GA T-34. Take a look at this "Good articles drive" discussion and share your thoughts if you feel like it. If you instead firmly plan to resume the talk:Russian architecture deliberations, I strongly urge you to read the past discussion at talk and its archives. Regards, --Irpen 03:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

RfC
I apologise for my mistake, and for being so patronising as to think that you could misunderstand something as fundemental as the 3RR. I will be altering my summary in due course. I also apologise for my strong language vis a vis the duplication of diffs. However, I do feel strongly about this issue, and that you should have taken the time to read over your statement to check it. Also, why is the RfC still in the awaiting sponsors section? There seems to be evidence of two users trying to resolve the dispute. If you disagree with any other part of my summary, please do feel free to rebut it on the talk page. --David.Mestel 04:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)



Re:Dispute tag at Ukrainization
I will simply quote User:Dmcdevit who blocked AndriyK today:

You must stop edit warring. In answer to your question about content reaolution, I would say that there can never by a resolution as long as any party continues to aggressively revert to his preferred version. It flies in the face of consensus-driven discussion and pollutes the collaborative atmosphere.

There can never by a resolution as long as any party continues to aggressively revert to his preferred version.

Blanking articles and adding pretty tags is NOT a solution. If you contest something, edit the article and provide references to your new claims. And that's precisely what AndriyK did not. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  21:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read the talk and study the article history. The solution was proposed. It clearly looks like these are you, Kuban kazak and Irpen who "aggressively revert to his preferred version". Please stop edit warring and switch to the discussion at talk. Read WP:DR. Removing the tag is not a solution.--Mbuk 21:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If a tag is out of place, yes it is. You think something is OR? Okay! Just add a paragraph right after a statement, such as "However, this theory is disputed by some other researchers, such as XXXX and YYYY in the book "How to...", page NNN, because "quote_goes_here". That is ALL.
 * Would AndriyK act like that, never in the world I would revert his edits. Adding tags everywhere is NOT a solution. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  21:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding the tag is not a solution but it is a temporal measure that allow to avoid the edit war between different versions and resolve the dispute step-by-step according to WP:DR.
 * This was not me, who wrote WP:Vandalism. If you disagree with this policy please try to change it as it is proposed in the corresponding guideline. But do not break the rules addopted by the community.--Mbuk 21:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A temporal measure that lasts for several months? Oh please...
 * If AndriyK would spend half his energy on actually writing something instead of putting tags everywhere, all this affair would be over by now. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  21:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The temporal measure should last until the dispute is settled.
 * Please use AndriyK's talk, if you have any suggestion to him.
 * Please use article talk if you would like to propose a solution.--Mbuk 21:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I did!!! I suggested to AndriyK to "try again" and write a separate article on architecture on Kievan Rus (User_talk:AndriyK). OK this is not about the same article but issues are pretty similar. We were three or four to suggest that AndriyK would fix things per WP:BOLD instead of using tags. We can't do more than that.
 * And please, stop talking about temporal measures. The tag on Russian Architecture was first placed SEVEN months ago.
 * Since you quote WP:Vandalism, look at this Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. (bold mine). It is totally the case here. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  21:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * We discuss your recent edits at Ukrainization. Russian architecture is a separate story. The dispute tags was placed there properly. Please visit the artcle talk for the discussion. There was no consensus on either of two artiles. --Mbuk 21:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The disputed tags were placed improperly in both cases in contraversion to sources cited in both cases earlier at the article's talk pages. The tags were placed by a problem user whose unwarranted tag-trolling and revert warring is but the only activity he takes at Wikipedia since his ban for other dirty tricks. Your assuming the role of his fan, blind supporter and revert proxy is highly disruptive and doesn't speak highly of yourself and of your interest in making Wikipedia a content rich source. Your continual WP:DFTT of AndriyK's opponents by trying to tire them in the endless debates over the issues to which they already responded is a time-wasting tactic and nothing else. You loaded the talk pages of a whole lot of people with baseless accusations and uninterrupted pestering for already answered questions. Your Wikilawyering and unwarranted appeals to the Policy pages that your friend and yourself are breaking at the first place are yet as disruptive. Once you were perceived as potentially productive, albeit a stubborn and opinionated user. This is gradually changing as you are yet to make a single productive edit and to this date you failed to make any. I suggest you take a short break, read WP:TEA and carefully read the Don't be a Dick article. Armed with that, please start editing and stop disrupting the work of others. If you disagree with something, edit, but change your habbits in the first place. --Irpen 21:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Please do not modify or remove other people's messages from the pages others than your own talk. It may be considered Vandalism

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Talk:Ukrainization. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. abakharev 09:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please reread WP:NPA:

Many Wikipedians remove personal attacks on third parties on sight, and although this isn't policy it's often seen as an appropriate reaction to extreme personal abuse. The article talk page is reserved to discuss the article. Flooding it with unrelated stuff makes it difficult to read and follow the discussion. Please explain your view, if you disagree with me. Thanks.--Mbuk 13:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Allow me



 * Thank you! But I did not deserve it. The main contributor of Kiev tram is DDima.--Mbuk 17:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for giving me credit. But you did deserve it too,...You created an article about on a very good topic (even though I had it ready) but it takes a great writer to think of such a topic:)). —dima  /  /  / 21:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ditto about Fyodor Pirotsky abakharev 23:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainization
Hey -- got your message. I would like to help, but I feel I must decline in this case. The reason is that my attempt at the Patriarch Filaret article involves many of the same editors; I hope you understand -- I don't want to get involved to the point that my neutrality as an outsider becomes compromised. Your post at the admin noticeboard will, I hope, attract the attention of someone useful. I don't personally have any particular suggestions of others to go to. Mango juice talk 05:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring
I am gkad you recognize that I dislike edit warring. Perhaps then, you should take your own admonishments to other edit warriors to heart. There is no explanation for these reverts other than that you were edit warring yourself:, , , , . The last one was a day ago, or you may have found yourself blocked right now, as I am blockin gall the other edit warriors. I don't see that you've been warned before, but you've been participating in the discussions I've had with others, and you know what I'm going to say: edit warring is never acceptable; edit warring makes a conflict worse, not better; if I see you make another revert there, I will block without warning. Having said that, I will of course be giving the actions of all the other Ukrainization edit warriors similar scrutiny. Dmcdevit·t 04:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Your article, Fyodor Pirotsky, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 02:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Russophobia
After reading your talk comments to me, and checking out your contribution history, you need to know that canvassing for a particular side in an AFD is strongly discouraged. It's generally not kosher to try to sway consensus by soliciting opinion you thin will only support your side. VanTucky (talk) 07:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did not see this guideline page before. Thank you for pointing it out.--Mbuk 07:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page
I consider the message you left on my talk page trolling I would suggest you don't leave messages like that again cause you can be blocked for that. Oysterguitarist 14:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. I didn't know.--Mbuk 20:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Estophobia vs. Russophobia
My major concern with the Estophobia article is that it does not seem to concern Estophobia as a general worldwide (or even region-wide) issue, but rather within the specific context of the conflict with Russia over post-Soviet sovereignty and the issue of ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers in Estonia. The Russophobia article, while it has problems, is talking about hatred of Russians the world over, and so it makes somewhat more sense for it to have it's own article.

That said, I'm not particularly keen on the Russophobia article either. In general, I do not think that Wikipedia articles about specific types of racism are very valuable. Even the Antisemitism article -- and obviously that is a necessary article given how widespread the phenomenon is -- I have concerns about, namely that I think it draws too many people who want to push their own POV agenda, and as a result, at any given time there are probably a sentence or two in the article that run afoul of NPOV.

Anyway, as written I think the Estophobia article is more about Russo-Estonian relations (only from a somewhat Estonian point of view) and I think that could be better captured elsewhere... --Jaysweet 16:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, if Estophobia is limited only to Russo-Estonian relations, this is a reason to extend it rather than delete. But I don't think it makes sence.
 * I share you concern that such articles attract POV pushers. I would remove all X-phobia or anti-X articles, unless they are based on neutral academic sources. Making such articles based on arbitrary collection of facts from newspapers, ambasador's interviews etc. is not a good idea.
 * What I am concerned at most are double standards. I wounder, how many people who voted for deletion of Estophobia will do the same at Russophobia.--Mbuk 21:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I would certainly not advocate Keep at Russophobia, but I probably will not vote Delete either. As I said, hatred of Russians appears to be a world-wide phenomenon.  Allow me to give you my extremely Amerocentric point of view:  I know lots of people who one might accuse of Russophobia, and particularly when the Cold War was still ongoing, there was a lot of Russian-hating in the US.  But I can't think of a single person I know who even has an opinion on Estonia or the Bronze Soldier, let alone could be termed an Estophobe.
 * Now, I am certain the situation is quite different in Russia... but again, I haven't really seen an example of "Estophobia" that exists outside of the context of the conflict over the Bronze Soldier and Estonian sovereignty.  If you'll not, I was advocating deletion of the Estophobia article, but taking some of the facts and using it to flesh out a Russo-Estonian relations article to cover the conflict.
 * So to me, whether to have an article on Estophobia and whether to have one on Russophobia are apples and oranges. Let me reiterate, though, I would never advocate Keep on Russophobia.  I just don't feel strongly either way.  It's a valid topic, but I don't know as whether the article adds anything useful to Wikipedia. --21:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. More generally, though, yeah, I am concerned that a disturbing number of Wikipedians would advocate Delete for Estophobia and Keep for Russophobia, and also a disturbing number would advocate Keep for Estophobia, and Delete for Russophobia, based solely on their personally opinions. As I mentioned on the AfD, the Bronze Soldier controversy has been a real eye opener for me in terms of what is going on in that part of the world, and I fear the controversy has spilled into Wikipedia.  And unfortunately, since the majority of English-language Wikipedia editors are from the West, I think most of us are not quite sure what to make of this... --Jaysweet 21:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I cannot agree that if the subject is less known then it oes not deserve a special article. The purpose of English language WP is to make information easily available to English-reading audience (including the information that has been previously unknown). The problem is how to avoid biased information, how to avoid low-quality original research. With this respect, both articles, Russophobia and Estophobia are equaly bad.
 * What can we do abot it? It seems that a more strict verifiability policy applied to such articles could help. For instance, only publications peer-reviewed journals has to be used as sources.--Mbuk 18:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Answering to your question in my page: I am familiar with the Islamophobia article, whihc has been a matter of heated controversy, but it never came to my mind to nominate it for deletion: it is a matter of long-standing hostility elevated to irrationality. The Estophobia article has wrong title: neologism. Second, the suggested renaming Anti-Estonian sentiment, cannot say more than already wtitten in Russo-Estonian relations. "Russophobia" looks equally controversial to me as Islamophobia, the article needs heavy oversight, but the topic appears sufficiently well-formed, although I have to sat that the title does not match the content. I looked into the history and saw that the initila stub was pretty much focused on the term "Russophobia" but later the article bloated and the title is no longer applicable. But I am not going to edit it because the topic is not of interest for me. Mukadderat 18:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)