User talk:Stanley78

Welcome
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Sviatoslav
I responded at the article's talk. Sorry that we disagree on that but thanks for a very useful link indeed. --Irpen 23:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am really sorry that I upset you by my removal of your link. I think it is a great site, truly. I just can't come up with how we link to it. As an inline ref we cannot use it. However accurate, it does not qualify as a reliable source the same way one Wikipedia article cannot be used as the source for another. The references should be to the otherwsie established reliable sources.


 * External links would have been perfect, but the article does not have the EL section and it is generally considered a imperfect form to have "EL" and "See also" sections in the end. They are often added to the raw articles but most if not all FAs do not have it. Whatever we end up with, thanks a lot for a link. I will certainly use it and I even registered at that wiki. Cheers, --Irpen 00:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Happy to learn that you liked Rodovid. It is a great Web site, especially when you realize the scope of work performed by one single person who created it. Sviatoslav's tree is really huge, a more mundane example can be the tree of Che Guevara. As to how to include a link to a tree from a Wikipedia article, I once saw a template, kind of Rodovid has a family tree of this person and his/her ancestors/descendants on an article in the Ukrainian Wikipedia. If you wish we can discuss it. Cheers. :) --Stanley78 08:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Rodovid.
Please avoid adding spam like Rodovid to genealogy based pages. The site requires NO scholarship, not citation, and allows such mistakes as attributing children born 20 years after he died to Che Guervara. Until the site can determine and establish solid standards, it will not be welcome on the link-list. ThuranX 23:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there. There are thousands of mistakes in Wikipedia due to its collaborative nature. There can be mistakes in Rodovid also. It is a wiki. Could you please elaborate on Che Guevara's tree? All of his children on his tree were born BEFORE he died. Those added as born 20 years later are his GRANDCHILDREN. --Stanley78 08:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There should not be mistakes in EITHER. LIke I've said, When Rdovid bothers to get itself together, and come up with standards, then we can see about adding it. Further, No, Look at Che's page. It shows him as the parent of children born in the 1980's. Why? Because there's NO SCHOLARSHIP. Rodovid should have a 'no citation no submission' system in place for its vitals and other dates. It doesn't. ThuranX 21:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you elaborate on "standards" that you are mentioning? As to Che's tree, I suppose there is a problem with how your browser treats the page. Try using Firefox. Have a look on Che's page and you'll see all of his children in his life timeline. Lastly, you do not sound neutral in talking as is suggested by the rules of Wikipedia. --Stanley78 22:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking strongly about something doesn't mean I'm not speaking neutrally. I notice you went and sought out others to influence the page's content. be careful, this can be seen as unwelcome on Wikipedia.
 * The standards involved are those requirements for citation, which Rodovid currently lacks, due to it's 'anyone can edit' framework. Such a structure is NOT useful for genealogy, just as it would be useless for say, The Human Genome Project. if anyone could log into the HGP and randomly insert protien strands in the record of a chromosonal structure, DNA mapping would be pointless, because no one would have a factual record. SImilarly, Genealogy is a study, a discipline, with rules. One cannot randomly change facts accordign to belief. I see nothing on rodovid about requiring that only information for with there is documentation, can be added. In fact, a lot of these wiki-trees which have been added have Mormon trees, which show lineages back to Adam and Eve. No reliable scholarly documentation is there for every generation, but they've included it. And so I again say that until a wiki-tree system which relies upon documentation is made available, all others will be scrutinized at length. Further, I do have firefox, and I can see many of the trees all are displaying correctly. I recommend instead of pushing for rodovid, you should instead work on the links which are already up, to establish a good wiki-tree system, one which prioritizes cited inclusion over speculation and religious imperatives. ThuranX 00:40, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I replied to you in detail at my talk and lost my reply due to a computer mishap before I could save it. Happens sometimes. I think ThuranX response is arrogant, firstly, and beside the point, secondly. His chastising you for seeking the advise of another experienced Wikipedian, which is natural for a newbie, is a text-book example of WP:BITE. Anyway, I am not ready for yet another fight. Let me think it over and feel free to ask me for help in the future. Cheers, --Irpen 01:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your effort and assistance. I think I will discontinue my attempts to persuade ThuranX as he does not read what is actually written. Cheers. --Stanley78 08:44, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I read what is actually written. In fact, I suspect that you are the same Stanley as is found running Rodovid. As such, your posting the link here can be construed as linkspamming, which violates wiki-policy. If you are not him, then you should still consider that the site doesn't meet notability, as it has very few people, mostly uncited, and that the genealogy pages already link to two large, active, debates about the use and function of the wikia engine in genealogy. ThuranX 00:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Stay cool, Man. I am not going to touch the Genealogy page again. Keep it as yours. Cheers. :)--Stanley78 06:33, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Citation from Wikipedia: Wikispam a is using the open editability of wiki systems to place links from the wiki site to the spam site. Often, the subject of the spam site is totally unrelated to the page on the wiki where the link is added. Did I violate something? --Stanley78 06:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You did not, Stanley. Stay cool :). And stick around. If you can help expanding the lineage of the dynasties, that would be great! Check Rurikid, Gediminid for a start. --Irpen 06:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, bro. Ruriks are already in the database but the Gediminids are not. Thanks for a good hint. There are some software upgrades coming in the Rodovid site, as well as new design. For the time being, I am personally busy with that. Hopefully, we will be done with the upgrades withint the next few weeks. After that, I will have more time with adding new dynasties. Also, I can suggest the Gediminid to other users as a new project. --Stanley78 12:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Kiev/Kyiv
To answer your question, I of course cannot prevent you from launching any campaigns, but personally I disagree both with the rename and for the campagns to be run onwiki. Why campaigning seems a bad idea is outlines at WP:NOT, particularly: WP:NOT and WP:NOT. So, whatever campaign that you plan to launch, please make sure it won't fall under any of the categories above.

As for why I disagree with the rename, I would not repeat what has been said many times. I assure you that anglophones won't accept the change but you can of course try to prove me wrong. Here is some heads up for you where the arguments from both sides have been presented most recently: Please put aside some time to read this all before starting this anew. If you still want, please start a new discussion rather than revive the old ones. Finally, you may want to consider to spend this time expanding articles. --Irpen 01:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * User_talk:Irpen
 * User talk:Bryndza
 * links withing these two discussions
 * endless page of talk:Kiev and its archives.

Discussion in support of changing the spelling of the Ukrainian capital in Wikipedia from Kiev to Kyiv
This drive is meant to change the spelling of the Ukrainian capital in Wikipedia from Kiev to Kyiv. The reasons for this are as follows:
 * most of Ukrainians and the Ukrainian authorities now prefer to use the spelling Kyiv
 * the spelling Kyiv more closely resembles the Ukrainian pronunciation
 * according to the rule of peripheral archaisms in linguistics (Kostiantyn Tyschenko, Metateoriya Movoznavstva, Kyiv, OSNOVY, 2000, P. 212), the pace of the changes in a language is faster in the primary, central area of the use of that language; on the contrary, the language retains its old-fashioned form on the periphery of the area of its use. An excellent example to illustrate is the Ukrainian language spoken by the descendants of late 19th--early 20th century Ukrainian immigrants to the United States and Canada: the language they speak has the form of Ukrainian as spoken one century ago. With the case of Kyiv, the center (Ukraine) spells it 'Kyiv' while most the periphery spells it Kiev.
 * at the end of 2006, 15 years after Ukraine got independant, the U.S. government officially ordered its bodies to use the spelling 'Kyiv' instead of 'Kiev' (citation will be provided soon); however, some major U.S. newspapers continue to spell the city as Kiev
 * precedents to support this drive are: the change of Bombay to Mumbai in 1995, Calcutta to Kolkata in 2001, etc.

All of the above has to be neatly rewritten in a proposal to be use in the drive.

Supporters
I support it the frive for Kyiv.--Bandurist 20:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I support it as well. — Alex (T 01:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm,.. shouldn't this be on the talk page? — Alex (T 01:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Now it is. — Alex (T 03:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Alternative suggestion
We need more hands and eyes expanding various topics, related to Ukraine. Portal:Ukraine would be a good starting point, particularly its Portal:Ukraine/Things you can do window as well as a Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements board. Please give a thought to where the spending of your effort and energy would be more productive, in campaigning that might possibly result in replacement of two letters (IMO likely to succeed only after Reuters, AP, and CNN would change their usage) or increasing the amount of Wikipedia content devoted to Ukraine. Anyway, in case you are interested in creating and improving articles, please list any articles you create at the Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements board. --Irpen 08:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank for a good suggestion. I will see what I can do. --Stanley78 15:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)