User talk:Yeti~enwiki

''This user has been reported as a Problem User. See report at Conflicts between users The issues involve Ruthenia and Carpathian Ruthenia. See Page discussions. '' Wetman 18:24, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!


 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.


 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: . If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.


 * If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 00:32, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC) - I'm SO happy someone is interested in the Ruthenian populace! Mikkalai 04:31, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding your change to Arthur Schopenhauer. http://www.gdansk.com says that " In 1772 Gdansk was seized by Prussia, and in 1793 it became part of that country." Since he was born in 1788, wouldn't it be correct to call his birthplace "Danzig", as the prussians controlled it at the time? --snoyes 19:06, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Dear Yeti,

I'm open for discussions and like to participate positive discussions that give me more knowledge about issues that I know pretty well. I'll try to meet all your points and I hope that you will agree that I'm correct.

I suppose that primary target of encyclopedia is to contain as clear and as truthful information as possible.

1. Ruthenia is one latin word (or, more precisely, transliteration/transcription) for Russia. Others are Russia, Ruscia, and Rusia. The only difference of "Ruthenia" for others is that it was used in papal documents. Works that are based on papal and some other Roman sources use "Ruthenian", those who uses slavic or some non-papal sources, use "Russian". In modern American historiography "Russian" is used more often (see Columbia Encyclopedia, for example). It is less misleading and more natural. It's strange to use adjective Ruthenian for noun Rus. A word "Ruthenian" is as ambiguous as a word "Russian" - it is used for present-time people as well, so it doesn't solve problem of ambiguity, but on contrary, makes things complex. In Russian tradition (and not only Russian), the word "ancient" is used for disambiuation (ancient Rus, ancient Russia, ancient Russian).

2. I don't think use of word "Russian" may be derogatory for any valuable quantity of Ukrainians, Belorussians, and Poles. What is really derogatory - attempt to diminish value of Russian history by inventing unnatural words - and I suppose, derogatory not only for modern Russians. (By the way, I'm 75% Modern Slavic Russian and 25% Modern Belorussian). I'd propose to wait until any Ukrainian or Belorussian will object to use adjective Russian for ancient Rus. I don't think that there are many Danes, Finns, and Norwegians feel derogation in use of word Sweden for much larger territory comparing to now days Sweden. Also, why don't you feel derogation in that you label ancient Rus with two major centers - Novgorod and Kiev - as Kievan Rus? I know the answer: because it is not really derogatory, and using of word Russian is not derogatory as well.

3. Modern Russia is a continuation of Ancient Rus in almost every sense. Rulers of Moscow Rus (Muskovite) were at start were the same dinasty of Rurikoviches. Territory of Moscow Rus, Russian Empire, Russian SFSR, and Russian Federation contains most parts of territories. People were not moved or exterminated. Mostly the same people, mostly the same terriroty, mostly the same rulers, so why should one say it's not a continuation?! I see no other significant reason than to derogate Russians (and Ukrainians, and Belorussians too - we share our common history, our common efforts in building somewhat is now called Russian Federation)!

4. The only difference between Rus and Rossija is that former is obsolete name, and latter is modern one. Some scholars use term "Kievskaja Rossia", despite it is uncommon. "Rus" is often used for modern Russia by poets.

5. "Google check". Arbitrary search pattern (I didn't try to find a pattern that suits better for my vies) gives 4130 results for "kievan rus" russian history, and only 223 results for "kievan rus" ruthenian history. I'm not sure that it is clear experiment, but at least my view passed the Google check. If you follow these links, you will see that they are very relevant and even in most links for "Ruthenian" version the term "Russian" is used.

6. I've already seen here in Wikipedia (despite here is a huge amount of clever well-educated persons, and almost no stupids) post-effects of Cold War and Evil Empire claims. Belive me, not everything that doesn't derogate Russians, should be considered as "nationalistic mithology". We, Russians, are not that evil, and are not that stupid. And there are no bears on our streets. :-)

7. I am sure that we shouldn't try to invent special bizarre term for disambiguation. Rather we should add footnotes explaining the situation, as I've already done. From my point of view, proper footnotes resolve all possible problems that you pointed (ambiguation and derogation). If you have better proposal, it's welcome!

Drbug 13:18, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Please stop this childish game. Danzig have never been called Gda&#324;sk in English before 1945, so this "also" does not make sense. And the name Danzig is not interesting because it is the (actual) German name (since this is not the German Wikipedia), but because it is the former English name. -- Nico 18:31, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You are wrong. The word formerly means it was the former English name, that is, the name in use in English. Understand that Polish usage is irrelevant here, since the name Gda&#324;sk was first introduced in English in 1945. And Silesia is not more English than Danzig. An English name don't need to be different from names in other languages. Silesia is Latin, for instance. -- Nico 22:40, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This user is engaged in suppression of information to achieve a political agenda. See Ruthenia and its Talk page. Wetman 16:22, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Dear Wetman,

Please, read the explanation in Talk:Ruthenia.

Regards,

User:Yeti

The Ruthenian language is more properly called Rusyn (q.v.). This disambiguation notice has been deleted at Ruthenia by User:Yeti. The entry at Rusyn language merely reports standard language information. This is an act of vandalism. I am reverting it and shall continue to do so. Information cannot be suppressed at Wikipedia the way it can in Ruthenia, apparently. This user claims to be a publicist. Wetman 23:57, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

User:Yeti, please consult Problem_users for some pointers on Wikipedia conventions, which are similar to civilized intellectual discourse. You are close to being reported as a Problem User Do you understand why this is? Wetman 00:07, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Yeti, I haven't been through absolutely all of the history, but it sure looks to me like you are treating User:Wetman as a person who is much harder to work with than he seems, in fact, to be. I suspect that if you would ratchet down your rhetoric toward him in the talk pages, we'd get more done toward actually reaching consensus about the articles. Since it seems possibly relevant here, (1) I am, by ethnicity a very secular Jew and (2) I am saying much the same to him about you. -- Jmabel 02:00, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Excerpted from your reply: "Lets imagine that someone writes in Wikipedia that modern Jews are not descendants of ancient Jews. That love to kill Palestinians, the only owners of the territories belonging to Israel. That Jews kill Christian children because of religious reasons. And that they are born traitors. In such circumstancies you try explain that it is nonsens. But what if your opponent do not react on your arguments and explanations..."
 * Well, taking this one piece at a time (and fully recognizing that you are giving an example of offensiveness, not trying to be offensive), I guess I say on point one: barely imaginable, though highly unlikely, especially in terms of the recent evidence of mitochondrial DNA shared by most of the people in very diverse parts of the world who claim to be Jews, & can you point at any reputable source upholding the opposite point of view? On point two, there are three things conflated here: rightfulness of ownership of the territories, to what extent Jews are killing Palestinians, and whether they "love" doing so. Rightfulness of ownership: clearly arguments to be made on either side, I'd expect any article that touched on this issue to present both sides and their criticisms of one another. That some Jews are killing some Palestinians? In controvertible, although the choice of the wording "Jews" over "Israeli Jews" here and the omission of context, a state of near-war would clearly be the choice of a bigot, and the claim that they "love" to do so would be the choice of a bigot or a fool. Still, properly qualified, I think the argument that Israel is a case of "settler colonialism" and has resulted in the dislocation, disenfranchisement, and (in some cases) death of Palestinians belongs in the Wikiepedia, along with the context in which this has occurred. Killing Christian children? At that point, I would presume I were dealing with a serious anti-Semite and possible pogromist, since that was the classic justification of the pogroms. I'd despise the person I was dealing with, but probably try to get him to expand on his bullshit with his references, so that I could document that there are still people in the world who believe this nonsense. Born traitors? I love it when my opponents in an argument descend to saying something so stupid. It makes the case so much more clearcut to all outside observers. "...nonsense...": or worse. Some of this is much worse than nonsense. The second sentence contains a grain of truth, surrounded by layers of bigotry and lies. As for my "opponent": obviously, I am dealing with a bigot and am unlikely to convert him. If this doesn't deal with substantive content in the wikipedia, I'll basically walk away, maybe flag the issue somewhere. If this does deal with substantive content, I'm going to try to recruit a few of the respected "elders" around here, who don't have any axe to grind on the particular issue, and see if I can arrange to have the more arrant nonsense addressed by a few people other than myself. In the example above, I'd probably try to recruit an intermediary and arbitrator, almost certainly a non-Jew given the nature of the case: how can I really engage with someone who accuses me of being a traitor, filled with blood lust? (Wonder if he'd let me off on the baby-killer thing because I'm not religious?) -- Jmabel 04:45, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

--- Hi Yeti I am posting this here just for your information concerning your message on Nicolaus Copernicus on Peace of Thorn II. It was agreed on in 1466 and in 1467 it was denide by pope and emperor, the highest authorities over Prussia. MfG --
 * I would like to make you remember that neither Pope nor Emperor were Lords of Poland. Moreover that authority of Teuthonic Order over Eastern Pomerania (later Royal Prussia) was never recognized by Polish Kings.

-- 1. The question here is Nicolaus Copernicus. The debate is not Lords of Poland.

2. Eastern Pomerania was part of Holy Roman Empire. It was not up to the Polish Kings as to who ruled Pomerania. And why are you talking about Pomerania in connection to Copernicus? Copernicus was born in Prussia, lived and died in Prussia (see Maps of Prussia in Ermland (Latin Warmia at that time governed by imperial Prince-Bishops (like his uncle).

General information: The Polish kings had at times received offices as dukes (before they became kings of Poland as well). For that, they had to pledge allegiance, swear fealty, whatever, to the emperors, in order to receive the governship over the duchies, sometimes Pomerania, Silesia. Duchies, other lands were bought, sold, inherited, traded etc constantly. Other countries (rulers) were adopted by the emperor, (Jagiello Louis II of Hungary).

3.You might also want to take a look at the uncle who raised him, Lucas Watzenrode, to get some insight.

Some of your submits seem to have elements meant to confuse, to state it mildly. MfG

Answer: User talk:66.47.62.78

I don't see a compromise version of Copernicus, but I see an obvious vandal in the page history, and I of course have repaired the damage that person made. Nico 21:33, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Mediation
You have been invited to join in mediation regarding placenames in Central Europe. Please accept or decline this request at Requests for mediation. You may also indicate who, if anybody, you would like to act as your representative if you do not want to participate personally, as well as your preferences regarding the choice of mediator. Tuf-Kat 23:18, Mar 17, 2004 (UTC)

Poland's betrayal by the Western Allies please vote to keep it. Cautious 20:57, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Copernicus Correct me if I am wrong: In English, little doubts means = very small level of doubts. Cautious 20:27, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

More mediation
Have I worded your desires correctly at Requests for mediation? (i.e. do you want Gdansk to act as your representative?) Do you have any qualms about Ed Poor mediating? Tuf-Kat 20:04, Mar 25, 2004 (UTC)

Helga is back
Look at the last edits from User:Wighson. Cautious 18:28, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Before Polish Corridor now redirects to Pomerania. By the way, I revised Polish Corridor to make it less POV - no talk about German populations expelled, and also no talk about the British betraying the Poles (which is really pretty irrelevant to this discussion)...what do you think? john 23:48, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Looks OK for me.Yeti 23:51, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

- User:H.J. is a personal friend of mine. And although I have no clue about her current whereabouts, I can assure you, she's not hiding under another name. YETI, DON'T BARK ORDERS AT ME! You go with your conscience, I'll go with mine. If you need my help or assistance, please extend me some effing courtesy! Space Cadet 13:32, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) --- Sorry, Yeti! I forgot to take my medication on Wednesday. Yours truly, Cadet

Polish Corridor
Does this mean that you (to greater or lesser degree) accept the changes done today, &mdash; or are you just sick and tired of the endless nagging? :-)) --Ruhrjung 23:02, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kingdom of Poland
Before redirecting it to Poland, please take a look at the references, as far as I am concerned most of them links to Congress Poland. Or shall we make dismbig page? Cautious 12:23, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Naming issues
I have made a proposition in Talk:Gdansk/Naming convention. In short, it's sing most controversial names when first name appears in artcile and making a msg saying that the names are controversial and pointing to article explaining why. Please, contribute your opinion.Szopen 10:55, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Automatic reverting
I'm in. Space Cadet 21:48, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Albrecht Giese IV
Sorry, your revert left a lot of German names changed to non-standard Polish versions which aren't acceptable. Especially for that period in history. RickK 23:05, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Reply: Rick

"temporary agreement"
There is no "temporary agreement of Danzig naming". In English, Danzig is generally used prior to 1945, and Gdansk after 1945. We should stick to common English usage. Burschenschafter

I agree with the above. There is no agreement of calling it Gdansk prior to 1945. And besides that, you changed Petrikau to Piotrków Trybunalski and Elbing to Elblag, and there is definitely no agreement to do that. RickK 23:19, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

Burschenschafter
Hi Yeti!

Yes, I agree that Burschenschafter is a difficult case. The reason why I protected "his" version was not because of favouritism, but simply because it was the latest version. I myself have had edit conflicts with Burschenschafter in the past, and if I reverted his version before protecting the page, I could be accused of bias - and I'm trying very hard to stay neutral in this dispute. In any case, the 24-hour protection order is nearly up; I will de-protect the page soon. But the protection was intended as a reminder to all involved - Burschenschafter included - that I am keeping an eye on that article and that I want to find a way to break this endless merry-go-round cycle of reversion and counterreversion. If necessary, I am prepared to lock the page again in future, and if the conflict persists, I may take the matter to other administrators, including the arbitration committee.

I asked all involved to explain their position. Fundamentally: my understanding is that the German-Polish border changed after both world wars. The question here is whether Kohler's birthplace was internationally recognized as German territory  at that time  or whether it was recognized as Polish territory, occupied by Germany. I don't know the answer to that question. That's what I would like explained - with sources, if possible.

It bears repeating that I do not like the tone of Burschenschafter's behaviour, nor the not-too-subtle POV bias of his edits. However, when speaking as an administrator I am required to stay neutral in this dispute, so I can't just revert his work and then lock it. If either of you could give me a satisfactory answer as to which side of the border Kohler's birthplace was legally on at the time of his birth, I think we could resolve the issue at hand by insisting on accuracy. BTW, it was good hearing from you!David Cannon (Administrator), 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Partisan
Please take a look at Talk:Partisan and Requests for comment/CVA. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:44, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

Naming wars
Since you were either directly or indirectly once involved into edits revolving around "proper" naming of cities like Gdansk/Danzig etc i thought you may be interested in my proposition in User:Szopen/NamingWar. I would want to create a way aimed at stopping the revert wars in future - through creating something like a msg (in see also list or header) explaining that's there is compromise and why, and by linking to the article explaining changes of the statuses of the Royal Prussia province (I would prefer it ot have it as separate article, not scatter it in plethora other articles). I would be happy to hear from you. Szopen 09:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

RFC on User:Antidote
Hi, I invite you to endorse the request for comment at Requests_for_comment/Antidote.--Pecher 21:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Cuman Article
User Yeti, i think you'd better check again your history regarding Wallachia in the XIII-century and come with some strong arguments in order to justify your edits. It is higly unlikely that "Presence of hundreds names of Turkic origin in Romania, names of rulers and nobility, as well as extremally strong presence of Slavonic elements in ROmanian language and culture strongly support this thesis". The only thing that this statement supports is your superficiality.
 * I do not understand what you mean. I did not write this sentence. However I agree with it of course.Yeti 23:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If he would have signed you would see he was Romanian. The topic is debated and not closed you were right. At least Hungarian historians have the view that Romanians / Vlachs (to give the name Wallachia) migrated from south to present residence not before the 12th century. Check some sources that would make the most sense, e.g. the above diploma. I hope it is there. Do not worry the text is in Latin, not HU.

Árpád-kori új okmánytár - Codex diplomaticus Arpadianus continuatus 2. 1234-1260 (hasonmás) (magyar-latin ny.) Megjelent a(z) Jókai Mór Városi Könyvtár  gondozásában. Megjelenés éve: 2001 Közremûködõ(k): Wenzel Gusztáv (szerkesztõ) Jellemzõk: 402 o., fûzött, 21x15 cm Nyelv: magyar, latin ISBN: 9630086697

anyway there is also strong Albanian impacts. Check the map, toponimes are many times Slavic, Gradistea=Gradistie, Bistrita=Bistrica, etc, their yes is da, like in RU, BG. Usage of Church Slavonic had also effects on the language, but many words were Latinized in waves since last century to clean the language.

His arguments are weak. The problems that RO history is influenced by anti Hungarian explanations to justify continuity in Transylvania, I do not know why is it problem that they came after Hungarians.. (I do not care to much who was the first, that is no argument for any oppression the other in either way like was before this way and now the other) this is slowly changing now, but the old generation is grew up on this doctrine.

--Vargatamas 20:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

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

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

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 03:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed
 This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can |log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: . -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)