User talk:Hillock65/Archive/2007/Jun

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please self-revert

Can you please explain the nature of this edit. I raised the issue on the talk page several times [1]. Please revert your edit promptly.--Kuban Cossack 16:15, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out the parts. I will respond there momentarily. --Hillock65 16:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Russians in Ukraine

You have been blocked for continuing the sterile edit warring with Kuban Kazak at Russians in Ukraine. As I asked you both before, please use some kind of dispute resolution, like WP:RFM instead of just battling it out with repeated reversions. Dmcdevit·t 20:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

ULP

I've put in a my two cents on the Talk:Podilsko-Voskresenska Line, hope you don't mind. Please feel free to add something. I am not very familiar with the metropoliten subject but said something about the languages policy. --Hillock65 19:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll wait for the guy that made the third comment to reply to it, and then I'll participate. — Alex(U|C|E) 19:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I think he's offline right now... Darn. — Alex(U|C|E) 19:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal Case

Hi, Hillock65/Archive/2007. I've decided to take on your medcab case. If you have any concerns about this, please tell me, otherwise I look forward to resolving the case with you. - G1ggy Talk/Contribs 05:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time and effort to help us out. It is appreciated.--Hillock65 05:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you do this?

[2] Are you ever going to change? Adding such POV comments like Pro-Moscow non-governmental organizations is only going to escalate the conflict, please revert it to Fisenko's version which was stable and even you seemed not to mind it. --Kuban Cossack 17:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You live be edit wars and continuous reverts. Barely having gotten out of the ban you start revert wars on another article with another editor, than you come to this article again and start your edits by reverts again. Is that is the way it is going to be? [3] Ever thought about discussing issues with the editors of whose edits you disapprove? Let's not start it all over. This article has been reverted too many times. By reverting the third editor you are starting the new round of revert wars. PLEASE STOP. Enough is enough. Go to mediation or conflict resolution before starting another revert war.--Hillock65 17:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Please keep discussions on one page, don't worry I am watching you. And the question I asked why did you revert, having yourself come out of an identical ban. My reversion was explained, it was pure trolling by User:Ukrained who lives by conflicts (and it is not a personal attack, look at his whole contribution list). You however just reverted because I reverted. And that puts you even lower than me. Once again please revert to the stable version by User:Fisenko and take it from there. --Kuban Cossack 18:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
I also explained, why I support Ukrained positions. I don't know him that well, but he raised valued issues and I totally agree with him. You and Russianname flooded the article with Russian nationalist propaganda and now you want to presereve the status quo. You and I are not the only editors, respect their opinions and don't characterize them off-hand as trolls. The same can be said about you as well. Discussion is the only way to settle disputes, not revert wars. --Hillock65 18:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
So here you have effectively said that you support the flooding of a Ukrainian nationalist POV, which Ukrained has explicitly said that he shares. So by you reverting the version (not picking out the relevant points and retaining them) you essentially put yourself back to square one. And yet you are calling for discussion, so will it be reverts or discussions? If I was to revert again would you revert as well? That is called double standards, and it will be reported. --Kuban Cossack 18:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, this is the last message that I will respond to. I don't feed trolls, sorry. Don't put words in my mouth, I didn't say anything effectively or not. I support his edits, even though I don't know him. Please try showing some Good Faith in regards to Ukrained and other editors. If you disagree with his edits, start discussion and reason, or one more time, ask for mediation. Reverts will not help, I pray you would realize that by now. Please don't bother me on that issue anymore and use the article discussion page. --Hillock65 18:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Tagging without explanation

Hello, you tagged the article Russians in Ukraine and did not explained what is the problem. The references I gave are from the modern Ukrainian and Ukrainian-speaking research. And all the facts that were added are relevant to the topic: Russians in the Ukraine----Russianname 05:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, I left a note on the discussion page. Please limit discussions to the appropriate page, this is not the place for it. --Hillock65 07:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Accusations of "Ukrainophobia"

Could you identify those mysterious "Ukrainophobes" by name? Thanks in advance from ethnically Ukrainian Ghirla-трёп- 13:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, My God! The last part really disturbed me. I better not continue. No comment. --Hillock65 00:51, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts

Hi Hillock! It's hard not to notice your valuable activity of improving the Wikipedia. I'd like to share one idea that I thought of but have never realized due to lack of time and, honestly, due to lack of deep knowledge of the subject. I'm talking about writing a new article Language policies in Ukraine. This is a neutral scientific title, which is used in a bunch of countries (as well as "language politics"), and in my opinion it is likely to be one of the first articles a person who is looking for npov will read. The attempts (unfortunately not so productive) were taken to create such article last year. Please check Talk:Ukrainization. There already exist two articles (Ukrainization and more recent Russian language in Ukraine) with both in part describe the language policies in Ukraine but both from the same angle. Ukrainian language rather describes the Ukrainian language by itself and its development. What we are missing is a neutral article that speaks not of a particular language, but rather of the language policies in Ukraine, which include historical policies of suppression of Ukrainian language and distribution of Russian, Polish and Romanian languages in Ukraine, and vice versa. As a crucial part, it should also give a neutral overview of the current language policies that are in place in independent Ukraine (reopening of Ukrainian schools (only 50% of schools in Ukraine were Ukrainian by the end of Soviet era), opening of Tatar, Romanian, Polish schools in the regions settled by national minorities, adaptation of Ukrainian law toward European standards in language polices, etc.). For the last part, I thought it should be built up from the one sided Ukrainization article. For the historical policies it can grow out of what is written in Ukrainian language, Ems Ukaz, Valuyevsky Ukaz, etc. It is noticeable that you are capable of getting things done. What do you think of such development or something similar along that line? Sincerely, Novelbank 00:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. It sounds like a good idea and I may be willing to lend my support and effort to it. If you are willing to help, the good beginning would be to start collecting literature and sources on this subject. A final decision about what should go in an article like that can only be made when we asses what sources we have available and how reliable they are. Once that is established, the next should be the easy part of actually writing on this topic. That having been said however, I would be insincere if I pretended that there are no problems around this issue. As you have probably noticed, this encyclopedia has far higher level of tolerance towards Russian nationalists than towards anybody else and currently my time here is almost exclusively occupied by mediations and attempts to remove POV from multiple articles. As well, I am in the middle of my project at Ukrainian Wiki. Once I am done with that and the mediations move along, I will be glad to help full-time. But I really like that idea and would be willing to commit myself to it if the burden of researching and writing it can be shared. --Hillock65 02:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good! I'll try to find time this weekend to look closely on the subject. For me the most attractive part is the modern language issues in independent Ukraine.
Probably I should be honest right away, and acknowledge that writing is not my top skill (especially looking over your writing of Depardieu). Having said that, I will do what I'm capable to do. In general, I'm familiar with English wikipedia. I noticed they keep you busy with the discussions over discussions, etc. That's actually the reason I tought it would be more productive to work from scratch on a new and more valuable article. So, let's say, the next time I bother you I'll came with a list of sources, which may be in couple of days. Best, Novelbank 06:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is what I found so far:

Wow, sounds impressive. Give me some time to look it through and we will start drafting the article outline. --Hillock65 10:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Books and some artciles are not available online, but I thought it worth mentioning. There are not so many English sources on the subject.

Language policies in Ukraine

So, as far as I understood, you propose removing redirect and reviving that article. It should include situation with and policies towards all languages, not just Ukrainian and Russian. That could be done. So, the next step would be to define the outline of the article, a skeleton if you will. Could you tell me more on what major segments you'd like to be included there? Should it go by languages or historical outline, how the question was shaped throughout the history? Or both? So, so far I see it this way (feel free to amend):

  • Intro (lead)
  • Language situation throughout history
    • (differences in historical periods)
  • Language situation in modern Ukraine (this is the main part)
    • ((a few paragraphs of intoduction that illustrate the Language diversity in modern Ukraine))
    • Language Legislation (Mовне законодавство України)
    • Revival of Ukrainian language (Вiдрождення української мови)
    • Policies toward Russian language
    • Development of minority languages

That should help us get going. --Hillock65 14:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess it would be reasonable to present such parts as "Language situation throughout history" or "Language Legislation" in chronological order. The historical part should not be too large at least initially, but it should (1) clearly explain the need for the current policies and (2) list the historial policies in order to compare and contrast them with the current policies. The parts such as "Revival of Ukrainian language" may go by areas, such as education (schools, universities), culture, paperwork in central and local governments, language in military, etc. What do you think?

Recent open table disscussion: [4], [5] --Novelbank 01:57, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Podilsko-Voskresenska Line, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. — Alex(U|C|E) 02:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Rusyns

The reverts that you say to be dubious are just restoration of neutral point of view: [6]: I reverted the edit of AndriyK because in this edit, he removed all the information about the point of view, that hutsuls are carpatho-rusyns. I think that, in order to prevent the non-neutrality, we should include both points of view. [7] Boikos don't only live in Ukraine, but also in Poland. [8] Well, I made this change only to be coherent with history: in 1910 the western-slavic people in Carpathian Ruthenia was called "Ruthenians" and their entonym was "Rusyn". There were nobody counted as Ukrainian in Hungary in those times. (Ukrainophile movements in Carpathian Ruthenia were founded in the 1930's)

Forgot to sign Rusyn 21:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Podilsko-Voskresenska Line.
For the Mediation Committee, ^demon[omg plz]
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 08:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC).

RfC

I was wondering if you had a chance to read this latest masterpiece. Please note Personal Attacks as well as insults in English and a foreign language. I suggest this should be included in RfC as evidence of persistent Incivility and Bad Faith. Alas, I am too busy to attend to this right now. Good luck. --Hillock65 22:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I posted it on there about an hour ago. — Alex(U|C|E) 22:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Good stuff. BTW I didn't have a chance to thank you for bringing this RfC up. You are obviously more knowledgeable about these procedures than I am, so I am following your lead. As you might have seen, I co-signed the request as I am also fed up with this kind of behaviour and would like it to stop. Please keep me posted of all the developments regarding this issue. Thanks. --Hillock65 23:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I gave him too many chances, and just got fed up. He doesn't seem to learn. — Alex(U|C|E) 01:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry for being too emotional, sorry if I somehow offended you personally. I think we can find much in common with you. Please review the article about the battle and leave a message, what you think how we can inprove it. Thank you in advance. --Russianname 17:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't take any offence. I am also, sorry that revert war got out of hand, we need to stay cool no matter what. I didn't agree with anonimous editors and AlexK for removing the tag. It should have stayed. I also didn't agree with Girla who never said a word and just came to revert things. Things got out of hand, that happens. The article is protected now, let's work on the MedCab. There are a few proposals made by the moderator. Please add your ideas there. There isn't much left to agree on, just a few minor disagreements. That is all. It should take a couple of days at most. Talking is way better than revert-warring. --Hillock65 17:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the RfC that you have started is not filled out properly. Please have a look at completed RfC. I think you need to present Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute just below where I did and Novelban at #3. Provide diffs of trying to reason with KK. Also you need to put your name under Users certifying the basis for this dispute, just below my name. If there is something else, please let me know. --Hillock65 22:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I used a template that was already on the page. It might be a bit out of date, but I'll ask an admin if I need to change anything. — Alex(U|C|E) 00:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Good idea. Also, please look at other RfCs and note that the list of Evidence of disputed behavior is way longer and is not restricted to one instance or one article only. I asked Novelbank about it and he listed some other RfC links at his talkpage. You may want to have a look at those. Please start adding other evidence in the appropriate section. I will start adding mine later. Seeking advice from a more exprienced user or an admin is indeed a very good idea. Thanks.--Hillock65 00:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
P.S. Please don't forget to sign under Users certifying the basis for this dispute after me and Novelbank. This needs to be done. --Hillock65 00:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Please refrain from personal remarks about me and allegations about "my friends". Either you provide solid evidence that I and KK are "friends", or you retract your statement. I also see that you again took to advertising anti-Ghirlandajo slurs above. You should be aware that similar incidents have been classified by ArbCom as harrassment and led to appropriate measures in the past. Wikipedia is not bound to accommodate your incivility. Take care, Ghirla-трёп- 17:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This is funny. I cannot see how calling a person someone's friend can be considered harassment? Is KK so bad that being included into a circle of his friends is considered harassment? That was an honest Good Faith assumption, since you always advocate for him whenever he gets in trouble. If he is so terrible and is a shame for you to be associated with, please let me know. I will add that to the RfC, it might be relevant. --Hillock65 18:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Your notions of friendship are not relevant to RfC, if that RfC is genuine and not an attempt at harrassing, that is. Repeated appellations to the 2005 debacle which has been examined by three ArbComs, is harrassment. Calling KK my friend is not harrassment, but it is simply untrue and therefore better avoided. Could you refrain from speculations about my person and about my circle of personal friends? Thanks in advance, Ghirla-трёп- 18:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. What 2005 debacle? I sicerely believed he was your friend and called you so. Now that I know that you don't like to be called his friend, I will take a note. Instead of assuming Good Faith, you keep pestering me with all kinds of threats and complaints. Please limit your attacks to the appropriate pages and leave me in peace. --Hillock65 19:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have submitted a repquest for arbitration on User:Kuban kazak here. As an individual who was involved in this dispute, your participation would be appreciated. Thank you. — Alex(U|C|E) 23:27, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand it was his wish in the lates outburst at the RfC, but maybe it is a tad too much and too soon? I think he overreacted and we should understand it, we don't want to punish him but rather change this behaviour. ArbCom seems a little premature, isn't it? I have to claim ignorance in this matter. I will wait until the more experienced participants in the RfC express their thoughts. A good idea might be to post this note at RfC and seek concesus of the participants. --Hillock65 23:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I don't know. I think we should just go ahead and get this over with. Just leave your statement and we'll see where it goes from there. — Alex(U|C|E) 05:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hillock65/Archive/2007/Jun&oldid=1185469457"