User talk:Hillock65

Wrongful block

{{unblock|Please review the block, check user if necessary. My editing the same article with that other user is hardly a reason for block. I edited countless other articles with many other users. --[[User:Hillock65|Hillock65]] 21:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)}}

I have unblocked you and User:Chuprinka. It looks like a misunderstanding to me. Alex Bakharev 23:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you should know about this thread I started at WP:ANI that brought about many responses. --Irpen 23:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks --Hillock65 02:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad

To see you editing again. Looking forward to finishing Khmelnytsky project!-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  15:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I may not stay long though, I am just bored with Ukrainian wiki for the moment and besides, I always wanted to finish the Khmelnytsky article. There is a lot of work to be done, I may not have enough patience for all of it. --Hillock65 16:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hillock, we had our share of content disagreements but I am glad that we were able to overturn the egregious block and the admin who issued finally seems to have gotten a message. Whatever (or even if) more content disagreements will follow, please consider staying and, trust me, things here are workable even if sometimes they seem the opposite. It's much more fun here than in uk-wiki which unfortunately has only about 20 active users and a rather dull POV uniformity (the latter is my impression which may be an uninformed one). Regards, --Irpen 04:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't characterize Ukrainian Wikipedia like that. It is just that right now there is a lull there, a couple of people have taken time off. I like it there way better than here, the joy there is in creating things rather than fighting with other editors, which seems to a problem with English wikipedia. In my previous experience I spent more time in conflict resolution and fighting vandalism rather than writing. If that is how one measures fun, than maybe....--Hillock65 04:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, fighting vandals is no fun as well as dealing with the nationalist POV pushers of all sorts. What is fun, though, is the diversity here that results in more balance most of the time. Some articles in uk-wiki are just great, but too many are unwikified copies of UE (I just love seeing UE articles there. Helps with sourcing but I would have preferred them buried deep in the article's history.) Some yet articles are just unacceptably POV and I do not want to go into naming names or articles. What is really alarming is how few editors edit it. I wrote there to Yakudza about that and I really do not understand why this being the case while there are millions who can write in the language and many of them must have the decent internet access. Whether the problem is with the lack of visibility or ideological rigidity or simply that some of the educated Ukrainians are drained to other more lively wikis, I don't really know.

Anyway, I will comment on your Khmelnytsky's expansion in the article's talk. --Irpen 05:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

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 | talk}  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 | talk}  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 | talk}  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 | talk}  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 | talk}  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:

1. 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.

   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)

2. 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.

   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)

3. 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 [1][2]. 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)

I will post more later. Let me first see more of what I missed. Regards, --Irpen 01:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please don't pester me

May I ask you to review the following guideline of English wikipedia: "Another form of trolling can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy-to-find answers". I hope that this edit of yours had some other meaning which escapes me. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:35, 20 May 2007 (UTC)