This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
What does this mean and where did you get it from? In the only document which can be practically called "the constitution" nothing is said about it.-- Lüboslóv Yęzýkin ( talk) 03:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not interested in the mentioned article just for now, I only wanted to deal with the passage added by you. Because this seemed for me quite unusual. I thought whether you have read something and got misunderstanding of the subject, and I'd like to know what it was, or worse you invented it by yourself. Now I see it is probably the first. The problem with the passage that, as I know, the toponym(s) as well as the conception was never mentioned in any establishing documents of the Russian Empire, especially in the only document which can be called the "constitution" (though the ukaz of 1906 was not called in such a manner). I am glad that if you have not a source confirming the passage or you are not sure where you've got it, you deleted it by yourself.-- Lüboslóv Yęzýkin ( talk) 02:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
As for the article mentioned, I've read it but found nothing bad. This indeed was the default conception in ethnography and historiography before the Revolution of 1917 and the article explains it quite fairly and clearly. I personally do not understand your obvious hostility and distrust to the articles from Russian Wikipedia and to Russian(-language) sources and historiography in general. Translation of the articles from the Wikipedias in other languages is endorsed here especially in the matters poorly represented by English sources. In Russian Wikipedia in turn there are a lot of articles translated from here with English sources, no-one there is too hostile to them.-- Lüboslóv Yęzýkin ( talk) 02:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of the most common surnames in Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Done Oops! Apologies. This was rectified when received 22 October 2013. (Better a belated response is better than none at all). -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 02:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
Thank you, Iryna, for all your work tamping down the most egregious politically motivated edit wars on the Kievan Rus article. Paulmlieberman ( talk) 13:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC) |
Здраствуйте! Меня зовут Александр! Я администратор информационного сайта Каменца-Подольского. Я добавил ссылку на сайт поскольку он имеет англоязычную версию, и мне показалось что это может быть полезно читателям статьи поскольку из остальных ссылок только одна вела на англоязычную статью про Каменец. Однако я мог ошибаться. Если это так искренне прошу прощения)
С уважением Александр! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.190.36.56 ( talk) 10:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Огромное спасибо! С уважением, Александр!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.190.36.56 ( talk) 08:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I just read
User:Iryna Harpy/sandbox#Wikipedia: Belarusian geographical names and I applaud you for undertaking this effort.
However, while I appreciate the idea of using the romanization as used by the Belarusian government as the basis, the transliteration/transcription seems to be inconsistent between the various layers of government. That is, the website of the central government uses other romanizations than the websites of the regions. For instance, the website of Gomel Region uses Yelsk and Oktiabrskiy, while the website of the central government uses Elsk and Oktyabrskii. In addition, in your sandbox I find forms that are used on neither website. You write Svietlahorsk while both the central government website and the Gomel Region website use Svetlogorsk.
If this proposal is to have any chance of being adopted, I think it should as much as possible try to use the same source for most of its transcriptions. The central government website seems the most logical choice to me.
However, unfortunately, I cannot say that I am completely satisfied with the romanizations used by that website. Here's a few reasons why:
Observing these inconsistencies, I am not convinced that using these romanizations is the solution. While BGN/PCGN may not be perfect, it is at least consistent. If this, this and this are the alternatives, I think we should stick to our existing policy of using BGN/PCGN. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 12:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
G'day! I agree with the proposal and the use of the BY govt EN map you mentioned for a naming convention. Ajh1492 ( talk) 13:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I received your thanks for this edit and came over to visit your user page. I thoroughly enjoyed it and wanted to let you know. All my best, SchreiberBike talk 05:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
What does this mean and where did you get it from? In the only document which can be practically called "the constitution" nothing is said about it.-- Lüboslóv Yęzýkin ( talk) 03:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not interested in the mentioned article just for now, I only wanted to deal with the passage added by you. Because this seemed for me quite unusual. I thought whether you have read something and got misunderstanding of the subject, and I'd like to know what it was, or worse you invented it by yourself. Now I see it is probably the first. The problem with the passage that, as I know, the toponym(s) as well as the conception was never mentioned in any establishing documents of the Russian Empire, especially in the only document which can be called the "constitution" (though the ukaz of 1906 was not called in such a manner). I am glad that if you have not a source confirming the passage or you are not sure where you've got it, you deleted it by yourself.-- Lüboslóv Yęzýkin ( talk) 02:02, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
As for the article mentioned, I've read it but found nothing bad. This indeed was the default conception in ethnography and historiography before the Revolution of 1917 and the article explains it quite fairly and clearly. I personally do not understand your obvious hostility and distrust to the articles from Russian Wikipedia and to Russian(-language) sources and historiography in general. Translation of the articles from the Wikipedias in other languages is endorsed here especially in the matters poorly represented by English sources. In Russian Wikipedia in turn there are a lot of articles translated from here with English sources, no-one there is too hostile to them.-- Lüboslóv Yęzýkin ( talk) 02:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of the most common surnames in Europe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Done Oops! Apologies. This was rectified when received 22 October 2013. (Better a belated response is better than none at all). -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 02:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar | |
Thank you, Iryna, for all your work tamping down the most egregious politically motivated edit wars on the Kievan Rus article. Paulmlieberman ( talk) 13:35, 22 October 2013 (UTC) |
Здраствуйте! Меня зовут Александр! Я администратор информационного сайта Каменца-Подольского. Я добавил ссылку на сайт поскольку он имеет англоязычную версию, и мне показалось что это может быть полезно читателям статьи поскольку из остальных ссылок только одна вела на англоязычную статью про Каменец. Однако я мог ошибаться. Если это так искренне прошу прощения)
С уважением Александр! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.190.36.56 ( talk) 10:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Огромное спасибо! С уважением, Александр!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.190.36.56 ( talk) 08:04, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I just read
User:Iryna Harpy/sandbox#Wikipedia: Belarusian geographical names and I applaud you for undertaking this effort.
However, while I appreciate the idea of using the romanization as used by the Belarusian government as the basis, the transliteration/transcription seems to be inconsistent between the various layers of government. That is, the website of the central government uses other romanizations than the websites of the regions. For instance, the website of Gomel Region uses Yelsk and Oktiabrskiy, while the website of the central government uses Elsk and Oktyabrskii. In addition, in your sandbox I find forms that are used on neither website. You write Svietlahorsk while both the central government website and the Gomel Region website use Svetlogorsk.
If this proposal is to have any chance of being adopted, I think it should as much as possible try to use the same source for most of its transcriptions. The central government website seems the most logical choice to me.
However, unfortunately, I cannot say that I am completely satisfied with the romanizations used by that website. Here's a few reasons why:
Observing these inconsistencies, I am not convinced that using these romanizations is the solution. While BGN/PCGN may not be perfect, it is at least consistent. If this, this and this are the alternatives, I think we should stick to our existing policy of using BGN/PCGN. - TaalVerbeteraar ( talk) 12:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
G'day! I agree with the proposal and the use of the BY govt EN map you mentioned for a naming convention. Ajh1492 ( talk) 13:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I received your thanks for this edit and came over to visit your user page. I thoroughly enjoyed it and wanted to let you know. All my best, SchreiberBike talk 05:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)