George Hargreaves (politician)
--BorgQueen (talk) 08:25, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Rename
Hello! Can you rename me from Mariánko to Marián_2? Thanks. --Mariánko (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
- Can you look to my talk, please? Thanks. --Mariánko (talk) 21:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
A small bureaucratic request
Hi Warofdreams, I noticed in your recent adminship promotions that you changed the rights of the users you promoted from "rollbacker" to "rollbacker, sysop". If it's all right with you, when you promote someone to adminship, would you mind making sure that rights made redundant by sysop (i.e. rollback, account-creator, and ip-block-exempt) are de-checked when you're in Special:Userrights please? Having the promoting bureaucrat remove the rights while promoting an editor to adminship saves other admins from removing the said rights themselves, and also prevents the userrights log from being clogged up with unnecessary rights changes. While I respect that it's your decision whether to remove the redundant rights when promoting, it would be appreciated if you adopted this practice. Thank you. Acalamari 22:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, overall, it is up to the discretion of the promoting bureaucrat whether to remove redundant rights or not, as there is nothing official to address this. I myself don't have any problem in keeping a user with "rollbacker, sysop" groups combined, as there isn't any direct harm in keeping them together. However, there do seem to be a lot of users who believe it's more organized and less cluttery to keep sysops and rollbackers/accountcreators/ip-block-exempts separate, and that users with the former right grouped with the latter make it harder to keep track of everyone who has rollbackaccountcreator/ip-block-exempt. In addition, some admins also remove the redundant rights from sysops who are in those groups, therefore filling the userrights log with useless entries. I hope this explanation is to your satisfaction. Acalamari 23:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Question about Burma decision
There's been some confusion about your stance on the Burma/Myanmar question at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2008-06-08_Burma/Consensus. Some users are concerned that since the page's current location was part of a dubious move and was simply kept at m:The Wrong Version during a wheel war and this page has played name-pong many times.
Can you clarify the decision a little bit? We do essentially need a stance for one or the other since there is no "status quo" location. If you aren't interested, we'll go back to the drawing board. (A formal mediation has been proposed, but it's been scuttled.) SDY (talk) 05:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I have posted the discussion that Warofdreams and I had about this on the request for mediation discussion (here) so Warofdreams might not need to reply to SDY if SDY is happy with that discussion. Deamon138 (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- Hey no problem. And I hope it proves useful too, though it does look like this request for mediation will fail, which is unfortunate. But you never know, your previous comments to me may sway people or something, who knows? Anyway, thanks again for this, and happy editing! Deamon138 (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Thanks both of you for following up on this. SDY (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Belated thanks
I know you're just doing your [volunteer] job as a 'crat, but I neglected to thank you for...doing your [volunteer] job as a 'crat in promoting me after my recent RfA. I [think] I've settled in nicely so far, and I'm looking forward to continuing to contribute. My thank spam (which I subst'd with an optional personal message) is at User:Frank/RFA thanks, in case you're interested...
Anyway, thanks again! Frank | talk 23:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Please advice who care about WP:NPOV – WP:UNDUE
- Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.
In terms of WP:REDFLAG policy regarding history How monority/majority gets? Based on sole person records in CV or based on number of historians which involved and the level of institution in which they currently has a post (not affilation). Thanks.Jo0doe (talk) 08:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
- This is based on a long-running dispute concerning the Ukrainian Insurgent Army article. Specifically, there are differences between the conclusions of Western scholars and those from Ukraine. Jo0doe (talk) considers the leading Western scholars in the field of Ukrainian history to be a minority view, perhaps because they are not as well known in Ukraine itself. These include Orest Subtelny (who, among other things, wrote the Encarta Encyclopedia entry about Ukraine), and Paul Robert Magocsi. Their introductory level texts are among the first books to pop up when one searches for "Ukraine" and "history" on amazon.com. The books are here:[1] and here:[2]. The other scholar Jo0doe (talk) objects to is Jeffrey Burds, whose homepage is here [3] and CV is here: [4]. His expertise is in a narrow field of Ukrainian and Soviet history directly related to the topic of the article, insurgency and counterinsurgency.
- Opposed to these scholars, Jo0doe places work by the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences. Because this is the main historical research institute within Ukraine itself, he feels that its conclusions supercede that of any Western scholar, no matter if it's one from a Harvard or a Yale. Unfortunately, the Institute's work is relatively unknown in the West, and not available in English. Furthermore, there are questions on verifiability - although the Institute employs many researchers I haven't seen much evidence of its work being scrutinized or reviewed by outsiders unaffiliated with it.
- In my opinion, the wikipedia policies suggest that the work of the mainstream western scholars be given precedence over the work of the mainstream Ukrainian ones. According WP:RS, the follwoing section: [5] states:
- The scholarly credentials of a source can be established by verifying the degree to which the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in google scholar or other citation indexes.
- Googlescholar shows 353 books/citations with PR Magocsi: [6]. Jeffrey Burds has 162: [7]. The Institute of History of the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences shows 57: [8], only 18 of which are after 1990.
- As for Burds is a specialist in banditry, insurgency, etc. - exactly what this article is about. And his work in this narrow field is cited at least 10 times more in the English-speaking world than that if the Institute of History is cited on any subject after 1990. There is simply no comparison. As for Magocsi - his general introductory text about Ukrainian history, cited in the article, has 82 hits on googlescholar [9]. More than four times more than does the Institute of History after 1990.
- Another policy that works in favor of the Western scholars is that of verifiability. Specifically, according to WP:RSUE, "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors."
- In my opinion, although the work by the Institute of History is valuable, the above evidence adds up to the work of Magocsi, Subtelny, and Burds taking precedence over that of the Institute of History of the Ukrainian Acaemy of Sciences in case of a conflict between the two sources of information. If one is to be considered a minority viewpoint, in the context of the English wikipedia it would be the latter.
- I realize that this has been a lot of writing, which may involve an investment in time - hope I'm not imposing - but if you have the time, what is your opinion on this matter?Faustian (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
- So, Great – I assume sole editor trace my edits. So we clarify the issue:
UPA – military formation of Nationalists organization which adopt similar to Nazi ideology and methods – see IMT [10] [11] [12] proved by affidavit of Major General ERWIN VON LAHAUSEN, personal representative of Admiral Canaris. So such organization (along with military formation of it) was assumed as Nazi collaborators and war criminals Wartime_Massacres_of_Poles_in_Volhynia at Soviet Union, Poland, Chechoslovakia and amongst World Jewish community – almost nothing were changed for 65+ years passed. But since they used together with rest Nazi criminals as usefull tool - “anti-communists front of nations” they extensively posed after 1946 as “liberation” and “anti-Nazi” resistance movement in North-American publication of Ukrainian Diaspora which hided such criminals (while authors mostly were an OUN/UPA members or their kin – appeared in above wording as “Western scholars”).
-
- A lot of unsubstantiated remarks about the Western scholars. Sure, a lot of people in the West who study Ukrainian history are of Ukrainian descent - it makes sense. Any proof that MAgocsi or Subtelny belong to the OUN? On the other hand, not all are of Ukrainian descent (see, for example, Jeffrey Burds).
So here the dispute between majority vision – Russia, most of Ukraine, Poland, Chechoslovakia and World Jewish community vs Ukrainian Diaspora which hided for a long time such criminals and one proponent of Nazi collaborators and war criminals from Kremlinology institution.
-
- More unsubtantiated claims. UPA fought against the USSR and Poland, so it makes sense that they would present it one-sidedly. Polish right-wing nationalists continue to publish one-sided Soviet-style critiques of UPA. In Poland the mainstream scholarship concerning UPA is changing, however - see the work of Ryszard Torzecki, for example - an no longer follows the Soviet model. By "one proponent of Nazi collaborators" Jo0doe means Jeffrey Burds [13]. His articles are available on-line as free pdf files. I challenge a nuetral observor to read one of them and conclude that he is some sort of UPA apologist. Here is a fascinating one about gender and the insurgency in Western Ukraine: [14]. Jo0doe dismisses Burds as coming from a "Kremlinology institution" because he obtained his Ph.D. in history from Yale and because he is currently Co-Director of the Center for the Study of Russia & the Soviet Union at Harvard's Davis Center for Russian Studies. Apparently, specializing in Soviet or Russian studies makes one unqualified in researching Russia or Soviet history.Faustian (talk) 12:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
UPA fought against the USSR and Poland
- A correct wording - against Poles, Jews and Russians - becouse they was Poles, Jews and Russians - General Intruction of the OUN(B).
dismisses Burds ... because he obtained his Ph.D. in history from Yale
Would be good if editor prove this statement213.159.244.219 (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC) 213.159.244.219 (talk) 14:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC) So here is an issue – the attempt to put hoaxes from collaborators and war criminals (Krochmalyuk, Shankovskyy and their proponents) and omiting scientifically proved facts from National Historical Institutions and dozens (if not hundreds) of historians. – As an example – hoaxes as
- Ukrainian insurgents numbering about 600 men (including numbers of Ukrainian self-defense force), invoked the panic and retreat of 2 German divisions)
- insurgent battalions repulsed the incursions of 2 German SS divisions, totaling 30,000 soldiers (7-9 July), and on the 12th of July the Germans reinforced them with a 3rd division included
but other information which clearly depict this info as myths and provide majority accepted vision on this organiztion and formation– removed. Here is a problem – rewriting article strictly from view of minority Jo0doe (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
copy editing work on the Kirkcaldy article
hello, warofdreams
i recently did a revamp of the Kirkcaldy article and i would like to put the article under a peer review in the near future, but it needs a good general tidy-up with spelling etc, have you got a bit of time to look over the article and do some copy editing work. Kilnburn (talk) 01:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
|
