User talk:Drbug: Difference between revisions

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

Hi DrBug -- Ill leave a real response on the ru:wiki. -戴&#30505sv 17:55, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC) Oh never mind -- that was systranslation to russian --the message Im sure is fairly clear, but I originally forgot to add the link to meta:LanguageRu.php -- which, you guys need to translate to get rid of the English blight on your beautiful russian wiki. ;) Spaceeba. -戴&#30505sv 18:03, Aug 9, 2003 (UTC)

Hi, Thank You for correction! But do you know more about this Collar... It must be in Москва but where?--Egon

---

BTW, could you please advise how should I proceed to make changes to be effective earlier?

Sorry, I don't understand what have you meant by that :) Nikola 18:25, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I see now. Well, I don't know, except that I guess that there probably is someone else then Brion qho could do it. Ask on the lists (Intlwiki and Wikidev), explain that you've made drastic changes to the translation and that you don't expect new changes soon if at all etc. etc. And bring a big gun ;) Nikola 18:42, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

---

Replied at User_talk:Menchi#Taiwan_Russian_link. --Menchi (Talk)â 16:42, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Please take a look at my recent proposal in Talk:Bolshevik Cautious 16:43, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

Hi, I would like to discuss an article about Kiyevian Rus and meanings of names: Russian and Ruthenian. According to me the article is very misleading. As a Russian, you know very well what is difference between names of Rus and Rossiya (sorry, I do not have cyrrilic script). Unfortunatelly, the persons withot knowledge of Slavic languages do not. The article about Kiyevian Rus is written from the point of view of Russian historiography. Considering Russia as a direct continuation of Kiyevian Rus (as in the article) is ridicoulus and derogatory for many Ukrainians, Belarusians (maybe not for electors of Lukaszenka) and other people of Ruthenian origin. It is true that in the Middle Ages there were used the terms of Russia, Rossia etc. But it was a transliteration of the name of Rus. The term of Russia in the modern sense has different meaning: Russia as a state and a country, not the historical Rus - this name also exists in Russian language, isn't it? The term of Ruthenia was commonly used for Rus through centuries. I think that using it is much more precise than Russia in the same meaning. I supose that non Slavic readers of the Wikipedia have got the right to get the full and honest picture of the situation without nationalistic mithology.

Regards,

• Answer in User_Talk:Yeti

---

Thank you for your answer.

I agree with you that primary target of encyclopedia is to contain as clear and as truthful information as possible. Unfortunately, I can’t agree with some of your arguments.

1. Obviously, Ruthenia is not a Latin word for Russia. It is a Latin word for Rus. The difference is very clear for me (speaker of three Slavic languages) and, as I belive for you – native speaker of Russian. The English word Russia has two different meanings: Rus and Rossiya. I hope that we agree that the term Rus is more general than Rossiya. It is why tradition of Rus include not only Russia but other states and ethnic groups that have nothing to do with Russian state. The word Ruthenia was commonly used not only in Papal documents but in Latin language in all around Europe. In Central Europe the word Russia (in the meaning of Rus) wasn’t used almost all, at least from the end of 15th century (Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Poland, Hungary). In western part of Europe were used both Russia and Ruthenia. I can’t agree with you that the word Russia is less as ambiguous then Ruthenia. The word Russia has two meanings. Ruthenia always the only one: Rus. You know very well that Ruthenia (in the meaning of Carpathian Rus) also is not nothing more than literary translation of Rus. It is why in Slavic languages WE call this region Karpatskaya Rus, not just Rus. Similarly, the other English name for this region is Carpathian Ruthenia. And I don’t think that use of Russia in context of Rus is more natural. Latin is not Russian. Usage of the word “ancient” before Russian doesn’t solve the problem.

2. You should understand that usage of the word Russia may be "derogatory for any valuable quantity of Ukrainians, Belorussians, and Poles" as far as it is used in context of legacy of these nations. Russians through centuries tried to make them Russians by force and usage of Russian in the sens of Rus could appear a some kind of continuation of this policy. I was born on territory of historical Rus. Amongst my ancestrors were people belonging to many ethnic groups inlcluding Ruthenians. My wife is 100% Ruthenian. The problem is that our roots are in Rus, not in Rossiya. Should you visit London you can find a monument of first Christian ruler of Rus funded by Ukrainian emigrants. The inscription beneath is: "Volodymyr the Great , ruler of Ukraine". Guess why? It is not just nationalism.

In modern English the usage of Ruthenia and Russia (Rus) is not consequent. For example for former Rus is usually called Russia. But Rus included in G.D. of Lithuania is usually called Ruthenia, irrespectively of the fact that both are translation of the same word.

The problem is not usage of a noun Russia for Rus but also context of use. Have a look on the page about Kiyevian Rus. For someone without knowledge of Eastern European history it would be obvious that Russia (Rus) and Russia state are the same thing. But this is nonsens. Muscovite state (later Russia – Rossiya) was just one of a few succesor states. If you write about Novgorod, don’t forget that it’s population was virtually annihilated by Muscovite troops and populated by quite new settlers from Moscov area. Republic of Novgorod was not united with Moscov – was destroyed together with it’s inhabitans. It is ridiculous that modern Russian regard themselve succesors of this ancient city. Another succesor state of ancient Rus was Grand Duchy of Lithuania, Rus and Samgotia. The official language of this state was Ruthenian (Russian if you prefer) and its governing class was of Rus origins. The Ruthenian states was united deliberatery under the Lithuanian governing family for protection against Tatars and Moscov agression. The modern succesors of traditions of Rus are Ukraine (untill 19th century known as Rus - translated as Ruthenia, not Russia) and Belarus.

The only argument I agree is traditional use of the noun Russia in context of ancient Rus in English language. But it should be clearly explained the difference between both meanings of this word. There should be also clarified that in English exsists alternative terms for Rus. Sole "Russian" is not acceptable.

I have written my first post as a some kind of provocation. I hope that Wikipedia would be an excellent tool to find an agreement between diferent points of view. But you have to understand that your views are a Russian (in modern sense) view of history, not history itself.

Regards,

---

Thanks for your advice on the Grotte Chauvet article. Angela. 17:56, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)

• You're welcome of course! Drbug 21:05, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

---

I'm interested in helping with translating any pages from or to Russian. I'm going to add myself to the translators page, but I thought I would also contact you as Ambassador.

---

Press Release

I see you contributed to the creation of the press release. Might you be willing to follow these steps, and send off the press release? -- user:zanimum MooseDigits 16:37, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Request, if you have time enough

Hello Drbug, I found your name in Ambassador page. Can I ask your help? I wrote Nikolai of Japan, a russian Orthodox monk, bishop and saint who introdued the Orthodox into Japan. If you would like to help me, please consider to this article to translate in Russian. We would like to express our respect and appliciation for him to Russian People. KIZU 02:53, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi! Can you please translate the election notice * into Russian and post it prominently on the Recent Changes page of the Russian Wikipedia. Once you have done that, please let me know, and leave me a link where I can find it. Thanks. User:Danny on en.

Discussion style request

Hi Drbug. Thanks for your contributions on Talk:Kosovo. Would it be possible not to comment within the text of another user (see [1]) but after the text of another user? I know it is the easiest way to comment on some things other people said, but it makes the text harder to read. And if somebody adds a comment to your comments then nobody knows anymore who wrote what. I am not sure if this is a Wikipedia rule, but I feel that this is easier to understand. Thanks! -- Chris 73 | Talk 14:57, 2 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Answer in Chris 73's page. In short: I know this, it's a bad habit, I will pay more attention to this issue. Drbug 22:17, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:03, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Just a small notice: Kosovo and Metohija are not plateaus but basins. Nikola 17:19, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Ruthenia / Rus'

You recently made massive edits to Ruthenia, with no discussion on the talk page & a change comment telling people to see a non-existent article. I don't want to get into an edit war, but this is no way to deal with an article that has already been noted as controversial. Would you please explain on the talk page what you are doing and where (if anywhere) you have moved the bulk of the article? -- Jmabel 22:03, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)

• Answer in Jmabel's page. Short: explained Russian History Harmonisation. Also, I have added a comment to the Ruthenia discussion page. Drbug 22:12, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Lvov/Lwów/Lviv/Lemberg/Leopolis

As to the Russian name: why do you think it's important? As Space Cadet said: the city belonged to Russia only for a few months during the World War I. Even after the World War II the Soviets kept the puppet Ukraine alive and the city name was officially Ukrainian. So in my opinion the Russian name is not more relevant than Swaheli or Spanish names - it's just a name used in a foreign country that did not even have a minority there, not to mention any control over the city whatsoever. Check the history section for more details. Halibutt 17:13, Jun 13, 2004 (UTC)

• Ans. in Halibutt's and Lviv's pages. Short: yes, Russian name was the official and therefore no less relevant than Polish or German. Drbug 16:49, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Drbug

Ruthenia

Just wanted to say "hi". ;)

"I don't think use of word "Russian" may be derogatory for any valuable quantity of Ukrainians, BelAruSians, 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 BelAruSian). I'd propose to wait until any Ukrainian or BelAruSian will object to use adjective Russian for ancient Rus."

You got one vote from me. I do find the wording derogatory. There should be a clear difference between "рускі" (Ruthenian) and "расейскі" (Russian). We do have this in Belarusan. Best regards! :) rydel 14:26, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy to say you "hello" in return! :-)

Thank you for your vote!

Your participation should make the Wikipedia even better! However, I regret to say that I'm a bit concerned by your biased approach to analysing historical documents...

And also I'd like to ask you to keep in mind that it is English Wikipedia... By the way, wouldn't you participate be.wikipedia.org?

[[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 21:34, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I am just a newbie, and I don't know what's going on here, but it seems there isn't enough interest in Belarusan Wikipedia yet to warrant a separate be.wikipedia.org in our language. Maybe later when there will be more people interested in that. As for the bias I would like to you to explain that. I don't see where I was biased by deleting the word "separated." In any case, if Ruthenia is such a controversial item, I will just "unwatch" it and forget about all that. Although I would feel a bit bad that Stalin's and imperial Russian propaganda would prevail over facts in this open source encyclopedia. - rydel 22:15, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC).

Welcome! Your opinion is always welcome too, and it doens't matter that it is different. As for "separation", I don't disagree to remove it for that article - I don't think that possible unity does really matter in context of the article. I rather mention bias in your comments in the talk page... [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 23:33, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

historyofnations.net spam

historyofnations.net copies wikipedia content. The link is an old copy of History of Haiti (both of which are from public domain texts originally IIRC). I've removed dozens of similar links added with the misleading edit summary of 'adding internal link'. Maximus Rex 10:19, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Theodosius Dobzhansky

Hi, can you have a look at this guy's name. He was a Ukrainian, apparently born "Feodosy Grigorevich Dobrzhansky", also I've also seen it as Dobzhanskii, but can we have cyrillic script, and perhaps out of interest do you have the answer?

• Done! [[User:Drbug| Dr Bug ]] 16:19, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)