User talk:Yury Tarasievich

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome!

Hello, Yury Tarasievich, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

If you are interested in Russia-related themes, you may want to check out the Russia Portal, particularly the Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. You may even want to add these boards to your watchlist.

Again, welcome! --Ghirla -трёп- 12:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cyrillic numerals in Cyrillic alphabet

Hi! Did you know: there is Cyrillic numerals article, and also Early Cyrillic alphabet, so that table in Cyrillic alphabet was unnecessary at all... --Yms 14:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. Well, I'd never think to look for such info in something like Early Cyrillic alphabet. Cyrillic alphabet seemed to not mention numerals, too. Let it be? —Yury Tarasievich 14:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, whatever you want, though I don't like information duplication. But there are SO MANY duplications in this article... one more, one less... --Yms 15:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Belarusian Arabic alphabet-Ch.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Belarusian Arabic alphabet-Ch.png. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:04, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vintsent Dunin-Martsinkyevich and other

Please don't forget to add interwikis into article and articles into categories. --EugeneZelenko 03:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Прапанова аб Вікі ў правапісе 1959

Чалом! Вы цікавіцеся беларускай мовай у правапісе 1959 году й пішаце й гаворыце менавіта ў ёй. Тады азнаёмцеся з прапановай: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages. Дзяк.

Гэта кепска падрыхтаваная прапанова, якая прывядзе толькі да новага вітка напружанасці. Гл. каментары. шэмэжэ? ---Yury Tarasievich 13:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Колькі пытаньняў

  • Чаму ў 2005рэв. правапісе пішуць Бабілён, Бітлээм й гд. але Васіль а не Базыль напрыклад? Ці маеце Вы сьпіс такіх словаў, дзе Б пераходзіць у В.
    • "Візантыйскае" пераказанне грэчаскіх словаў з пачатк. "бетай" (здаецца) -- цераз В, "лацінізаванае" -- цераз Б. Тое ж і з пераказаннем грэчаскай "тэты" -- арытметыка/арыфметыка і пад. А не даводзяць да лагічнага канца, бо дарэшты б выставіліся -- ці то дурнямі, ці то агентамі -- але не дабрадзеямі.
  • Будзьце ласкавым, апублікуйце сьпіс гэтых паланізмаў, што патрапілі ў мову ў 80-90ых гадох? Я ведаю, пэўна, толькі "пакрыёма" й "выспа"
    • Яшчэ "пудлаваць", "паліць", "танчыць", "муравана", "мець брата", "мець (колькі) гадоў". Карацей, адкрываеце "Нашу ніву" і капаеце. Асобін з 10 на нумар -- як лёду.
  • Як у ВКЛ называлі Швэцыю (Швэдыю, Швецыю, Свэнска і гд)?

Не ведаю. Думаю, гэта ёсць у Метрыцы. М.б., Свейскі бераг?

  • Ці можна казаць "зьнешні" па-беларуску, ці правільна гэта

Не. Правільна -- вонкавы і аднакарэнныя вонкі ((рух) ізнутрі вовне), звонку (вовне).

Дык шэмэжэ ці не? Бо адрас, здаецца, тутэйшы. ---Yury Tarasievich 14:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Што такое шэмэжэ? А калі яшчэ будуць цяжкія пытаньні, адкажаце? 82.209.209.240 15:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Окей, значыць, не яно. Аднак, прозвішча здавалася знаёмым... То пра цяжкія пытанні -- вядома, адкажу, як будзе час, але лепей бы вы і самі замест усёй гэтай "ньн"-і вучылі б нарматыў. :) Бо гэта, строга кажучы, не цяжкія пытанні, а школьныя. :)) ---Yury Tarasievich 22:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Ці ёсць сінонімы ў слова "змест", пажаданы такі, каб не было спрэчак наконт "ь" "ль" і гд.
Не, так не атрымаецца. :) Праўду казалі Ластоўскі і Лёсік -- бяда з гэтай мёртвай літарай. :) ---Yury Tarasievich 06:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Праект прапановы

Мае прапановы на аднолькавыя правы правапісаў:



Каляндар:



Даты:


1. Перайменаваць даты:

  • "х сьнежня" ў "х снежня (х сьнежня)",
  • "х верасьня" ў "х верасня (х верасьня),
  • "х траўня" ў "х мая (х траўня)"


2. У артыкулах пра даты:

  • Замяніць "Сьвяты" на "Адзначаюць"


3. У артыкулах пра гады\ даты:

  • Замяніць "Сьмерці" на "Памерлі"

4. У артыкулах пра гады \ даты:

  • Замяніць "Нараджэньні" на "Нарадзіліся"



Месяцы:

1. Перайменаваць месяцы:

  • "Сьнежань" у "Снежань (Сьнежань)"
  • "Травень" у "Май (Травень)"

5. У артыкулах пра месяцы:

  • Дадаць уверсе - тэкст у рэвізіі 1959.


Гады:


Стагоддзі: 2. Перайменаваць стагоддзі:

  • х стагодзьдзе ў "х стагоддзе (х стагодзьдзе)"

6. У артыкулах пра стагоддзі:

  • Дадаць уверсе - тэкст у рэвізіі 1959

3. Уніфікаваць змест, стварыўшы наступныя раздзелы:

  • "Падзеі, тэндэнцыі". Мае наступныя раздзелы:
    • "Палітыка"
    • "Навука, тэхніка"
    • "Культура"
  • "Славутыя людзі"
    • "Палітыка"
    • "Навука"
    • "Эканоміка"
    • "Філасофія / Філязофія"
    • "Рэлігія"
    • "Выяўленчае мастацтва"
    • "Літаратура"
    • "Музыка"
    • "Кіно, тэатар"
    • "Спорт"


Увага! Лічу абавязковым стварэнне такога шаблону, якім трэба памячаць кожны запіс у залежнасці ад правапісу. Прыклад ужывання: 2004: заснаваная беларуская Вікіпэдыя {{2005кал.}}

Каб тэкст выглядаў так:

2004: заснаваная беларуская Вікіпэдыя ²

...

[edit] Заўвагі

  1. Запіс зроблены рэвізіяй беларускага правапісу 1959 году
  2. Запіс зроблены рэвізіяй беларускага правапісу 2005 году





Галоўная старонка:


1.Запрашэнне "Вітаем Вас! Вы патрапілі ў вольную складанку ведаў. Яе заснавалі 12 жніўня, у 2004 годзе, на дадзены момант, [[Template:БЯГУЧЫ ДЗЕНЬ Template:НАЗВА БЯГУЧАГА МЕСЯЦА]] [[Template:БЯГУЧЫ ГОД]], тут знаходзіцца [[Спэцыяльныя:Statistics|Template:КОЛЬКАСЬЦЬ АРТЫКУЛАЎ]] артыкулаў. Вы можаце стварыць новы артыкул, ці дадаць інфармацыю ў існы артыкул. Калі Вы маеце мэту стала удзельнічаць у праекте, можаце зарэгістравацца.

2. Пакінуць на галоўнай старонцы катэгорыі: Беларусь: агульная інфармацыя

  • Беларусы, славутыя асобы, Геаграфія, Гісторыя, Культура, Кухня, Мова, Спорт, Турызм, Што адзначаюць беларусы.

Беларусь: дзяржава, народ

  • Арганізацыі, палітычныя партыі, дзяржава, кіраўнікі, установы.

Краіны, тэрыторыі, народы

  • Матэрыкі - Водныя целы - Усе краіны, тэрыторыі - Усе этнасы

(У Матэрыкі ўлучыць усе катэгорыі з матэрыкамі) (У Водныя целы ўлучыць катэгорыі Акіяны, Моры, Рэкі, Азёры) Культура, мастацтва

  • Архітэктура – Графіка – Жывапіс – Кіно – Літаратура - Мовы - Музыка - Тэатральнае мастацтва - Рэлігія - Скульптура - Танцы - Эстамп

(У тэатральнае мастацтва ўлучыць Опера(Опэра), Балет, Драма, Аперэта(Апэрэта))

Навука, тэхніка Агульная тэорыя навукі - Гуманітарныя навукі - Матэматыка - Прыродазнаўчыя навукі - Тэхнічныя навукі - Тэхніка

3. Перайменаваць "Зьмест" - "Катэгорыі"

4. Перанесьці інтэрвікі галоўнай старонкі ўбок.

5. Перайменаваць "Зьвязаныя праеты" - "Іншыя праекты Wikimedia"



Шаблоны:




Шаблоны з паведамленнем: 1. Wikicode "Прыведзеныя ніжэй кавалкі коду на мове wikicode прапануеі выкарыстаўваць ў артыкулах."

2. Аўтарскія правы "Магчыма, што тэкст гэтае старонкі быў скапіяваны або перакладзены з: х. Не рэдагуйце гэты артыкул, бо яго могуць выдаліць"

3. Накід: "Гэта накід будучае старонкі. Вы можаце дапамагчы нам, дапісаўшы яе."

4. Неаб'ектыўна: "Гэты артыкул выглядае неаб'ектыўна. Вы можаце дапамагчы нам, выправіўшы яго"

5. Вікіфікаваць: "Гэты артыкул неабхожна адфарматаваць. Вы можаце дапамагчы нам."

6. Сумніўна: "Інфармацыя на гэтай старонцы выглядае недакладнай. Вы можаце дапамагчы нам, выправіўшы яе."

7. Бягучая Падзея: "Гэта - бягучая падзея, тэкст гэтае старонкі можа хутка мяняцца"




Інфармацыйныя шаблоны:

1. У наступных шаблонах з дапамогай switch зрабіць параметр 1959 (для артыкулаў у 1959рэв.) і 2005 (для артыкулаў у рэвізіі 2005 г.) {{ІнфармацыяПраВобласьць}} - змяніць назву на ІнфармацыяПраВобласць(ІнфармацыяПраВобласьць) {{ІнфармацыяПраГорад}} {{ІнфармацыяПраКраіну}} {{ІнфармацыяПраРаён}} {{Інфармацыя пра мову}} {{Інфармацыяпрабітву}} {{Інфармацыяправалюту}} {{Інфармацыяправулкан}} {{Інфармацыяпрамузычны напрамак}} {{Інфармацыяпрапраграмнаезабесьпячэньне}} - змяніць назву на ІнфармацыяПраКампутарнуюПраграму {{Інфармацыяпрараён}} {{Таксанамічнаяінфармацыя}} {{Інфармацыяпрахімічныэлемент}} {{Кірыліца}} {{Нацыянальная каманда}} {{Спартовая форма}} - змяніць назву на СпартыўнаяФорма {{ФутбольныКлюб}} - змяніць назву на ФутбольныКлуб(ФутбольныКлюб)




Іншыя шаблоны:

1. Канстанцін Шастоўскі: "Гэты файл ахоўваецца аўтарскімі правамі і выкарыстоўваецца ў як ілюстрацыя альбо цытата ў навуковых, вучэбных, палемічных, крытычных альбо інфармацыйных мэтах, згодна арт. 19 Закону Рэспублікі Беларусь аб аўтарскім праве і сумежных правах.


2. Наша Ежа: "Гэты тэкст напісаны пры дапамозе матэрыялаў праекту Наша Ежа."


3. У наступным шаблоне з дапамогай switch зрабіць параметр 1959 (для артыкулаў у 1959рэв.) і 2005 (для артыкулаў у рэвізіі 2005 г.)

КраіныЭўропы - змяніць назву на КраіныЕўропы(КраіныЭўропы)

КраіныАзіі

КраіныАфрыкі

КраіныПаўднёваеАмерыкі(КраіныПаўднёваеАмэрыкі)

КраіныПаўночнаеАмерыкі(КраіныПаўночнаеАмэрыкі)


4. У наступным шаблоне з дапамогай switch зрабіць параметр 1959 (для артыкулаў у 1959рэв.) і 2005 (для артыкулаў у рэвізіі 2005 г.)

Месяцы

1959: студзень люты сакавік красавік май чэрвень ліпень жнівень верасень кастрычнік лістапад снежань

2005: студзень люты сакавік красавік травень чэрвень ліпень жнівень верасень кастрычнік лістапад сьнежань


5. У наступным шаблоне з дапамогай switch зрабіць параметр 1959 (для артыкулаў у 1959рэв.) і 2005 (для артыкулаў у рэвізіі 2005 г.)

{{КаляндарСтудзень}} {{КаляндарЛюты}} {{КаляндарСакавік}} {{КаляндарКрасавік}} {{КаляндарТравень}} {{КаляндарЧэрвень}} {{КаляндарЛіпень}} {{КаляндарЖнівень}} {{КаляндарВерасень}} {{КаляндарКастрычнік}} {{КаляндарЛістапад}} {{КаляндарСьнежань}}


6. Выдаліць(Прычына) : "Гэтую старонку ў хуткім часе выдаляць(, таму што...). Калі Вы не згаджаецеся, прапануйце вырашыць праблему іншым шляхам"


7. У наступным шаблоне з дапамогай switch зрабіць параметр 1959 (для артыкулаў у 1959рэв.) і 2005 (для артыкулаў у рэвізіі 2005 г.)

БабіленскаяВежа - змяніць назву на Вавілонская(Бабілёнская)вежа

8. Пасьлядоўнасьць асоб змяніць назву на Паслядоўнасць асоб(Пасьлядоўнасьць асоб)

9. У наступным шаблоне з дапамогай switch зрабіць параметр 1959 (для артыкулаў у 1959рэв.) і 2005 (для артыкулаў у рэвізіі 2005 г.)

Берасьцейская вобласьць - змяніць назву на БрэсцкаяВобласць(БерасьцейскаяВобласьць)

10. У наступным шаблоне з дапамогай switch зрабіць параметр 1959 (для артыкулаў у 1959рэв.) і 2005 (для артыкулаў у рэвізіі 2005 г.)

За нацыянальную сымболіку - змяніць назву на За нацыянальную сімволіку(За нацыянальную сымболіку)


11. У наступным шаблоне з дапамогай switch зрабіць параметр 1959 (для артыкулаў у 1959рэв.) і 2005 (для артыкулаў у рэвізіі 2005 г.)

Свойскі зварот

12. У наступным шаблоне з дапамогай switch зрабіць параметр 1959 (для артыкулаў у 1959рэв.) і 2005 (для артыкулаў у рэвізіі 2005 г.)

Неадназначнасьць - змяніць назву на Неадназначнасць(Неадназначнасьць)

13. Ува ўсіх непазначаных тут шаблонах:

1. У наступным шаблоне з дапамогай switch зрабіць параметр 1959 (для артыкулаў у 1959рэв.) і 2005 (для артыкулаў у рэвізіі 2005 г.)

2. Тэкст змяніць на нейтральны з гледзішча кожнага правапісу

3. Перайменаваць па ўзоры: назва1959(назва2005)




Меню:

1. Апошнія зьмены - Апошнія праўкі

2. Ахвяраваньні - Данацыі (пэўна, гэта наваяз, але патрэбен дзеля годнасці і прыгажосці меню)







Выява: Змяніць на Вікіпедыя / Вікіпэдыя (у адзін радок), другі радок: Вольна складанка ведаў.


Інструменты / Інструмэнты:

1. Адкуль спасылаюцца на старонку - Што сюды спасылаецца

2. Зьвязаныя праўкі -

3. Спэцыяльныя старонкі - Асаблівыя старонкі

4. Вэрсія для друку - Да друку






Удзельнік: 1. Адкуль спасылаюцца на старонку - Што сюды спасылаецца

2. Зьвязаныя праўкі -

3. Унёсак удзельніка/удзельніцы - Унёсак

4. Даслаць ліст па электроннай пошце гэтаму ўдзельніку/гэтай удзельніцы - Даслаць e-mail

5. Спэцыяльныя старонкі - Асаблівыя старонкі

6. Вэрсія для друку - Да друку








Спэцыяльныя старонкі: Search web links - Пашукаць сеціўныя спалыкі

Апошнія зьмены - Апошнія праўкі

Выбары ў Апякунскую раду фундацыі Wikimedia - Выбары ў Апякунскую раду фундацыі Wikimedia

Выпадковае перанакіраваньне - Выпадковае перанакіраванне / Выпадковае перанакіраваньне

Выпадковая старонка

Выявы, на якія найчасьцей спасылаюцца - Выявы, каторымі найбольш карыстаюцца

Вэрсія - Версія / Вэрсыя

Галерэя новых файлаў

Двайныя перанакіраваньні - Двайныя перанакіраваньні / Двайныя перанакіраваньні

Доўгія старонкі

Журналы падзей

Загрузіць файл

Запатрабаваныя катэгорыі

Запатрабаваныя старонкі

Кароткія старонкі

Катэгорыі

Катэгорыі з найбольшай колькасьцю артыкулаў - Катэгорыі, што маюць найбольш артыкалаў

Катэгорыі, якія не выкарыстоўваюцца

Кнігарні

Мой сьпіс назіраньня - Мой спіс назірання / Мой сьпіс назіраньня

Найстарэйшыя старонкі

Некарэктныя перанакіраваньні - Некарэктныя перанакіраванні / Некарэктныя перанакіраваньні

Некатэгарызаваныя катэгорыі -

Некатэгарызаваныя старонкі

Некатэгарызаваныя файлы

Новыя старонкі

Пошук

Пошук па MIME

Пошук старонак па пачатку назвы

Спасылкі паміж прасторамі назваў

Старонкі з найбольшай колькасьцю катэгорый - Старонкі з найбольшай колькасцю катэгорый / Старонкі з найбольшай колькасьцю катэгорый

Старонкі з найбольшай колькасьцю рэдагаваньняў - Старонкі, што найчасцей рэдагаваліся / Старонкі, што найчасьцей рэдагаваліся

Старонкі, на якія найчасьцей спасылаюцца - Старонкі, на якія найчасцей спасылаюцца / Старонкі, на якія найчасьцей спасылаюцца

Старонкі-неадназначнасьці - Старонкі-неадназначнасьці / Старонкі-неадназначнасьці

Старонкі-сіраціны

Статыстыка

Стварыць рахунак ці ўвайсьці - Стварыць рахунак ці ўвайсці / Стварыць рахунак ці ўвайсьці

Сыстэмныя паведамленьні - Сістэмныя паведамленні / Сыстэмныя паведамленьні

Сьпіс заблякаваных IP-адрасоў і імёнаў удзельнікаў - Спіс заблакіраваных IP-адрасоў і імёнаў удзельнікаў / Сьпіс заблякаваных IP-адрасоў і імёнаў удзельнікаў

Сьпіс перанакіраваньняў - Спіс перанакіраваньняў / Сьпіс перанакіраваньняў

Сьпіс удзельнікаў і ўдзельніц - Спіс удзельнікаў і ўдзельніц / Сьпіс удзельнікаў і ўдзельніц

Сьпіс усіх праектаў фундацыі Wikimedia - Спіс усіх праектаў Wikimedia / Сьпіс усіх праектаў Wikimedia

Сьпіс файлаў - Спіс файлаў / Сьпіс файлаў

Тупіковыя старонкі

Усе старонкі

Устаноўкі

Файлы, якія не выкарыстоўваюцца

Цытаваць

Шаблёны, якія не выкарыстоўваюцца - Шаблоны, якія не выкарыстоўваюцца / Шаблёны, якія не выкарыстоўваюцца

Шлях да файлу

Экспартаваць старонкі







У артыкулах: 1. Змяніць назву закладкі Зьмест на Змест / Зьмест



Катэгорыі:

1. Перайменаваць катэгорыі па ўзоры: назва 1959рэв.(назва 2005рэв.)

2. Старонкі Вікіпэдыя:... перайменаваць у Вікіпедыя(Вікіпэдыя):...

3. Старонкі Шаблён:... перайменаваць у Шаблон(Шаблён):...



Адміністратары: Дадаць да спісу адміністратараў удзельнікаў Стась194 і Yury Tarasievich, як тых, хто дасканала валодае 1959рэв.



MediaWiki:

1. Перарабіць усе пераклады па ўзоры: назва 1959рэв. / назва 2005рэв., па магчымасці пазбягаць такіх запісаў пры дапамозе нейтральных выразаў.

2. Рабіць новыя пераклады па ўзоры пункту 1.

Вікіпедыя - Правапіс:

"Дазваляюцца правапісы:

  • рэвізія беларускага правапісу 1959 году (унармаваны - П. Сцяцко "Культура мовы")
  • рэвізія беларускага правапісу 2005 году (унармаваны - Юрась Бушлякоў, Вінцук Вячорка, Зьміцер Санько, Зьміцер Саўка "Беларускі клясычны правапіс")

Забараняецца пісаць:

  • "нашаніўскім" альтэрнатыўным правапісам
  • правапісам часопіса "Дзеяслоў"
  • рэвізіямі Браніслава Тарашкевіча
  • рэвізіяй Антона Лёсіка 1942 году
  • старабеларускай мовай
  • лацінскім варыянтам Яна Станкевіча 1962 году
  • астатнімі варыянтамі лацінскага беларускага алфавіту
  • жыдоўскім пісьмом
  • арабіцай
  • ётаваным варыянтам альтэрнатыўнага правапісу неафіцыйна прапанаваным чалавекам з мянушкай "Дзед Мультан"



Заўвага:

Ува ўсіх неадназначных назвах пісаць першай назву ў правапісе 1959 году, таму што:

1. be зарэгістравана менавіта на гэты правапіс, правапіс 2005 г. не мае ISO 639 коду, афіцыйна нідзе не прызнаны.

Як Вы ацэньваеце праект? Я збіраюся кінуць яго на Абмеркаванне Галоўнае старонкі. 82.209.208.184 11:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Праект

Па-мойму, Антоне, вас з'ядуць. Або паспрабуюць. :) Вы хочаце, каб была рацыяналізавана сітуацыя, якая вынікнула з эмоцый (ужо не буду далей аналізаваць). І атрымаеце "адпор" таксама з пазіцый эмоцый. А мне дык бачыцца такі "маніхвэст" -- каб усім пісаць нарматывам без усякіх не-агульнавікіпедыйных абмежаванняў -- а хто няздольны нічым лепшым заняцца, няхай бегае следам і выпраўляе. :) Тое, як былі "правілы" некалі "уведзены", і як іх зараз галасуюць, цалкам дае на гэта права. ---Yury Tarasievich 21:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Але, ведама, што практычна ніхто не пагодзіцца толькі на 1959рэв. 82.209.209.186 07:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Ніхто -- гэта тры з паловай чалавекі? Яны могуць гэтаксама "забараняць" пісаць беларускім нарматывам, калі яны не плацяць за гэту пляцоўку, як і забараняць закон сусветнай гравітацыі. Звычайны інтэлектуальны тэрарызм -- спачатку выстаўляюцца вар'яцкія патрабаванні, а пазней зніжаюцца да трохі празмерных, усе радыя згадзіцца і адвязацца, і на роўным месцы драбнюсенькая меншасць раптам набывае правы непараўнальныя ані з рэальнаю вагою, ані з рэчаіснасцю. Гэтакі кансенсус. ---Yury Tarasievich 07:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

О, я і не заўважыў спачатку -- мяне ў адміны? Гэта і загубіла ваш праект. Паны-таварышы хутчэй павесяцца. :))) ---Yury Tarasievich 21:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Дарэчы, з мовай таксама крыху не тое. Калі гэта (раптам) прыймуць, то трэба будзе папраўляць. ---Yury Tarasievich 22:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Polish Wiktionary

I invite you to Polish Wiktionary because you know a lot of language (also Polish)./Zapraszam Cię do polskiego wikisłownika, bo widzę, że znasz kilka języków (w tym także polski). Mógłbyś się nam przydać np. jako ekspert od białoruskiego, ukraińskiego lub rosyjskiego. Pietras1988 TALK 16:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maladzechna

Please help with the conflict one stubborn user needs a professional rebuffing. --Kuban Cossack 22:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yura, I would not comment the uncivil remark above by a Russian chauvinist. But you may need to look carefully on who is who. While we may have different views on the best transliteration rules for Belarusian geographic names, I have been always supportive for transliteration from Belarusian, and I value this point more that a particular choice of a transliteration system. In contrary, Kuban proposed and was advocating for the page move to the Russian name, Molodechno, and I was one who voted against. This voting has triggered the introduction of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (city names) for Belarusian. It would be the best, if you and other Belarusians could keep an eye on the List of cities in Belarus, adopting the names to a uniform system. Otherwise, your "friendly neighbours" will do it for you their way. --21:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I assure you I'm all vigilance in that matter. But I don't feel the need to raise up a row, too. I'm quite confident that the consensus is near.
Meanwhile, what about a small step -- expressing "no objections" to my proposal on the naming rules? As I take it you have no objections? ---Yury Tarasievich 22:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Yuri, please take a look here. --Irpen 20:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LM

Hey, Yury Tarasievich! I see you come back from vacations, but probably you were in library too :) and made a new research, I did not manage to tagged be language article yet. About metrica I will work with text a bit later, but I will ask you to make a better style of your text. It is quite creepy (talking about style not that you wrote, we will have separate discussion on that you wrote soon). Read some wiki helps on style issue. One more note – make a better preferences, because you quoted your books – this means that these books should be place as – in line- not –general - with appropriate used pages of books. The reference in article text should have 1.2.3.4 etc. numbering – see helps how do it. And of course incorporate – small note sentence in article in appropriate mater. M.K. 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)p.s. Old bela. is not the same as Ruthen. at all.

Hey, effectively anonymous person. :) Yes, I'm back. And what I've done was just organising my earlier un-used notes. No "research" on my part at all. Unfortunately, I'm quite at a loss when trying to understand your further remarks. I'll try to answer some, second-guessing. Or you could write those in Russian?
When I quote articles/papers (three of my sources), I'm quite free to include the reference to article as a unit, as far as I understand the (Harvard?) style. The fourth (rabidly Communist and Russophile Abetsedarski book) is used just to refer "second-handedly" to Polish Kutrzeba work (1921). Okay, there'll be a page number there.
Generally, I find the wikimedia style of the references, esp. absence of normal footnotes and endnotes, quite confusing, esp. in contrast with years of using the [] style.
I didn't utter a word of my own on the subject of Old Belarusian, presenting the opinion of the authoritative researchers of the respective issues, like Halyenchanka and Karski. Counter with opinions of the equal authorities and add the writeup. Don't dispute with me. :)
Finally -- my style is "creepy" (scary)?? Exactly how? You sure it's the right word? Possibly you wanted to say I'm insinuating something? I've tried very hard not to (because I want to be done with the issue of LM behind, because I'm not really interested in it). Please point to the exact paragraph where I've failed to relate my sources objectively. ---Yury Tarasievich 21:36, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh no, I did not wanted to say that you making original research by using word research, I just wanted to say that you make contributions already. About creepy ;) yes maybe I used it a bit wrongly, I wanted to make a point that in LM article we have two different reference styles and it looks not good IMO. What of other mine notes you did not understand correctly? BTW maybe it is better use communication via mail; it would be faster at least to me. I will try to make summary of mine spotted issues on these matters soon. M.K. 12:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, all of your remarks, which I have second-guessed, were enum-ed in my previous reply. So I'd better not clutter the page with re-iteration.
One thing only -- if there really exists a solid critique of Karskiy on subject of Old Belarusian concept -- then I'd like to see at least a pointer to English or Polish or Russian translation.
The mix of styles "not looking good"... Is it really big deal? Esp., for the collective-written work, eh? Or is it just the to-be-expected deficiency of the wiki engine, not allowing for the normal footnotes and endnotes?
Now, why not Harvard-style (?) those Lithuanian language sources? First, it is explicitly allowed by rules. Then, it is much more comfortable, both for reading (by human eye) and for (external) writing.
Possibly somebody would even be able to adapt the Uniwakka filter's XSLT for the export of ref's and footnotes from Openoffice.
If you want to email me -- go ahead, I have the appropriate info active. ---Yury Tarasievich 13:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
ok then. M.K. 16:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC) p.s. not looking good - it is a big deal and this too  ;)
Wellll... I perceive it more like in the saying: "Those who can, do. Those who can't, regulate". About the only really important thing in WP are the "five pillars", IMO. Okay, waiting for comments. ---Yury Tarasievich 21:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National administrative divisions by country

In your table, you could also check the validity of spelling of the Ukrainian "rayoni"... ---Yury Tarasievich 12:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes; this is exactly the kind of detail I look forward to folks such as yourself spotting/correcting once the table becomes an article in its own right – but I now see you've already amended the "raion" plural for Belarus; thank you!  Another table which I intend to accompany the above is here; you may spot some other errors or know the singular forms for some of the terms currently given in plural. Thanks again, David Kernow 13:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK. Why some names are in italics and some not? ---Yury Tarasievich 14:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

To quote the note I've just added at the top of the page: "Terms in italics are terms in languages other than English."  Thanks for the prompt, David 14:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
PS Would you prefer to continue on my talk page alone?

Okay. ---Yury Tarasievich 14:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need help

Hello, can you help with a transliteration of this: Берёзовый сок -- for the Birch sap article? Badagnani 18:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casimir

Would you please tell, what difference is between King Władysław III of Poland and Casimir IV Jagiellon? And please, tell me, when Grand Duchy of Lithuania had a King (or Crown of Poland used Old Belarusian as Chanclery language?) Thank you.--Lokyz 22:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The text you are questioning is the extensively cited text of the quite solid linguistical paper. If it were Duke written there, it would be Duke written here. As it is, there was mention of a King. It may or may not be a Stang's error or translation glitch, anyway, I'm not going to WP:OR and "correct" the well-known author and still retain the reference. If it'll make you feel better, I may add [sic] there. Well? Yury Tarasievich 06:54, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, this would be good.
It is quite common mistake in English historiography to think, about Grand Dukes of Lithuania as kings of Poland soleley. it's blind rewriting from Polish books. Althoug Casimir is a bit different - for 7 years he was sollely Grand Duke of Lithuania, before becoming King of Poland. Link to Casimir IV Jagiellon would be helpfull. --Lokyz 08:27, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. Okay, added link. Yury Tarasievich 08:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Names and other issues

Hello, Yury. I've tried to reach you via "e-mail this user" feature but it seems it wasn't working. Is it possible to contact you outside WP (the best: via ICQ 36293279 or Jabber monk at jabber.org.by, or by e-mail)? I am interested in discussing some problems, and don't want to do it with necessity of to-English and from-English translation. And there is one more point to discuss today: [1]. Be sure - I'm not interested in rows and quarrels, only in effective collaboration. Thanks --Monk 11:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

My wiki email is working okay, people write me no problem. And you can discuss what you want here, no problem, too. Anyway, what's there to discuss?
  1. This here is English language WP, not UN language WP
  2. the UN WGRS does not mandate anything, just recommends
  3. it did not recommend anything yet
  4. it won't recommnend anything unofficial
  5. NN is day-dreaming as the IOT2000 doesn't have polish soft letters and U with rounded diacritical sign
So what's the excitement about? Yury Tarasievich 14:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I forgot to add the that the proposed guideline for WP:CYR already includes the necessity of the IOT2000 form for geographicals. Also, you may write here no-English if you please. Well? Yury Tarasievich 17:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Integrity of Wikipedia

Do you care that wikipedia should be carefully balanced and well resourced? Do you agree that it should be free of politics and original research. Do you want all of the other language wikis not to have any bias to them. Then you can help by ending a wikicircus called Siberian language wiki. Not only is the language original research, that was synthetically developed by LiveJournal people, but its supporters use it as a political platform [2], [3] or complete disregard to other topics [4] [5]. Even more amazing is that its founder, the same person who invented it, takes no shame in using offensive terminology like "moscals" in reference to other users. I think the message is clear: Meta:Proposals for closing projects/Close Siberian wikipedia. Don't forget to register an account on Meta with iterwiki link to your standard one before you vote. --Kuban Cossack 14:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ru-sib

I confirm my opposition to the closing of Siberian wikipedia [6] Yury Tarasievich 09:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Не надо никого "закрывать". Глядя на это с чисто практической стороны -- если это дело дохлое, оно и с википедией сдохнет, а если оно живое, то вы только ожесточите сторонников. Зачем столько внимания отдаётся этому вопросу? Или ресь идёт о личности лидера? Yury Tarasievich 09:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Да без разницы личность лидера. Если кому охота на это время тратить, пускай себе. Проблема только тогда, когда суют интервики линки на эту гадость в статьи на других википедиях. Определынным кругам на украинской википедии это даже нравится. Ну это их дело. Одна из дискуссий была вот тут. --Irpen 09:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Но как же не ставить интервики, если это офиц. открытый раздел??
По поводу имеющихся претензий к сибирской ВП -- язык, как для моего уха, вполне русский (диалектный вариант русского), пусть сконструированный, так и на конструированных языках, и на немецких диалектах есть виксы. Есть люди, которым это интересно -- пусть. Разве они этим что-то у кого отнимают?
Что материалы там есть странные -- подтверждаю, зачем они сделаны -- не понимаю. Так на материалы, конкретно, и жаловались бы, напр., чтобы снять или изменить, всё по правилам? Но именно закрытие целой ВП?? Вот и выходит, что акция мотивирована эмоционально. Оставили бы их в покое, не тратили бы времени. Вон какие волны ходят, насчёт достоверности историков по нац. принадлежности. Yury Tarasievich 10:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kalduny

Could you recheck the article to see if I kept the main parts of the article correct? Thanks Nashville Monkey 09:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy New Year!

Happy New Year! (Ukrainian: З Новим Роком!, Russian: С Новым Годом!). I wish you in 2007 to be spared of the real life troubles so that you will continue to care about Wikipedia. We will all make it a better encyclopedia! I also wish things here run smoothly enough to have our involvement in Wikipedia space at minimum, so that we can spend more time at Main. --Irpen
Happy New Year! (Ukrainian: З Новим Роком!, Russian: С Новым Годом!). I wish you in 2007 to be spared of the real life troubles so that you will continue to care about Wikipedia. We will all make it a better encyclopedia! I also wish things here run smoothly enough to have our involvement in Wikipedia space at minimum, so that we can spend more time at Main. --Irpen

[edit] Dovnar-Zapolsky

Hi Yury, I promised to counter Piotrus' ridiclous claims that Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapol'skiy was a Soviet propagandist historian by an article on him. I will try my best to do it soon but I have a couple of other pressing issue to do now and I thought I still bring up some refs to your attention in case you have time to write the article before I get to it. Here are some useful links if you get to this before I do:

besides, the following three articles are in Ukrainian (if you are comfortable reading it):

  • N. O. Herasymenko, Istorychna spadshchyna M. V. Dovnar-Zapolskoho, in Укр. іст. журн. ISSN 0130-5247. part I 2003, №6, Part II 2004, №1.
  • Oleskandr Pan'ko, Pytannia Derzhavnogo kordonu v bilorus'ko-ukrains'kyh perehovorah in 1918 r, Probelmy Slovianoznavstva, 2002. Вип. 52. С.65–72 2002. Vol. 52. Р.65–72

Irpen 01:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Yury Tarasievich 08:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Also see Encyclopedia of Ukraine entry in English. Try altenative transliterations (Zapol'skii). And on related note, please consider updating the refs in History of Belarus and others to what we are using in Polonization - cite.php is highly recommended by WP:CITE and WP:MOS.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A very impressive article, Kudos! Could you please look at Category talk:Ukrainian historians and opine there? --Irpen 20:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Having spent best part of the evening on it, it'd better be some good. :) Yury Tarasievich 21:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allow me

I, Alex Bakharev, hereby award you this barnstar for your fine contributions to the history of Belarus. Keep it up! 12:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I, Alex Bakharev, hereby award you this barnstar for your fine contributions to the history of Belarus. Keep it up! 12:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Why, thank you! :) Yury Tarasievich 13:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand it's traditional to transfer barnstars to one's User page. Do I do that myself, and just copy and paste would be enough?

[edit] Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapol'skiy

Hi Yuri,

I've done some copyediting on the article about Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapol'skiy, which you wrote, so that it can be featured on the main page as part of the DYK section. There was, however, one sentence I did not understand. I noted this on the talk page of the article. Maybe you can help me by re-phrasing it or something like that.

Thanks,

--Carabinieri 21:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 27 February 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapol'skiy, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 13:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Partisans

Sorry for the belated reply. I picked too many edit conflicts with our old friend and his attitudes got me all so annoyed that I did little onwiki these days. But I haven't left of course. To answer your question, if you upload the map(s) we will try to come up with a good fairuse rationale. I added once a map from a book to the Holodomor article and it is still there (no guarantees of course) but if it is attacked I think we would have a good shot defending it. Same with your maps. Just please add the maps to the articles at once as the orphaned FU images are instantly picked by bots. I am sure, we can write a good rationale that would deter the copyright freaks. Cheers, --Irpen 06:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

One of them is the map of the general all-USSR coverage of partisan activity, prep. in 1974, unauthored. Good guess is it would PD. Second is the (ubiquitous) map by Manaenkov, covering the detailed BSSR-in-1941-borders-only partisan activity, color-coded by year, is the updated in c.mid.1990s variant of the same map of the same author, prep. in 1974. I don't believe these Manaenkov's maps fall under any stricter restrictions than having the scientific citation. I'll try to upload and we'll see, what comes out. Maps are about 1M each now, when in uploadable size (1280 pix. width). I don't know how to squeeze them further.
As to our "old friend", I've glimpsed his boasting of 1939 article on your Talk, and I've browsed the article a bit. Good old Polish nationalism and revanchism, if I ever saw one. Article on a military operation -- but with lots of hardly relevant history -- operation Wisla, Ukrainian UPA punished, polonisation in Commonwealth (notice how the successful polonisation is put forward when profitable). Dubious (WP:OR'ed?) military connection between East offensive and Bzura counter-offensive (by 17/9 Polish armies were already encircled and fought for their life). Very convoluted (intentionally so?) modern opinions on the event (no Belarusian opinion?). Pah. Yury Tarasievich 07:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Tell me something new. Trouble is I was to busy these days to repel this multi-front assault. The article was even sneakily pushed to the GA status. We haven't even cleaned up the Polonization from irrelevant stuff frivolously added there and now a whole bunch of new forks. For now I just have to remember to keep tabs on them until I have more free time to clean them all one by one.

As for the maps, please make sure you add them to the articles at once when they are uploaded. If necessary, remove some of other pictures because too many pictures per line isn't good either but maps would be much more informative than than even the documentary war shots. If they are linked, FU rationale can be written up. --Irpen 17:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Alex, we have now a good FU rationale and the map will likely stay. As for this, I think you are wasting your time. Remember WP:DFTT. --Irpen 19:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll have yet to thank Alex for that. I wonder how would the second map go (not uploaded yet). I'm now preparing the textual/factual material on the partisan movement, too. As for the Ukrained remark -- well, it never hurts to ask. Actually, I guess I catch his meaning (not alltogether nice), but nevertheless, let's not be hasty. Possibly I'm just imagining things? Yury Tarasievich 19:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belorusian language article improvement

You asked me, as an English-speaking native, for "outsider" comments on this article. I have just taken a look at the introduction. (Sorry that I have not been able to do so much sooner.) As far as I remember, the introduction is now vastly improved. If you did it, you should be congratulated! I am too busy now to make further comments, but that part is getting quite good.

I still think the article is much too long and detailed. I know the reason is the political-historical controversy, which cannot be avoided. What do you think of having a separate article on "Origins and affinities of the Belorusian language" and put all the enormous detail about history, whose sole purpose is to illuminate the controversy, in there? Put in the main article only a very simplified, short history mentioning the argument but without attempting to support any position or provide details; but link to the parts of the "Origins" article. This will make the main article more readable, and it will give a chance to explain in simple words to the outsider what the argument is about as well as outlining the agreed-upon history. Zaslav 18:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Quite a sound proposition, thanks. I'll certainly give that some thought. Thanks for the positive opinion on the reworked intro, that was my doing, indeed. :) But you should thank yourself, too, as it was your input that prompted me as to the precise nature of the reworking needed. :))
In fact, I've already started "cutting the fat" from the history section, offloading the not-so-relevant material to the specialised articles. But it is tedious process, and the work is far from done yet. Also I currently had my hands full at the native lang. WP. But I assure you I intend to continue the improving of the article(s).
I hope you'll keep on providing the feedback on the B.l. and related issues in future. Cheers! Yury Tarasievich 19:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constitution of Belarus

Can you see if there is anything I can improve with this article before I sent it to WP:FAC. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The main issue that leaves me wondering is why Russian title and cover page on photo has "Конституции", which is plural for Constitution. Orthography of "it's" and "its'" in leading paragraphs -- I don't know whether it's right. Otherwise, I can't find anything outright wrong. Thanks! Yury Tarasievich 08:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed the text of the image and of the image lead. (In a bit or irony, I got my copy of the constitution in the mail today, showing the correct text). Thanks again. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
One more thing, I also got an account at the Belarusian Wikipedia (again, since the old one got moved) and I have started to edit be:Мы, беларусы using limited skills. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I see that, thanks! Re text in the lead of the Constitution article: from it's time and in its' history -- I'm no pro in English syntax but is apostrophe correctly used there?..
You do its', since it is showing possession. If you are trying to say "it's history," it is saying "it is history." That was how it was explained to me in middle school. As for the other stuff, that is not a problem. Anything to get an featured article on both here and be.wikipedia. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Well, okay, just I remember seeing a text on English style, telling that the correct syntax for posession is its, with no apostrophes. Anyway, why two different syntaxes, then (in lead both "it's" and "its'" are used)? Yury Tarasievich 07:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea, but I removed all instances I could find in the lead section. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 15:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
New update; it is a good article now and I am ready to march it towards FAC (maybe in early July when I get back from a trip). User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Христосъ Воскресе!

Ура! :) --Irpen

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Due the harvest

About your edit in the Soviet partisans.

The people in the camps received food rations according to the standard light labor rations used in all Finnish installations, including the army. During the 1941-2, there was a general shortage of food in Finland, which is seen also in a small rise in the civilian death rate, and, it is unfortunate to say, those in the camps were in the hardest placed in all, as all other people, in East Karelia as well as Finland proper, were able to collect berries or fish to increase their rations, but f.ex. fishing wasn't allowed in the camps until late 1942. Also the general shortage of the food unfortunately meant that those in the camps received the lowest quality of food incredients, whose nutritional value wasn't as good as it should be in theory. --Whiskey 08:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there was even more to it. However, no amount of wording will unmake the fact of at least 1 person out of 6 starving to death. Those people were rounded up by government, put in the camp, and then they died of hunger. And yes, some people could say this makes your compatriots look bad. Yury Tarasievich 09:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, we were quite incompetent in this camp business. Both times we've rounded peoples to the camps, they have died in scores. Only thing which was learned from the first time (Civil War in Finland), was that one should keep watch on sicknesses. In that sense, the camps in East Karelia were much more successful than the camps during/after the Civil War. Unfortunately I don't have Laine's book here, as he has compared the death rates inside the camps with free occupied people and people inside Finland, so I cannot give exact figures, how they compared at 1942.--Whiskey 10:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the thesis of 'incompetence' would prove quite unlikely, considering that, e.g., Finnish boy-scouts were active since, what, 1910? However, this discussion is moot, really. The issue of the actual importance to the subject at hand is the fact of death of at least 1/6th of interned people. Yury Tarasievich 11:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
That is the real question: Did Finns intentionally murdered those people or was their deaths a result of great (criminal?) incompetence of the Finnish managers? --Whiskey 11:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm speaking my personal gut feeling now -- history is full of such incompetences, and many an ethnical/political cleansings were conducted by means of scientifically calculated rations. Hunger is one of the longest known weapons. Yury Tarasievich 11:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Soviet partisan movement activities overview 1941-1944.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Soviet partisan movement activities overview 1941-1944.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 03:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re your question

There's no Wikipedia:Romanization of Belarussian per se, but there's WP:CYR#Belarusian.

As an additional explanation: Lacinka, though being historical (as in "used in past" -- originated by Poles, BTW), isn't truely indigenous and appropriate, because it's using some Polish orthography rules for the Belarusian text, arbitrarily assuming the "specially Belarusian" phonetic meaning of the unique Polish glyph "Ł" (so reading as "Беўаруская ўацінка", really :). No other Belarusian formal system of Romanisation in the world does this.

It was never formally codified, and its popularity is strictly politically based today, too.

---Yury Tarasievich 07:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I just tend to see a lot more Latin Belarussian than Latin Ukrainian, so I thought it had more official status. — Alex(U|C|E) 07:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Welcome. Seen a lot (relatively) -- because pushed as in "POV pushing". You know how enthusiastic the enthusiasts can get. :)) Yury Tarasievich 07:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you might find this a bit interesting. Please comment. :-) — Alex(U|C|E) 00:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Pre-Belarusian", "Proto-Belarusian", etc.

Yury, I have no plans to bulldoze Belarusian language further, provided that my edits are not reverted. I insist on legitimacy of my decision to move some material between the articles, and I outlined my position on my talk page. It is incontrovertible that the section about alternative names of Ruthenian language belongs to our article about that language. The section misleadingly entitled "mutual influences" actually concerns the divergence of Belarusian and Ukrainian at some point in history and should also go to Ruthenian language. Before today, the article about Belarusian language did not link to either Old East Slavic or Ruthenian language. It appears that the author deliberately attempted to obfuscate the mainstream view and replace it with nationalist rant about "pre-Belarusian", "proto-Belarusian", and whatnot. This is not acceptable for a serious resource that Wikipedia hopes to be. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Names

Hello Yury, I have little concern over Belarussian names being polonized after scratchy google "search". Could you please take a look here Thanks, M.K. 12:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello once more; as contributor on talk failed to present proper evidences to support his personal claims which justify usage of Polonized names, I initiated procedure. You are very welcome to express your opinion here. M.K. 10:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 28 September 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mikołaj Hussowczyk, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--M.K. 12:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please move to a proper name

I created a stub on a river in Belarus (Oszmianka) but I don't know the proper English transliteration of the Belarusian name, so I was forced to use Polish. Please don't hesitate to move it to a better name.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:49, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you update the name of the village (Murowana Oszmianka), too, and perhaps stub it? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you again.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabet used in the Grand Duchy

Hi, I just wanted to ask regarding a comment you made at the naming discussion at Talk:Nowogródek Voivodeship (1507-1795) - you mention that "E.g., just off my bookshelf, the re-published Metrica book 523/1 (Grand Duchy Army Register of 1528) gives the mentioned places' names as Новгородок, Витебск, Полоцк, ...". I'm wondering whether this is a facsimile or a translation into Russian (or Belorussian?). I'm not familiar with the writing system in the Grand Duchy etc at all, but notice that modern Lithuanian, at least, uses the latin alphabet, and so was surprised to see it written in cyryllic. It's very interesting. Deuar 14:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That confusion stems from the fact that Lithuanian as of Medieval does not translate unambiguously to the Lithuanian as of the 19th/20th cent., and vice versa. Especially when referring to the ethnic groups and more so when referring to the language. Cf. the issue of denomination of chancellery language in GDL in the Old Belarusian.
The book I'm talking is the academic reprint of the written registry book of the Metrica, published under the auspices of the Belarusian Academy of Sciences. The graphical system which was prevalently Medieval Cyrillic—Old Church Slavonic (cf. Belarusian alphabet) is retained. Yury Tarasievich 19:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject

Thought that you would be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Belarus. --Boguslav 17:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Another notable Belarussian village

Vostrava, the site of the 14th century Ostrów Agreement, certainly deserves a stub. Also, what's the proper name of the nearby Dzitwa river? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 23:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Vostrava will get stubbed when I get near my books (let's say tonight). The river should be translit-ted Dzitva. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 07:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Talk:Ostrów Agreement - interesting discussion. Do you think it should be moved to Treaty of Vostrava? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 18:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bans on languages in Russian Empire after the January Uprising in 1863

Could you comment at Talk:Lithuanian press ban? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] See my answer to...

You're free, as is anyone else, to ask for clarifications or further answers to any of the questions at any time. The practice of referring people to previous answers, rather than repeating one's self, is for the benefit of people reading the questions page (mine contains more than 70kb of text already). --bainer (talk) 10:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I happen to view this practice, in the context of WP AC candidate's Q&A, as somewhat misplaced, and showing certain lack of grasp on the candidate's side. E.g., I, personally, didn't pay equal attention to all questions, so finding references instead of direct answers to the questions I deemed more important was a fair reason to oppose for me ("Is this candidate cutting his effort already?"). I hope I made myself clear. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 10:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minsk Metro map

Hey Yuri remember we had a discussion on it, well have a look at the new version I just did. --Kuban Cossack 15:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Slav

Hello Yury. Could you please provide a Belarusian version in the Hey, Slavs article? It would probably be better not to use the English translation but either of the Russian or Polish versions. Thanks. Alex 202.10.89.28 (talk) 07:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Very sorry... I see now that I didn't word my question properly. What I meant to ask was can you add a Belarusian translation of the actual song "Hey, Slavs" so that all Slavic language versions/translations are included. Again, sorry for the misunderstanding BalkanFever 05:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, our wiki surely can do with the additional article... :) And I don't know whether a Belarusian (rhymed) translation of 'Hey, slavs' even exists. Will try to find, of course. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 20:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed the interwiki is great - although Belarusian and Macedonian aren't that similar so... :). Thanks . BalkanFever 22:47, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On being a 17th century Belorussian

Perhaps you could comment at Kazimierz Siemienowicz. There is a new editor who seems well meaning but doesn't seem to understand the concepts of 3RR or reliable and verifiable sources. Plus there is the always present historical and philosophical debate :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Kuszliki

Any idea what's the proper non-polonized name of this place? See also other battles in the campaignbox; I am using names from pl wiki which obviously may not be correct.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Kushliki (Кушлікі). As for the other names of the places, that's have to wait a bit. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Probable interest area

Hi, Yury, hope you also interested and in modern history, particularly Armia Krajowa actions in Belarus. As far as I know Western Belarus population suffered heavily from AK raids and lack of Belarussian story is already missed in article [7]. I hope you will find adequate sources cowering this area or at least please recommend them. M.K. (talk) 13:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue of AK in Belarus is of the one of the highest priorities for me. However, I can't participate in this right now, as I'd have to bring the primary sources on this together beforehand. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I see. Hope you will join as soon. M.K. (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tamara Lazakovich

Where was she born? Now is the information false.Xx236 (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

She is listed in Dzyatlava.Xx236 (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Kiev Governorate

Hi Yura, Could you please help me by looking at this map (or elsewhere) whether the original territory of 1708 Kiev Governorate included any part of modern Mahilyow voblast or any other part of BE? If you have any additions to the KG article, your contributions would be appreciated. Thanks, --Irpen 03:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Easter

Mykola Pymonenko, "Easter morning prayer in Little Russia", 1891, Oil on canvas, 133x193 cm, Rybinsk Museum-Preserve of History, Architecture and Art, Rybinsk, Russia.
Mykola Pymonenko, "Easter morning prayer in Little Russia", 1891, Oil on canvas, 133x193 cm, Rybinsk Museum-Preserve of History, Architecture and Art, Rybinsk, Russia.

Happy Easter! Hope all is well and we'll see more of you around. --Irpen 08:19, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! :) Yury Tarasievich (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)