User talk:Constantinehuk

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Constantinehuk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! œ ^™ 02:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, pal. I appreciate that! My page is always open for you too. Constantinehuk (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russian jokes

Посмотрите статью - там в качестве источников указаны книги исследователей русских анекдотов и тому подобное. Если бы в статье просто перечислялись анекдоты, или даже темы анекдотов - она бы быстро превратилась в огромную беспорядочную свалку информации. Кроме того, статья посвящена русским анекдотам. Я не уверен, что англичан считают чопорными и сдержанными только в России. Тем более мне сомнительно, что причиной такого восприятия англичан у нас стал один единственный фильм. И, наконец, в статье перечислены только наиболее значимые и популярные темы анекдотов. По сравнению с темой чукчей, тема англичан практически не освоена в русском национальном юморе. --Kovani (talk) 06:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

В статье в качестве источников указаны битые ссылки, а что касается небитых - то нет конкретных указаний, что в тексте на что в ссылках ссылается. Поэтому я не могу проверить Ваши слова. Моя тема и её оформление ничуть не хуже, но даже иногда (по количеству ссылок) лучше других. И уж если в статье указано, что действия в анекдотах происходит в стандартных сеттингах, то уж давайте перечислим хотя бы основные. На большинстве сайтов анекдотов есть раздел "Анекдоты про англичан", это ли не показатель? Или Вы не согласны?

Насчёт фильма я не настаиваю.

Англичан считают чопорнымми не только в России, но рассказывают анекдоты на русском языке и с использованием русского чувства юмора - в первую очередь в России. Я выбрал лучшие образцы такого юмора (можете лучше - сделайте). Удалять не нужно.

Так Вы восстановите/доработаете статью или я? Constantinehuk (talk) 22:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

В статье в качестве источников указаны, в первую очередь, оффлайновые источники, из-за чего ссылки на них в принципе не могут быть битыми. А разделы "In English" и "In Russian" по указанным вами причинам (не ясно, какой текст этими ссылками подтверждается) я вообще за источники не считаю. Итого у меня выходит одна единственная битая ссылка.

Вы, в свою очередь, ссылались на сборники анекдотов. Таким образом можно подтвердить существование цитируемых вами анекдотов, но не значимость этих анекдотов и даже не значимость категорий - из сборников анекдотов никак не следует, что категория "Анекдоты про англичан" популярна сколько-нибудь продолжительное время.

Нет. Для того чтобы добавлять в статью новую категорию или новый анекдот - нужна книга или статья какого-нибудь авторитетного исследователя русских анекдотов, на основе которой будет пополняться статья. Иначе, на мой взгляд, это будет нарушением WP:NPOV и WP:NOR.

Так что нет, я не буду восстанавливать категорию, до тех пор, пока не появятся соответствующие источники. --Kovani (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Битые:

The web site of the film Sex in Russia. Hussar's intertainments-1

"Putin takes swipe at hungry America's 'Comrade Wolf'", Times Online, May 10, 2006

Почти относящаяся к теме (марка пива):

"Economics and industry of Rzhev"

Оффлайновые:

Emil Draitser, Making War, Not Love: Gender and Sexuality in Russian Humor (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000.) ISBN 0312221290, p.120 — a review in Journal

of Folklore Research

D. Kalinina (2007) "Gusary Deneg Ne Berut" ISBN 569919696X

"Dictionary of Russian slang & colloquial expressions", by Vladimir Shlyakhov, Eve Adler, 2nd edition, 1999, ISBN 0764110195

Дмитриев А. В. Социология юмора: Очерки. М., 1996, article "Army Humor" (Russian)

A Large Dictionary of Russian Nicknames, by Harry Walter and Valery Mokiyenko (2007) ISBN 5373004359, p. 193

Онлайновые:

"Putin takes swipe at hungry America's 'Comrade Wolf'", Times Online, May 10, 2006

Soviet nostalgia lives on in Russian anecdotes, Helsingin Sanomat, 9/5/2006

Калечить статью не хочу. Очевидно, что анекдоты появились с развитием торговых контактов между Москвой и Лондоном - 17 век. Constantinehuk (talk) 19:55, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Мне не очевидно. Вполне вероятно, но не очевидно.

Ссылка "Putin takes swipe at hungry America's 'Comrade Wolf'", Times Online, May 10, 2006 не битая, но вы её, почему-то, два раза в своём списке перечислили... Не знаю что вы имели ввиду. --Kovani (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ a b c d Emil Draitser, Making War, Not Love: Gender and Sexuality in Russian Humor (New York: St. Martin's Press, 2000.) ISBN 0312221290, p.120 — a review in Journal of Folklore Research

Ссылка про Путина битая (как вы смотрите?)! Я её случайно в небмтые записакл. А ещё это ревью битое. Итого - три битые ссылкиConstantinehuk (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

У меня ссылка про Путина прекрасно работает. Так что вопрос скорее чего у вас не так. Что касается ревью - то там ещё указаны его офф-лайновые реквизиты, так что битую ссылку я вот сейчас смело убрал и на этом проблема кончилась. --Kovani (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Да, в ИЕ работает, в Опере - нет. Осталась одна битая - про гусаров. Constantinehuk (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edits on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temporarily occupied and uncontrolled territories of Ukraine (2014-present)

Hello. I have reverted your latest edits since you moved other editor's comments around, changing the sequence of comments, which you shouldn't do. If you want to readd the new comment of yours that was also reverted, feel free to do so, but do not touch comments made by others. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not move them "around", but merely indent to their place. If you see otherwise, please specify. Constantinehuk (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Constantinehuk

At your service.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Time to change, my friend. Russia is not "a great power" anymore. Constantinehuk (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I am a Dutch citizen.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are Russian speakers "oppressed" in the Netherlands also? Constantinehuk (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice trolling, right?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just asking, my oppressed friend. Constantinehuk (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Constantinehuk, this is a formal warning: Wikipedia operates on the consensus model of decision-making. Editing against consensus is tendentious and disruptive. If you continue pushing this Kyiv/Kiev point against consensus, you will be blocked. My personal suggestion is to devote your energy on this matter to persuading major English language newspapers, press agencies and news magazines to change their usage. Wikipedia follows such sources and does not lead them. Please take this warning seriously. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:59, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is not Talk page for expressing one's position (in a kindest and polite way) - for example, asking questions (as I did initially)? No, now it is called " the behavioral problem of pushing the point against consensus in tendentious and disruptive discussions" (even without reading those discussions, apparently). Very interesting changes are happening in Wikipedia (or only in your part of it?) right now... I will keep this in mind. Constantinehuk (talk) 08:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Editing against consensus is tendentious and disruptive". But I edited the Discussion page, which has a purpose to discuss, what I wanted to do precisely. What did I do wrong? Constantinehuk (talk) 05:17, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Here we go again: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Constantinehuk: trolling continues, plus vandalism--Ymblanter (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Want to suppress freedom of speech entirely, my friend? But Wikipedia is not Russia, this is an important distinction. Let's see what you get. Constantinehuk (talk) 04:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add: continuing to push the Kiev/Kyiv dispute does not help the encyclopedia; Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech; edits here are meant to help articles and the encyclopedia, not simply waste people's time with continuing disputes that go nowhere. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Constantinehuk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So I was blocked. Let's address the issues mentioned.

-

"I looked at about every edit they've made, and they are either relating to continuing wasting time/trolling in the Kiev/Kyiv naming dispute (which they started from their very second edit)"

No pretension to the very first edit, that is good. Discussions are useful, are not they? If discussion for Kiev/Kyiv naming dispute is not useful, prohibit it explicitly.

-

"or other talk page edits like [1] which can hardly be called helpful."

I was providing a list of reliable sources to clear confusion. What's wrong with that? Nothing.

-

"In article space, they're either adding Ukraine to various lists,"

No example is given. But if so, what's wrong with that? Nothing.

-

"or making either clearly unhelpful edits that Ymblanter points out above,"

"In April, I presented the user at this very forum: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive980#User:Constantinehuk, because all of their contribution consisted of trolling. They got a fairly strong warning [2], but managed to escape a block. They are not extremely active in the project, however, they continued trolling here (note that they denied they have been warned)"

I just stand for open and fair discussion, that is all. Without personal attacks instead of answering (my) direct questions by Ymblanter - so controlling themself be always useful: 1, 2, 3.

-

", here. Note that this discussion of Kiev vs Kyiv is a sensitive topic which always attracts attention among some editors and leads to some useless discussions."

But my question was truly new - or not? And when people draw their opinions as facts even when given exact numerical numbers: 1, 2 , suppressing any other thought - is it good? No.

-

"In addition, they developed an interest to editing of articles: borderline vandalism,"

There were no explicit information what Calory (from a capital "C") means worldwide. I cleared that confusion.

-

"vandalism, restoring vandalism. This is pretty much all of their contribution since April. May be it is time to re-evaluate their usefulness for the project. Thank you for consideration.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)"[reply]

Yes, my mistake. Please be merciful.

-

"or mildly/borderline helpful edits in articles;"

Thank you for "mildly/borderline helpful edits".

-

"an inability to correctly fix a typo sort of sealed the deal regarding their ability to be constructive on the Encylopedia."

Yes, that typo was mine, I acknowledge that also.

-

"also, I'm quite perturbed regarding this edit)"

Why not 10 000 000 Jews? Or 1 000 Jews? It can be either way. I just asked for a source of the information, what's wrong with that? Nothing.

-

Maybe instead of listening to your buddy Ymblanter you would listen to your conscience - and reason too? People are not supposed to be blocked because of (two) typos (or being not very active lately in Wikipedia, for that matter).

So, please be convinced:

that the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates our blocking policy) - I will be more careful to typos (and styling of my texts, for that matter); and:
that the block is no longer necessary because I understand, that what I am blocked for, I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead (but why all contributions of all topic starters on Kiev/Kyiv naming page are considered "unproductive"? Just because of some old school linguists and Russian Internet workers suppress any change destined to happen. Well, the sad exception to overall just and open Wikipedia space - exceptions are always present. I accept that.).

P. S. I ask for independent opinions too. There are plenty of honest people against few well-organized persons from the oppressive state of Russia.

P. P. S. And please give people time to discuss this issue. The attack on Kiev/Kyiv naming page and me was organized in a lightning-fast fashion - at least appeal can stand active a bit longer, maybe for several days.

P. P. P. S. Just phrases:

"The preferred way to appeal a block is to place {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} on your talk page, which is only blocked if abused."

"Wikipedia blocks are usually warnings only. Once they are over and learned from, they are in the past (unless repeated). Wikipedia and its administrators and arbitration committee have a real wish for everyone who is capable of acting responsibly to be able to enjoy editing."

Constantinehuk (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline; this request is far too long to review. Please make a short, concise request focusing on your own behavior. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

See WP:NOTTHEM - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 18:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried the text to be about me as much as possible. But I am not in vacuum and my deeds are interconnected with others'. Constantinehuk (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Constantinehuk (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blamed for typos, inactivity, and discussions (as well as asking for sources). I acknowledge my guilt. Constantinehuk (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were not blocked for "typos, inactivity, and discussions (as well as asking for sources)". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The user was actually blocked for trolling and vandalism, or at least borderline-vandalism nationalistic POV pushing.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to address your accusations one by one, but even in appeal request on my own page you try to suppress them. I do not see the answers. But the truth will prevail anyway. Returning to the core argument, I wish all Russian cities have Communist names - and Communist fate also. Constantinehuk (talk) 10:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]