Proposals for closing projects/Closure of Siberian Wikipedia

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcut:
SIB

Discussion finished, Result is CLOSE. --MF-Warburg(de) 12:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to close this discussion within seven days from now, if there are no objections. --MF-Warburg(de) 10:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not alerted about this proposition and surely I have objections; there is no consensus in this discussion. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like it or not, but it's the final decision. Nobody should alert you about this message. — Kalan ? 13:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"if there are no objections" - but many persons in the "against" section definitely have objections. So this is only pesonal opinion of MF-Warburg. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Pages will not be imported to Incubator. Reason: "ru-sib" is an invalid language code which is not longer accepted by the Wikimedia Foundation. SPQRobin 01:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing sockpuppetry

Attention!
Внимание!

This vote seems significantly compromised by the ongoing sockpuppetry. It is hereby requested that every user who casts a vote here, authorizes himself at any wiki where he works most, for example like this. After that, please mark your vote here as authorized like this. Wikipedia account should be created before the date of this proposal, that is before November 3, 2006. I suggest all votes not authorised within 7 days, that is by midnight GMT, November 24, 2006, to be stricken out. --Irpen 19:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Данное голосование оказалось существенно затронуто голосованием клонов. Просьба ко всем, кто проголосовал, авторизовать свой голос на той Википедии, с которой Вы пришли, например вот так. После этого, поставьте отметку под своим голосом со ссылкой на авторизацию, например вот так. Ваше имя на национальной Википедии должно было быть создано до начала данного голосования, т.е. до 3 ноября, 2006 года. Предлагается все голоса не авторизованные в течение ближайших 7 дней, т.е. до полуночи по Гринвичу 24 ноября, 2006 г, удалить. --Irpen 20:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I've semiprotected this page till morning, and filed the RFCU. Events around this page smell bad:( MaxSem 19:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion of this solution. --Irpen 20:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are completely disagree about the date 24 November, this is too quickly. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:37, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

И мы также против вычеркивания. Сокпапетов чекъюзеры и так чиркают, сторонка защищена от новых пользователей, чо ешшо надоть-то? Шшытайте авторизованных на вособицу, раз ужо так повелося, дык и всьо. And we are also against striking out. Sockpuppets are already striken out by the checkusers, the page is semi-protected, what more? Simply the authorized votes should be counted separatedly. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Close Siberian wikipedia

Attention!
Внимание!

Do not remove or edit out other user's comments as "incivil". This is stricly prohibited. Because of the scale of such practice on this page all further violations will result in immediate BLOCK. Only remove obvious personal attacks. However, this does not mean that you can use incivil lexics. Thank you for understanding.

Не удаляйте или редактируйте чужие сообщения в связи с «невежливостью» их написавшего. Это строжайше запрещено. Из-за масштаба, с которым подобное практикуется на этой странице, все последующие нарушения будут пресекаться немедленной БЛОКИРОВКОЙ. Разрешается удалять толлько несомненные личные оскорбления и мат, что, однако не означает, что хамить разрешается. Спасибо за понимание.

MaxSem 11:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of "Siberian" language, but I was indifferent to this Wikipedia at the beginning, even though I thought the entire section was Original Research, using not-really-existant language. However, it has become a home for trolls and keeps bashing everything Russian [1] [2] ("Moskali" in their terms) from nationalist point of view, teaming up with Ukranian nationalists. (Of course, Ukranian, unlike Siberian, is a language in its own right.) There is no respect for Neutral Point of View in this Wikipedia.

I can see the following reasons to close it:

  1. it uses specially crafted or virtually unknown language named "Siberian";
  2. it has no respect for Neutral Point of View and keeps consistent anti-Russian position;
  3. it can never serve to promote and preserve knowledge and create a true encyclopedia because of its strong bias and no real user base;
  4. it demands insertion of its interwikies to other language sections, and, given the above, I consider such interwikies as feeding the trolls;
  5. it is not serious on common topics; for instance, see "translation" of Hamlet with obscene words at the very end.

All in all, I think this section lowers prestige of Wikipedia as a whole. -- Paul Pogonyshev 23:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And it was without any consensus, simply under Muscovite flashmob and because of impossibility for making decision without english sources about this, and 7 wikipedias still have articles about Siberian. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:28, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It had FULL consensus from the Admin of the wiki! And please stop insulting others with terms like flashmob and such, it only weakens your case if you turn to insults instead of logical arguments. --Kuban kazak 19:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Admin this is not consensus, are you monarchist?)) Your mob is just flash, this is not insult. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 00:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other comments:

  • "Yaroslav Zolotaryov" is trying to falsify this vote by DELETING the votes to close the "Siberian wikipedia" (e.g. check out his attempts to delete my vote No.60). IF YOU VOTED TO CLOSE THE "SIBERIAN WIKIPEDIA", PLEASE CHECK IF YOUR VOTE IS STILL LISTED AND NOT DELETED BY "YAROSLAV ZOLOTARYOV" --w:ru:Участник:Новый
To be fair, anyone who did not have at least one wikipedia account when the proposer, Paul Pogonyshev voted (that is 23:59, 2 November 2006, folks) is automatically suspect of being a one-purpose account. We will have to agree what date to start off from. I do not know why Irpen chose November 5th - perhaps that is because the history of the page now starts on the 4th? On the other hand, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion and to try to convince other users of your opinion.--Paul Pieniezny 00:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the original edit. It was started in the parent page and later the votes were moved to this subpage. Some voters are registered on Nov 3. --Yms 10:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again demagogy without any proofs. Better tell me, where are your contributions before the voting? The user itself was registered in ruwiki in a hour after voting. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Zolotaryov defended Danpetre's vote here, even when it was pointed out that Danpetre had no previous contributions on Romanian Wikipedia. Danpetre only registered on November 17th. [3] --Paul Pieniezny 20:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This not excuses this Novyj, who is definitely one-purpose account created in ruwiki even after voting here. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does the "oppose" vote count read "Oppose closing the Siberian wiki (62 votes, 47 signed)" ? There are only 40 to 50 "oppose" votes listed, with some of them not properly signed. Some unsigned votes contain the claims by the 3rd parties attributing these votes to the people they say they know. The "oppose" vote count should be corrected! --ExcaliburW

Arguments in support of closure

Presentation of arguments in support of closure

Arguments presented summarily here are repeated and discussed immediately below:

  1. There is no valid source that verify existing of Siberian language (was suggested as "original research") [4]
  2. No single paper book published
  3. Frivolous attitude
  4. Small size
    • Most of content is empty stub [7]
    • Artificial exaggerration of its size. 6 hours ago during my vote I checked it had some 4,500 articles (as reported on their main page). Of which at least 4,300 were year articles, at least from 2300 BC to 2006. There areother sources of purely technical pges, such as other various dates and two-leter internet domains. Smart move, I must say. Right now they already have 6,567 articles! The growth that surpasses english wikipedia. I can nothing but guess they are running bots or something to artificially inflate themselves. Mikkalai 21:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • fake articles such as ru-sib:Дания ("Denmark") actually writen 90% in Belarussian language (I guess there are plenty of Belarussians in Siberia sent in gulags by Stalin, no?). Mikkalai 23:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Aggressive anti-russian position [8] [9]
    Quoting from the below "That's not your russian business what we want to do - just remember it. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)". And this was uttered by the bureaucrat of the 'pedia.
    There is no agression in this words. Why the russians consider agression when somebody simply wants to be free from them?--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The main page of "Siberian" wiki lacks Russian interwiki link. Isn't it funny? I foresee an "argument" that Russian main page also has no link to Siberian wiki, but the English, French or German main pages don't have it either, and this does not prevent Siberian wiki to have interwiki link to them. So it is evidently because of strict anti-Russian position of ru-sib. --Yms 18:13, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's absolutely stunning and disgusting. Out of 85 linked Wikipedias, the Russian Wikipedia is not included. It was until 2 October, when none other than Yaroslav Zolotaryov removed the link in an edit labeled "minor." Edward Chernenko restored the link minutes later, and Yaroslav Zolotaryov responded by removing it again and protecting the page. On 29 November, Amire80 restored the link. Once again, Yaroslav Zolotaryov quickly removed it via a "minor" edit. This behavior is nothing short of disgraceful, and it accurately reflects the reason behind this Wikipedia's existence. —David Levy 20:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. An opening of "siberian" language section was caused by voting falsification.
    1. Most of votes for creation were anonymous, only with e-mails, their names in Livejournal etc., you can falsificate easily (one person can create many accounts). Most of these people have no contributions in any of Wikimedia projects.
    2. Note supporters deleted anonymous votes
    3. There were two discussions: both on Requests for new languages and Requests for new languages/Non-natural. The proposer, User:Yaroslav Zolotaryov, moved "votes" from first page to second. (Requests for new languages is rather a discussion but not voting at all)
    4. Many votes of wikipedians were deleted by someone (as example "oppose" vote of ru:User:Maximaximax, bureaucrat of Russian Wikipedia). Page Requests for new languages was vandalized sereral times from Philippines IP-s (example), and some votes were deleted from proposal (mainly opposing siberian Wikipedia creation). This vandalism was only partially reverted.
    5. Some people marked themself as native speakers but also voted in Requests for new languages/Non-natural. So argument for creation "there're already 8 native speakers which are ready to contribute new Wikipedia" should be ignored. The language itself was created in 2005 so there're also no "10 millions of native speakers" in real life.
  7. Wikimedia should not provide facilities and resources to emerging languages. (This argument has not been used, but I am placing it here, as it is the only resonable argument agains RU-SIB I can think of. -- Petri Krohn 02:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  8. Wikimedia should not provide facilities for the disreputable wannabe writers to exersize their writing skills in poetry and prose by publishing obscene poems and their own translations(!) of the great authors, such as Shakespeare and Shevchenko, into a languages those authors invent; especially if such "translations" are filled with obscenities (Shakespeare would have been caught dead saying "Motherfucker" as the "translator" implies he would) and poetry includes the death threats addressed to entire ethnicities. --Irpen 03:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Wikimedia should not provide facilities and resources to the web-sites whose main mission is pursuing political agendas, especially when such are controversial and divisive, particularly promoting ethnic hatred and obscenity. If this is allowed, expect Ku-Klux-Klan asking the foundation for its own Wikipedia as well. --Irpen 03:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. There is a shady deal between the supporters of closure on Moldovan Wikipedia and the opposers of closure of Siberian Wikipedia. Here is the proof: Парни, Бонопарт повел войска! Надо поддержать румын! --YaroslavZolotaryov 19:24, 17 Грудень 2006 (UTC). Ttranslation: Lads, Bonopart is leading the troops! We ought to support the Romanians!. Feathered Serpent 10:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC), ru:User:Пернатый Змей, en:User:Feathered Serpent[reply]
  11. The Siberian Wikipedists are not familiar with their own language. They prefer Russian, see Siberian Wikipedia Main Page — Talk. Feathered Serpent 10:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC), ru:User:Пернатый Змей, en:User:Feathered Serpent[reply]

Repetition and discussion of the above presented arguments:

On argument 1 in support of closure

1). There is no valid source that verify existing of Siberian language (was suggested as "original research") [10]

  • To prove this, www.ethnologue.com, one of the most authoritative sources about world's languages mentions "Siberian" as a language family only, not as a single language [11]. This language family has nothing to do with Russian dialects or derivative languages. --Volkov 13:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mr. Zolotaryov wrote in his blog in May 2005 that there is only one active speaker of this language and a dozen and a half passive speakers. --Yms 20:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was writtten about the Standard Siberian, represented in the wiki. But this Standard is based on the living dialects. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What we're discussing here is not the living dialects, but your invented non-living language represented in the wiki. --Yms 09:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, what we are discussing is standard form of those dialects. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is no standard on those dialects, what we are discussing here is your invented "language". --Yms 21:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, Volgota group have developed the standard. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever you call yourself and your invention. --Yms 10:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
< - - - - - reset indent
Even if this standartisation is invention, it is not OR. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is, because even the dialect speakers might object to the new rules and insist on staying within the standard Russian language umbrella, as officially recognised by the world. --Kuban kazak 13:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you simply are against dialects. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In what way? I have nothing wrong with dialects, but if the scientific research (RESPECTED scientific research) tells my that Siberian dialects are Russian, then they are as far as I am concerned. I also speak a dialect, yet I have nothing wrong with writing in Russian. Neither should you. --Kuban kazak 09:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And this is just negative attitude to making language standrard on the base of real people's speech. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's OK to make language standard of real people's speech, it's not OK when it's done by one person, artificially, in several months, without conducting a full-scale research by any university, peer reviewing of results, etc. etc. Also, when you normally codify people's speech, they usually don't threaten to sue you as some Siberians do in the LJ ;) --Yms 07:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was not done by one person, but discussion groups worked in LJ and later in Volgota. And about sues and even about this voting - this is only nationalistic paranoia, it is eveident that 80% are russians, or from ruwiki, or invited by russians. I have many proofs of total propaganda against siberian wiki in ruwiki, enwiki, and even in ukrwiki and belwiki. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

samir74:Кстати, опыт первого месяца сибирской вольготы показывает, что языку практически любой русскоязычный обучается за месяц - сейчас там уже несколько чел, свободно пишущих без ошибок. [12]

Это показывает насколько сибирский - не русский. Знаете, выучить за месяц белорусский или србско-хорватский хрен получится. Carn ru 17:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Беларуский до степени "пишу со словарем" - вполне получится. Достаточно усвоить грамматические отличия и 300-400 отличающихся слов из наиболее употребимых. После этого в совершенстве язык знать не будешь, но что-то написать на нем сможешь, тем более будешь понимать. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On argument 2 in support of closure

2). No single paper book published

Actually a Russian paper book issued in 2005 "Abdicating from Russian name" has a full chapter about the Siberian. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything with that title. Could you please provide the book's details (original title, author, publisher). Thanks already. - Ev 17:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ISBN 5-89747-063-4 [13] The chapter about Siberian: [14] The author is anti-ukrainian chauvinist and wrote a full chapter about the language, considering that emerging of Siberian is similiar to Ukrainian. So even the enemies of the language recognize it's popularity. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely unbelievable. NOT A SINGLE BOOK has been published! Only a single chapter ABOUT this EMERGING language in some chauvinistic book. This argument ALONE is more that sufficient to closure of that project. --Oscar 6 18:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But we have all the audience online - value of paper sources is rather low in our times. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On argument 3 in support of closure

3). Frivolous attitude

That's lie, based on xenophobic feelings to the language.--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, that's true, based on non-seriousness on common topics. --Yms 13:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you do not understand the language, you can not judge, what is serious and what is not. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
??? Who told you I don't understand the "language"? I do. --Yms 17:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, not, because this is not russian language. And according to your logic, you can see about every Slavic wikipedia - "it seems to me, that I understand this language, and the article is not serious". For sure, you recognize some words, but you can not undersntand all the text --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So tell us the secret thuth - what means "Ебёна мать" in so-called "Siberian language"?
I do not know what you mean by so-called language, but in Siberian this means only exclamation when somebody sees something strange or new. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're wrong, it's not simply exclamation, it's "f... mother". Either your own knowledge of this "language" is far from perfect, or you're trying to hide the truth. Both are possible. --Yms 18:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
:))) Are you competent to make such statements? Here, a few lines above, I wrote that I understand it. All you need is to accept this information. If I recognized some words, I would write that "I recognize some words". But no, I understand the "language" as a whole. BTW, yes, I can understand almost every Slavic wikipedia, especially if it's as close to Russian as "Siberian". --Yms 18:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
< - - - - - reset indent
And you have no proofs that you really understand every Slavic language 100%. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately I don't need to know all 100% of all Slavic languages to understand "yebyona mat'" ;) BTW, there exists "kebenimat" in Hebrew too, being not so obscene as for a Russian ear, but it still doesn't claim to be serious. --Yms 18:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And if it has some obscene meaning in Russian and Hebrew, why should it be definitly obscene in Siberian? Words change their meaning from one Slavic language to another, so your refrence to the meaning of Russian word can not verify anything. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It should, because it derives from obscene stems which dont't lose their meanings in related dialects, like it or not. It's even not like in Hebrew (I told you, it's not obscene there), because in Hebrew there are no roots like "yeb" and "mat". --Yms 19:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
why do you believe that this stems are definite obscene? why words and phrases can not change their meanings? maybe in ancient times this was something obscene, but now this is simply exclamation in Siberian language without any specific meaning. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see you know what you're talking about, so please give me a brief history of how the "yob" root was developed in Siberian dialects, providing academic sources. --Yms 20:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelevant to discussion. As codificator of the language I say to you, that in current language standard this is pure exclamation. Затертая метафора, которая от постоянного употребления в деревенском языке давно потеряла свою экспрессию. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
< - - - - - reset indent
It's worn out in the regular "Muscovite" country Russian no less than it is in Siberia, but nobody tries to codify it in that way. It means that your codification is either invalid, or intentionally frivolous as a whole (not just this article). --Yms 09:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is your business, what do you codify in Moscovia, so leave us alone in Siberia to decide what words should we have in the language. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid, I can't fulfil your request. I'd prefer to see somebody professional to codify it if it's ever needed. --Yms 21:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you need my diploma, then yes, I am certified linguist. So this is professional, but unofficial, because Russian goverment do not support these researches. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't care about your papers. Let me judge about anybody's professional level by the things he says in discussions. --Yms 10:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And that is only your opinion, based on negative attitude to the project. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, the finest argument to close wikipedias - short size of article about it's language)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Емопридык ("Ебьона мать, опеть припьорся дык!") v smysle troll, k kazhdoj bochke zatychka. Kak eto budet na sibirskOm? Mikkalai 02:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks - that's all that you can do now. Hopefully Tarasevich and his friends will open the second belwiki soon, and freedom in belorussian wikicommunity will increase. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just want to say one thing which would help non-Slavs understand this issue (and other related issues as well): all Slavic languages are similar, more so than languages of most other Indo-European language groups. So similar that I, whose native language is Serbian, without ever learning any Russian (save for Russian alphabet) can well understand a simple text (such as a Wikipedia article) in Russian. So similar that even I, and certainly any Russian speaker will understand it even clearer, can see that, in the article on Hamlet in Siberian Wikipedia, Francisco's line Stand: who's there? is "translated" like Stop! Who's there, fucking mother?. Similarly, I looked up all other articles mentioned here and concluded that their presentation is correct. Nikola 02:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But there are subtle diffrences, You'll notice for example here that some people felt offended by the word "zhid" used by Siberian because it's considered offensive in Russian, but in practily all other Slavic language it's perfectly neutral (Czech Židé, Polish Żydzi, Slovak Židia, Serbian Жидови, Ukrainian Жиди and so on and even some non Slavic ones like Romanian Jidani).
I'd imagine the Siberian language contains quite a few Turkic loan words that other Slavic nations consider obscene precisely for their association with Turks while in Siberia they're just part of normal daily life a no one cares about it.
One thing I especially like is when Croats start talking about subtle differences from Serbian. Unfortunately for you, both ебёна and мать are words with Proto-Indo-European roots, having nothing whatsoever with Turkish languages. Nikola 21:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See, how many obscenities there are in Russian Wikipedia - here. And they are real in russian language, while in Siberian the meanings were changed. So maybe that's ruwiki which should be closed? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of the obscenities in Russian Wikipedia are justified - the article on хуй (could be translated in English as "dick") talks about the term, as does the article on the music group which uses the word in its name, or one on the phrase which includes it. The article on Hamlet in Siberian Wikipedia includes an insultive phrase without any justification. Nikola 21:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you may organize discussion about this article in Siberian wikipedia, if you do not like it, but this is not cause to closure. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On argument 4 in support of closure

4). Small size

  • Most of content is empty stub [17]
  • Artificial exaggerration of its size. 6 hours ago during my vote I checked it had some 4,500 articles (as reported on their main page). Of which at least 4,300 were year articles, at least from 2300 BC to 2006. Smart move, I must say. Right now they already have 6,567 articles! The growth that surpasses english wikipedia. I can nothing but guess they are running bots or something to artificially inflate themselves. Mikkalai 21:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Pure accusation to a new wiki without any proofs--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that 4,300 articles are not year articles? (actually, it is already over 5,466 of empty articles, because I see ru-sib:3000 до н. п. and ru-sib:2100 and plus 366 days ru-sib:9 ревуна.). And I have no desire to fish out what other empty pages you dumped there. Mikkalai 01:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that many year articles are not empty - 1419, 2000, 2010, 14, 90, etc, etc. Many day articles are not empty too. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How much "many" is in precents? Carn ru 18:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Go and count yourself. This is not horse race, I do not count sizes, I only know that we are filling the years constantly. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:36, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to interwiki bots I've struck yet another motler lode of near-empty articles: over 600 internet domain suffixes (.ru, .bg, etc.)so, of (as of now) 6,690 articles you have 6,690 - 5,500 - (26*26=> 676) - (pages for centuries) - (pages for decades). So it is, like, 300-400 pages left, with about 100 with some decent text. Mikkalai 00:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
only about 200 domains, 5100 years, pages for decades are without internal links and they are not counted by counter. 40 centuries, many years are filled. So no more them 5300 stubs, and 1400 articles not about years, check the alphabetical list of articles in the wiki. This is pessimistic count, but about 300 years are filled with some information, so optimistic count of non-stub articles is 1700, all done in 3 months. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • fake articles such as ru-sib:Дания ("Denmark") actually writen 90% in Belarussian language (I guess there are plenty of Belarussians in Siberia sent in gulags by Stalin, no?). Mikkalai 23:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only one such article in the whole sibwiki, simply the translation was not finished. So this ending -s is totally false in the "argument" above. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure. But how come each time I look into zolotaryovopedia, I find something fishy? Probably my zolotaryovophobia... Mikkalai 20:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Probably. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:09, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On argument 5 in support of closure

5). Aggressive anti-russian position [18] [19]

This is lie, based on misunderstanding of this articles. You do not know the language, how can you judge about it? (Yaroslav Zolotaryov)
It is a position that only you and your friends can judge anything about Siberian language. I know russian and can understand it's dialects. (Carn_ru)
haha, where have you studied Russian dialectology? The russian dailects are studied by scientists for centuries, and still not known well. As to Siberian, your "translation" in the bottom shows, that you understand about 50% You think too much of yourself. Your self-confidence cannot be proved by your knowledge. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing agressive. Note, that "Московиты" and russians is not the same, thus nothing anti-russian --A1 17:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this way of argumentation can be used to prove anything: some word arbitrarily is claimed to be "abusive", and when for example we will not use it, they will claim some other word as abusive for sure. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from the below "That's not your russian business what we want to do - just remember it. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)". And this was uttered by the bureaucrat of the 'pedia.
There is no agression in this words. Why the russians consider agression when somebody simply wants to be free from them?--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On argument 6 in support of closure

6). An opening of "siberian" language section was caused by voting falsification.

  1. Most of votes for creation were anonymous, only with e-mails, their names in Livejournal etc., you can falsificate easily (one person can create many accounts). Most of these people have no contributions in any of Wikimedia projects.
  2. Note supporters deleted anonymous votes
  3. There were two discussions: both on Requests for new languages and Requests for new languages/Non-natural. The proposer, User:Yaroslav Zolotaryov, moved "votes" from first page to second. (Requests for new languages is rather a discussion but not voting at all)
  4. Many votes of wikipedians were deleted by someone (as example "oppose" vote of ru:User:Maximaximax, bureaucrat of Russian Wikipedia). Page Requests for new languages was vandalized sereral times from Philippines IP-s (example), and some votes were deleted from proposal (mainly opposing siberian Wikipedia creation). This vandalism was only partially reverted.
    And this vote of Maximax is still in the vote page--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Some people marked themself as native speakers but also voted in Requests for new languages/Non-natural. So argument for creation "there're already 8 native speakers which are ready to contribute new Wikipedia" should be ignored. The language itself was created in 2005 so there're also no "10 millions of native speakers" in real life.
    And that is their business, what they say about themselves. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On arguments 7, 8 & 9 in support of closure

7). Wikimedia should not provide facilities and resources to emerging languages. (This argument has not been used, but I am placing it here, as it is the only resonable argument agains RU-SIB I can think of. -- Petri Krohn 02:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

8). Wikimedia should not provide facilities for the disreputable wannabe writers to exersize their writing skills in poetry and prose by publishing obscene poems and their own translations(!) of the great authors, such as Shakespeare and Shevchenko, into a languages those authors invent; especially if such "translations" are filled with obscenities (Shakespeare would have been caught dead saying "Motherfucker" as the "translator" implies he would) and poetry includes the death threats addressed to entire ethnicities. --Irpen 03:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

9). Wikimedia should not provide facilities and resources to the web-sites whose main mission is pursuing political agendas, especially when such are controversial and divisive, particularly promoting ethnic hatred and obscenity. If this is allowed, expect Ku-Klux-Klan asking the foundation for its own Wikipedia as well. --Irpen 03:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing ethnic hatred and obscenity. "Москаль" or "Московит" isn't ethnic - it is more social category. More of than, you could find these words even in Taras Shevchenko's poetry quite a lot, but I hope nobody will ask for closing ukrainian wiki because of Shevchenko's verses! --A1 17:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well nobody closes en-wiki for some of the swear words that Hollywood actors use. However on talk pages of en-wiki, one usually gets banned when starting to drive hate by employing terms like Moscals or Hohols or Niggers. --Kuban kazak 09:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But Moscal is not equal to "russian", no dictionary says that. It is equal to Russian only in paranoic minds of nationalistic Russians, driven from ruwiki "to stop separatists". --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Big Ukrainian article explaining that Moscal is not a national abuse, but rather a political cliche: [20] (Russian language). --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The term Moscal obviously derives from the word Moscow, doesn't it? It is ethnic by its birth.
The word is obviously used as a derogatory term, even by the author of the named article, isn't it? And it has been commonly used as derogatory for quite a long time, right? And yes it is percepted as derogatory by Russians, in Moscow and in Siberia.
Regarding the article above, it is only very telling how somebody in Ukraine is easily using the ethnic term to call all negative features a person may have. --BeautifulFlying 02:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are not a linguist, (until of course you can provide an authentic dimploma and a statute from any respectable university/academy), hence that is mearely and authentic claim that IMO has no value. As proven below, the term has been excluded from the volcabulary of Belarusian for example. Also what may be a suitable term in dialect, is unsuitable when talking to people. Personally I would never call an American person a Yankee. One thing is when Russians among themselves use the terms Pendos, Yankistan etc. Another thing is when Americans use the term Yankee amongst themselves. But I doubt an American will be happy if he is reffered to as a Yankee. So you can call us Moscals on your Volgota all you like, but outside, in international zones, like Meta, I would expect some respect and kindness. --Kuban kazak 13:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For sure, I am a linguist and have a diploma of Tomsk Univercity. Your constant lie make me constantly laugh, especcially when almost nobidy except russians believe in it. Moscal is more social term, and you have no proofs to identify Moscals from the verses with russians. Tales, slogans, and lie - these are speeches of "Kuban kazak". --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
< - - - - - reset indent
In that case please scan in proof of both, that you are a linguist with appropriate staute (Dotsent, Kandidat whatever) and your diploma (btw I do suppose that you will claim it is a red-covered one, so an image of the cover as well). --Kuban kazak 19:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok)))))) The diploma is not here now, but it will be soon)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The diploma: volgota.com/%E4%E8%EF%EB%EE%EC.bmp --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute... You are not a linguist, you are a philologist. A philologist in the Russian education system, and I believe in any system, is not quite equal to what a linguist is. --BeautifulFlying 02:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And the certificate of being a recognised linguist... with appropriate statute.--Kuban kazak 14:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by recognized? This is discutable ground. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You need to prove your claims before we believe you. Kazak 20:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is obvious from this duscussion, that you will not believe me in any case--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 20:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On arguments 10 & 11 in support of closure

10). There is a shady deal between the supporters of closure on Moldovan Wikipedia and the opposers of closure of Siberian Wikipedia. Here is the proof: Парни, Бонопарт повел войска! Надо поддержать румын! --YaroslavZolotaryov 19:24, 17 Грудень 2006 (UTC). Ttranslation: Lads, Bonopart is leading the troops! We ought to support the Romanians!. Feathered Serpent 10:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC), ru:User:Пернатый Змей, en:User:Feathered Serpent[reply]

Even if there is such a deal, it does not work - only 4-5 Romanians vote here, and only 3-4 Siberians there. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11). The Siberian Wikipedists are not familiar with their own language. They prefer Russian, see Siberian Wikipedia Main Page — Talk. Feathered Serpent 10:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC), ru:User:Пернатый Змей, en:User:Feathered Serpent[reply]

We use russian only in conversations, in order than more people understand us. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose to closure arguments

Presentation of arguments in opposition to closure

Arguments presented summarily here are repeated and discussed immediately below:

  1. Siberian wikipedia has no articles about politics, and Russians are mentioned 2-3 times in it.
  2. Siberian language have more than 50 articles in online and offline media about it.
  3. There is offline newspaper in Tomsk in siberian language.
  4. Enemies of Sibwiki are nationalists and xenophobs.
  5. Sibwiki has more then 70 users and about 10 active editors from them.
  6. Sibwiki has 2000 articles, which are not stubs, and grows rapidly.
  7. Dictionary and grammar exist outside wikipedia in volgota.com and ukrainian sites.
  8. The Siberian language is not an artificial language, but an (attempted) codification of existing dialects.
  9. Wikipedia is not the Russian Academy of Sciences and Jimbo Wales is not Lomonosov; Wikipedia has no authority over the Russian language or its dialects or orthography.
  10. The right of nations to self-determination is a fundamental human right and the basis of Lenin's national policy.
  11. Proposal is a result of mob action by Russian wikipedians and was possibly done in bad faith. The deletion of interwiki links to RU-SIB [21] is vandalism and indication of bad faith.
  12. Creation and use of a "Siberian" written language is a deplorable (= very bad) idea, but so was the creation and use of the Ukrainian language.
  13. POV discussions on the wiki content are not cause to close wikipedias--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Because about 3/4 of votes for closure are Russians or have came from ruwiki, the results of the voting show nothing but ethnical solidarity of the Russians. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. If some wikipedia (f.e. Siberian one) will be closed because of political motivated flashmobes of some nation which does not like it, this will be precedent for more nationalistic flashmobes for close wikipedias. We know that there are many nations which have conflicts with each other. If it will be such precedent, more and more flashmobes will be organised to close more and more wikies - because of political and national problems, but not because of real necessity or innecessity of some wiki. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Many groups of starozhils (native speakers) are officially recognized in Russia (accroding to http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/knigi/alfavit/alfavit_nacional.html - lenski starozhily, yakutyany, kamenshiki (Altai group) are officially recoginized and recommended for apparent counting from Muscovite Russians. Current revival of Siberian self-perception also brings into existence the word "sibircy" for a Siberian non-Muscovite Russian. While the last word is not recognized officially, it is used widely together with words "Siberian Nation" - this nation has it's own flag, territory, why can not it have a language too? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition and discussion of the above presented arguments:

On argument 1 in opposition to closure

1). Siberian wikipedia has no articles about politics, and Russians are mentioned 2-3 times in it.

this says that Siberia has no capital and that it is fragmented. See also en:Yakutsk, w:en:Novosibirsk, w:en:Krasnoyarsk and else.
So what's wrong with this and where is the russophobia?)))))))) Siberia really has no capital. That's paranoia from your side. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Siberian Federal District has no administrative center, or, maybe, Siberia is a independent commonwealth to have it's own capital? (Carn_ru)
Siberia is different notion from Siberian Federal District. All the same 1) this is POV discussion irrelevant to the voting 2) this is not political article, but you invent politics in it. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that there is no united Siberia and that there is no capital of Siberia in general. Though there are several capital cities in Siberia. The criticism is irrelevant, I believe. ACrush ?!/© 19:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are capitals of administrative regions (oblasts) but not of the whole Siberia. All the same, the POV discussion is irrelevant. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On argument 2 in opposition to closure

2). Siberian language have more than 50 articles in online and offline media about it.

Proof, especially for offline. Guinness man 22:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.reakcia.ru/article/?1289 - example of offline article. But this is not "OR or not OR" discussion. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 00:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
they call your group «сибирские националисты», you are really Siberian nationalist? Carn ru 12:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's one of the names of oblastniks. But do you want to delete the whole wikipedia because some russian newspaper called me nationalists? This is only political repressions with invented accusations. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:09, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The term 'Siberian nationalists' seems to be pretty welcome in the ru-sib WIkipedia: Category:Сибирски нацыоналисты --BeautifulFlying 00:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, existence of 50 articles in the media about the language project doesn't entitle the project to have it's own Wikipedia. --BeautifulFlying 00:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On argument 3 in opposition to closure

3). There is offline newspaper in Tomsk in siberian language.

Proof please. --ru:Участник:Boleslav1.
Maket volgota.com/maket.pdf --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 00:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Trial issue with a planned 1000 copies. --ru:Участник:Boleslav1.
Just FYI, the newspaper designed and prepared by Zolotaryov's team as may be seen here. Any other? 83.237.231.25 09:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On argument 4 in opposition to closure

4). Enemies of Sibwiki are nationalists and xenophobs.

Sibwiki core users may be considered nationalists as well while discussing the "Siberian republic" whose army should liberate Siberia and occupy lower Volga regions to strip Moscow of access to oil resources. Liberté, égalité, fraternité, and please don't forget the NPOV. 83.237.231.25 09:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC) -- not logged in ACrush ?!/©[reply]
But we do not do this in Siberian Wikipedia, and you want to organise political persecutions just because we are Siberian Oblastniks. There are no articles in sibwikipedia even about oblastnichestvo. But you, Putin slaves, want to close the wiki only because it is written in our Language --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute. Sure you will have articles about Oblastnichestvo some day soon. Hopefully, a neutral and fact/reference-reliant one. What I wrote above is only a simple fact which may be helpful in consideration of this argument from Sibwiki founder. ACrush ?!/© 10:05, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But this is simply political accusation. Of course, I have certain political position and you have. But I do not write from my political position in Wikipedia, but you do, inventing arguments from nothing only because existence of Siberian Wikipedia is against your political position. All this votes in support are simply vote stacking from Russian Wikipedia, while in oppose part we have persons from very many nations - tatars, belorussians, ukrainians, turks, romanians. Our part is true international, free, having full diversity. But your part is simply Russians invited from Ruwiki under nationalistic slogans. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:10, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa you're tough. I'm not a member of any political parties, I have no political stance on the subject of this discussion. I only ask for information and provide what I found. What's wrong with that? Please give us more information. That's all!ACrush ?!/© 10:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The wrong is that your information is political accusation with no relation to Wikipedia. You reveal the real goals of your friends, who search for Russophobia in wikipedia, where there is no articles about Russians or Russia, and nothing about Russian history and politics. You consider only using of real dialect as agression against you - and this is just xenophobia at play. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
< - - - - - reset indent
Actually my information was only the symmetrical response to your claim that the critics, who you dub "enemies", are all xenophobs and nationalists. See above. I would consider case closed if both sides refrained from mutual accusations and would consider the facts: whether the language exists, whether it is constructed or not, whether there is an opportunity that the SibWiki may evolve normally in cooperation and not confrontation with the compatriots. Please provide the full bibliographical records of the dictionaries you used in the creation (Ok, say generalization or smth) of the language - what the dictionaries call it: dialect or language; - what the textbooks say: whether the dialect/language is more or less uniform throughout Siberia, etc. ACrush ?!/© 19:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1) language exists just because dictionary, grammar and wikipedia exists 2) it is irrelevant is it constructed or not 2) SibWiki have very good cooperation with all wikipedias except russian 3) the list of my sources will be about 500 numbers - to be short, it was dialect until the standardised form was developed by Volgota group. All the same, this is irrelevant - even if the language would be totally constructed, it have right to have it's own wikipedia. All this noise about it signifies only one thing - the language is really popular and it has many enemies and friends. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that one online dictionary, one tentative grammar and a wikipedia may not be enough to make this a language capable of maintaining a serious, neutral encyclopedia. There must be enough native speakers born, research conducted, books and dictionaries published, etc. The part you numbered 1) is not serious as long as there is no other support for the language known but Volgota.
Please remember that wikipedia is not a primary source of information. Actually, most of your opponents seem to oppose the attitude, but not the language. You might be interested in counting the times you called newcomers and ru-wiki users in general trolls, xenophobs and liars without actually providing proof of their deceit or good-faith error which should be assumed in the first place.ACrush ?!/© 16:57, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no wikipedia policy, which defines how many books should be published to open wikipedia. We have very many native speakers now - the siberian wiki is the biggest and the most active from all the newly created wikies. As to my invented "insluts" - this is only accusation, Actually this is just you who do personal attack now - I am only defending my position, but you say that my defending is insult against you. All the proofs of errors of those, who agressively want to close the sibwiki, were already given. About conduct of the attackers you can learn from one of the next lines, where Mikkalai have said about my words "blatant lie", when it is very easy to check that sibwiki has not 5500 empty articles --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On arguments 5 & 6 in opposition to closure

5). Sibwiki has about 80 users and about 10 active editors from them.

6). Sibwiki has 2500 articles, which are not stubs, and grows rapidly

This one also needs proof. I see nothing but a bunch of stubs right now. Guinness man 22:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just open your eyes. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 00:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant lie. There are at least 5,500 empty articles about years/days, like, ru-sib:1907and ru-sib:9 ревуна. ешшо тут маловато написано дык. Mikkalai 01:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And many of them are filled. All the same, the 1400 others are definitely not yeas and days - this is the biggest wiki from the newly created ones. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there are about 900 articles, and less than 200 of them have more than 3 sentences. Mikkalai 02:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's normal for a new wiki, which has only one month. Later we will make them bigger. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After 3 weeks this things are improved. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On argument 7 in opposition to closure

7). Dictionary and grammar exist outside wikipedia in volgota.com and ukrainian sites

Did any exist elsewhere before volgota? 83.237.231.25 09:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)-- not logged in ACrush ?!/©[reply]
Yes, dialect vocabularies, from which we collected all words to the one language. Grammar is 100% equal to typical grammar of Northern Russian Dialects --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you have some dictionaries and/or textbooks at hand. Please provide the full bibliographical references for consideration. This is not a provocation - I need to know before I make my decision like others. ACrush ?!/© 10:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean siberian dialect dictionaries? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:32, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, these too. Any books you used to create the language / dialect, any printed books describing the language. Any proof that ru-sib: is not a primary source of information in this language which wikipedias cannot be.ACrush ?!/© 16:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. The language is not created, this is standardisation of the living dialects. 1. I thank a little and decided not to do this, because this is irrelevant. All the bibliography abotu northern russian dialects you can take from the Google. It is easy verifiable that 1) Northern Russian Dialects, especially of 19 century, are very different from so called "Russian standard", which according to my POV is not Russian language at all, but modernized Chyrch Slavonic; 2) grammar and lexics of language used in sibwiki, is identical to grammar and lexics, described by real scientists for Northern Russian Dialects 3) xenophobic feelings for real dialects are known in Russian culture from 18 century, and even in that times they considered them obscenity and insult. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is NOT a standardisation of living dialects. That is what is happening at projects like Westvlams or Westvloams. YOU are taking slang expressions and deviant vocabulary from villages all over Siberia (which all have dialects which are basically 99.5% identical to Standard Russian) and combining that into a language using Ukrainian and Belarusian to fill up the gaps. Note that I use "You" and you are using the passive voice. Passive voice is always used in English to hide who is performing the action. But it is clear from the sheer speed with which you are creating articles since the project was proposed for deletion, that YOU (and the bots) are the performer. That is why it is WP:OR and WP:OWN. The POV is only there to get the usual Russophobic crowd from Ukraine, Belarus and Romania. --Paul Pieniezny 17:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
< - - - - - reset indent
Your messages is always a great source of joy and laugh for me)))))))))) I want to sleep now and will answer later))))) About bots who work at the wiki besides me - this is very strong))) Eto silno))))))) Ja urzhalsja prosto)))))) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To be short: 1. Full nonsense about russian dialectology. 2. Full nonsence about sibwiki, which is full of users now, btw just this voting attract new people to the wiki. 3. And this crowd is victorious, you will never have 2/3 votes here, which you need for closing the wiki. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2/3, no, that's general rules, but exceptions can apply. What would happedn if Padonki manage to get a majority, will the admin of wiki still tolerate them? Victorius crowd...So were Napoleon's soldiers prior to 1812. --Kuban kazak 18:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If Padonki manage this, it will be Padonki wikipedia. You are really against democracy, and all you cries for political correctnes are in vain, just because you yourself are not politically correct to urkainians, belorussians and siberians. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where am I not politically correct to Ukrainians, Belarusians or Siberians? Have you ever heard me use the term Hohol, or bydlo wrt to my opponets. Have I ever called a person from the Caucasus a Churka? Have I ever called a black person a Nigger or a Jew Zhid? NO. BTW for your information, my wife happens to be from Western Ukraine, and my children happen to be half-Ukrainian. Also if I was biased towards Ukrainians, would Ukrainian wikipedians in en wiki NOT praise for hard work to the hundreds of Ukrainian-related articles that I created and edited. If you want me to get some Ukrainians or Belarusians or Armenians or Azerbaijanis or Georgians or hundreds of other wiki people to stand for me that can be arranged. And at the same time probably adding more and more votes to the closure support.... See Slava, unlike you I can defend criticisment and prove people wrong, which you obviousely can't. --Kuban kazak 14:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For example, speaking about "Svidomy Ukrainian conspiracy" here. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well if that is called not being politcially correct, then do read some of your comments, Muscovite flashmob is thus equally unpolitically correct, as is Putin Slaves, or Imperialist Chauvinists. Really don't even try it. Accusing your accusers will not work here. You will make a lot of noise, but prove - nothing. --Kuban kazak 08:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just who have a lot of noise, but prove - nothing, this is those, who want to close a living wiki, and have in proofs only links to 3-5 articles, meaning of which they do not understand, and long speeches, that's all that you have. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
< - - - - - reset indent
I'll just quote my passage and annotate it:
Scientific letters to Nature or request grants from different Scientific circles when carrying out the research and development of the language on Volgota (1), that you did first come to Russians and asked us in good faith support instead of nationalist circles in Ukraine and Belarus (2), that you did not have the blog of Samir74 and never wrote any rubbish in there (like exporting oil to bypass Moscow) (3). That someone actually oversaw the research of Volgota and judged it as satisfactory...(4). Or criticised you to which you responded(5). That you were able to go to every single place in Siberia and sample the dialect when researching(6). That your research group consisted of intellectual people with higher education, with a respectable scientific past(7). That you served your citizen's duty to the Motherland for two years, or have appropriate exemption (e.g. Voennaya Kafedra)(8). That you have no hostility towards Russia or Russians (including those in Moscow) whatsoever(9), and thus if a war breaks out with Siberia and Moscow, you will thus not raise weapon on those you are not hostile to and will fight to make sure that Russian territorial integrity is restored(10). There you go, 10 points of which only two are just thrown in for the humour. of it. --Kuban kazak 13:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute rubbish irrelevant to the voting, but relevant to your nationalistic paranoia. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Points 1,4,5,6 and 7 are w.r.t. people making their minds up on what to vote, the remaining points 4 and 9 are particular to the ru-wiki voters, which constitute the larges majority, and 8 and 10 I threw in for the laugh of it, quite the opposite of paranoia btw, but nonetheless interesting. --Kuban kazak 19:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you yourself recognize, that this is only Russian national trollfest, where ruwiki voters constitutes majority. But I do not care what Russians think about me, because I am not a Russian. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you live in Russia, hold Russian citizenship but not Russian? So what are you? What nationality does your birth certificate say? And the remaining 5 points are still to be answered.--Kuban kazak 14:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will not answer all of them at all, because you are not a KGB investigator, and I am not under your investigation --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On argument 8 in opposition to closure

8). The Siberian language is not an artificial language, but an (attempted) codification of existing dialects.

I don't even want to call this language 'Siberian' as it is not. And, this language IS artificial. If the attempt intended to codify any individual naturally exisitng dialect, and without any political agenda, I would totally support creation of a Wikipdeia for such a project. However, Zolotaryov's language is a mixture of dialectisms and his own inventions, and therefore it is an artificial language. --BeautifulFlying 01:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On argument 9 in opposition to closure

9). Wikipedia is not the Russian Academy of Sciences and Jimbo Wales is not Lomonosov; Wikipedia has no authority over the Russian language or its dialects or orthography.

For that matter Wikipedia is not Volgota.com and neither is Yarosalv Zolotoryov Lomonosov. --Kuban kazak 23:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First and foremost Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Therefore, using it for POV-pushing an idea like the sib wiki does is unacceptable. -- Grafikm fr 00:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not confuse Wikipedia with Wikimedia. Yes, each Wikipedia needs to be NPOV, but Wikimedia as a whole is highly POV. Each individual Wikipedia pushes the importance of the particular language. Together the Wikipedias push a POV on the importance of literacy. The most POV of all is the English language Wikipedia, which pushes for Anglo-Saxon world domination. -- Petri Krohn 02:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except in en-wiki there will be people who will challenge articles such as en:International English. The admin in en-wiki is neutral and thoughtful about whether offensive language can be used or not. I doubt that Zolotoryov would escape blockage if he used the term Moscal in en-wiki! As for Literacy, Sib wiki lacks any, except for that silly little poem moscalska Svoloch. --Kuban kazak 18:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On argument 10 in opposition to closure

10). The right of nations to self-determination is a fundamental human right and the basis of Lenin's national policy.

Sure thing, but Wikipedia is not a propaganda instrument to advocate independence, because it is contrary to WP:NPOV among others. -- Grafikm fr 00:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Self-determination is not about independence, but about the right of people to themself decide on their national affiliation. It equally applies to the right of Transdnestria and South Ossetia to be part of Russia. The moral principle states, that it is not for Moscow to dictate how people in Kiev or in Tomsk write their form of Russian. Extended to a Wikipedia policy, it might mean that it is not a privilege of the contributors to the Russian Wikipedia to dictate the faith of the Siberian Wikipedia, or for the Romanian Wikipedia to delete the Moldovian Wikipedia. -- Petri Krohn 02:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We are not only Russians, and I am not from Moscow. If you do check up on the nationalities of support voters you will find quite a strong variance. --Kuban kazak 18:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
90% from ruwiki, where there are many announcements go and vote against free Sibwiki. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not really, 90%, I for one am almost absent from ru-wiki. I take it more of a 60%. And as for sibwiki being free, with an admin like you... Its like Latvia being a free country (on paper), except to the 40% of the population who have to put up with their apraheid policies.--Kuban kazak 08:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
<- - - - - reset indent
And that is not your business, what do they do in Latvia without Russia, and what do we do in sibwiki without ruwiki. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh did not like the analogy, probably because its the truth right. What are we talking about ...ah yes "sibwiki". Well if you want a free wiki then its en. There you get admins from all over the globe and same with editors. In sib-wiki...much like Latvia, if someone would like to delete that nonsense anthem or Moskalska Svoloch, I doubt that will ever happen. --Kuban kazak 13:22, 16, November 2006 (UTC)
That's not right, actually Moscalska scoloch is under AFD discussion with the score 3:3 --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So there are three people who oppose its deletion, I wonder why? --Kuban kazak 14:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Their position is not your business. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This argument can't be taken into account, as there's no nation speaking Zolotaryov's language. --BeautifulFlying 21:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On argument 11 in opposition to closure

11). Proposal is a result of mob action by Russian wikipedians and was possibly done in bad faith. The deletion of interwiki links to RU-SIB [22] is vandalism and indication of bad faith.

Wrong, see my comment on the bottom, about five paragraphs. The proposal was done for three reasons (of which I was one of the initiators): Siberian Language research was not professional by any world linguistic standards, hence OR. The credibility of this research is non-existant and because of the low quality of articles that we have seen starting with Hamlet and Pushkin and ending with Mosckalska Svoloch and a poor parody on the Ukrainian (Siberian) National Anthem (What remains astonishing is that despite a week and a half of exposing these articles, nobody from sib-wiki actually agreed that they are poor quality, and nobody in that time attempted to fix them). Finally of course is the political hysteria that neither sib-wiki nor Zolotoryov nor about 3/4 of the oppose voters seem to able to live without. And as we have seen in Zolotoryov's resposes, instead of attemting a civilised democratic debate he spent the last week and half defending usage of the term Moscal in English, and at the same time polluting his LJ with feaces like how half of Russia will speak Siberian and the rest Ukrainian. I am sorry but who are the flash-mobbers? Its like a children's saying in Russian: Кот так обзываеться, тот сам так называеться. --Kuban kazak 23:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quality of articles is disputable question and it not vindicates flashmobs and iwiki deleting, and even if proven, it is not cause to close the wiki. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In your case it is, because it is the credibility of high quality articles that saved other wikis from closure. If i were you I'd spend less time trying to persuade people about nonsense, and at least repair those articles like Hamlet and Pushkin, and remove that silly poem and anthem. Such material is simply unencyclopedic and that is a reason for deletion. --Kuban kazak 18:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
haha, there are about 50 doubtful articles from 6690 - those with verses etc. Their existence is possibly reason for AFD discussions in sibwiki, but not for closure. Currently no AFD discsussion resulted in deletion of any of them. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes because 5 and half thousand of those articles are just empty year templates. As for the rest, just for the fun compare the quality of your top articles with that of en-wiki...And why am I not surprised that nobody put Moscalska Svoloch for deletion... because your same argument of only 10 users, of whom more than half would agree with what you write under your xenophobic-nationalist penname of Samir74. --Kuban kazak 14:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are not empty, and about the quality - that's because the wiki is only opened. We will not delete articles because of threats of the Russian Nationalists like you. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How kind of you, calling me a nationalist, oddly enough, whilst I do love my country and will stand for its integrity, I have no problem with any of its many minorities speaking their languages and opening their wiki. The problem is I am yet to hear anywhere outside wikispace that such minority as Siberian and such language exists. --Kuban kazak 08:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is also not right a) existence of Siberian Nation is main point of Oblastnik's theories from the middle of 19 century, they even had an independent state in 1918 b) specific features of local dialects are also well-proven fact. Actually your insults and political accusations are almost only "facts" which you use. And to hide this, you use the maximum eloquence as possible. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
< - - - - - reset indent
Whatever happened in 1918 or even before is ancient history. That's like saying that East Germans are a separate nation and deserve their independence, then to make their own wiki based on the East German accent/dialect and then to start a load of articles like Wessi Schwein. I can imagine quite a few East Germans might share that POV, but are they representetive of the whole ex-DDR people and will the rest of the ex-DDR people acknowledge the new language. NO! You know that, I know that. Same with Siberia, nation does not exist as such, ethnographic research that is 150 years old... get a life. And as for the same thing outside wikispace...that is right. --Kuban kazak 13:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And that is only your interpretation of these facts, when we have totally other interpretation of them. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uhmmm, not really, if East Germans do get round to doing that, I doubt you will support them, although in their case, the East German nationalism as such does exist and is proven, as are the Prussian dialects. Also, if I was to believe you, you could have made more effort to write a decent national anthem than a parody of a Ukrainian one. --Kuban kazak 19:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know the German situation well so I can not answer you. but the German situation has no relation to the Siberian. As to the verse which you suppose to be an anthem, this is just free translation of the Ukrainian anthem, so you are wrong again. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So now Ukraine is Siberia? I am even more puzzled. --Kuban kazak 14:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, but this is free translation of ukrainian hymn. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On argument 12 in opposition to closure

12). Creation and use of a "Siberian" written language is a deplorable (= very bad) idea, but so was the creation and use of the Ukrainian language.

  • This argument was deleted by closure supporter 19:29, 14 November 2006: [23], now restored. -- Petri Krohn 23:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely nothing to compare. 100 years ago, when the notion of Ukrainian language was still not accepted officially in Russia, the whole big literature in Ukrainian already existed for almost a century, with such prominent authors as Kotlyarevsky, Shevchenko, Lesya Ukrainka or Ivan Franko. Even Ukrainian operas were written (Lysenko, Hulak-Artemovsky). Ukrainian was not created by some blogger in a couple of months. --Yms 07:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On arguments 13 & 14 in opposition to closure

13). POV discussions on the wiki content are not cause to close wikipedias--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

14). Because about 3/4 of votes for closure are Russians or have came from ruwiki, the results of the voting show nothing but ethnical solidarity of the Russians. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and because 3/4 of the votes opposing the closure are either Romanian, Ukrainian or Belarusian voters, they show nothing but nationalist solidarity of those nations, for their mutual "freindship" against Russia and Russians. --Kuban kazak 18:39, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
These are different nations, but you are one nation, and majority of votes of closurers are driven under slogans of national solidarity. Please do not strike off arguments and do not modify messages of others. I think all the arguments for closure are stupid, but I do not strike them off --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's untrue. Two most widespread reasons agaist ru-sib are:
  • ru-sib is really not a Wikipedia (inaccurate, deliberately non-NPOV, obscene etc.), and IMCO ru-sib isn't yet, despite many weeks since that discussions.
  • "Siberian" is really not a language (a dialect, a conlang, a distorted mix of different languages/dialects etc.)
These arguments does not matter to our national solidarity, if it ever exists :) Incnis Mrsi 02:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But this "arguments" are invented by people from ruwiki, and supported 80% by people from ruwiki, this is russian flame war. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot judge on the people's ethnic identity simply by the fact that they contribute to Russian wiki. --Yms 11:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They belong to Russian culture all the same, this culture killed real dialects, and now it wants to kill their resurrection. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Zolotaryov, IMHO it's ru-sib who kills real dialects tying it to your padonki-like venture in world's public oppinion! I read about your linguo-project with interest when it just appeared. Maybe, there was some people (like MaminSiberyak) who really want to develop (or reconstruct) some authentic language. But your currect project ru-sib is not a linguistic, nor is it an encyclopedia! Resign your administratorship, it would help Siberian dialects' image. Incnis Mrsi 14:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
it is proven that Mamin Siberyak was only ruwiki sockpuppet, he even did not say what are his other accounts. And other arguments are only russian fantasies, this was already proven in this discussion, and this personal accusations as well. The truth is that you want to close first Russian dialect wiki and invent from nothing many lies only because you want to close it because of your dialectophobia - this is proven by your deeds, but not words. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no dialectophobia. Generally, there is no russian nationalistic flashmob, only a flashmob against lie and dirty intrigues. Concerning User:MaminSiberyak, let us pass to Support vote number 8 discussion, where Zolotaryov's defamatory insinuations will be demolished. Incnis Mrsi 19:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot judge about the culture I belong to (born in a Ukrainian-Romanian-Austrian-Jewish-Russian city, now living in Israel). --Yms 18:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the argument 14: because Russian language is the closest to Zolotaryov's langauge, by reading the content of the ru-sib WIkipedia Russians perhaps understand the absurdity that lies in the core of Zolotaryov's project better than others. In addition, Russians obviuosly and understandably are irritated by the aggressive anti-Russian content such as the articles Москальска сволочь and Россея. This content is not occasionally added by some vandals to discredit the ru-sib Wikipedia, but intentionally published by Zolotaryov to propagate, God know what, his agenda, or himself as a writer. Such content of the ru-sib Wikipedia is the best propaganda for Russians to vote for closure of it. --BeautifulFlying 21:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On argument 15 in opposition to closure

15). If some wikipedia (f.e. Siberian one) will be closed because of political motivated flashmobes of some nation which does not like it, this will be precedent for more nationalistic flashmobes for close wikipedias. We know that there are many nations which have conflicts with each other. If it will be such precedent, more and more flashmobes will be organised to close more and more wikies - because of political and national problems, but not because of real necessity or innecessity of some wiki. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a source outside Volgota that confirms there is a "conflict" in Siberia....Kuban kazak 22:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or that there is a nation of Siberia for that matter. --Kuban kazak 22:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is conflict in Wikipedia, and the conflict is national, that's enough. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 00:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On argument 16 in opposition to closure

16). Many groups of starozhils (native speakers) are officially recognized in Russia (accroding to http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/knigi/alfavit/alfavit_nacional.html - lenski starozhily, yakutyany, kamenshiki (Altai group) are officially recoginized and recommended for apparent counting from Muscovite Russians. Current revival of Siberian self-perception also brings into existence the word "sibircy" for a Siberian non-Muscovite Russian. While the last word is not recognized officially, it is used widely together with words "Siberian Nation" - this nation has it's own flag, territory, why can not it have a language too? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starozhils are NOT native speakers of Zolotaryov's language. Most of them are native speakres of Russian, and although many of them do use the dialect words and expressions more than other Russians, their core language is Russian. Some starozhil groups also use words that were adopted from the local native people's languages, which eventually leads to differntiation of the dialects, that's why all these starozhil groups are listed under separate ETHNICAL TITLES on the list above. These are not separate nations. Not mentioning that there is NO (except from some people's imagination) Siberian nation with its own flag and territory. This argument is false and intentionally misleading. --BeautifulFlying 21:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Evident lie. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What are you calling 'lie'? Do you claim that the starozhils speak the language you are inventing? This would be a lie for sure. The lie is also stating that the words "Siberian Nation" are used widely — Yaroslav, this is only your fantasy. There's no nation that is using Volgota flag, there's no nation having its own territory in Siberia, and your language is not Siberian. --BeautifulFlying 09:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
С этим типом спорить абсолютно бесполезно! Если его загнать в угол, он тотчас объявляет оппонентов лжецами, националистами и т.д. и попросту увиливает от ихних аргументов. Жаль, что этот маразм до сих пор продолжается лишь из-за зловредности некоторых украинцев на Вмкипедии и неосведомленности большинства иностранцев насчет реалий ситуации в Сибири. Золотарев капитализирует на том, что для многих тут его чушь кажется вполне правдоподобной. Это только нам очевидна полная абсурдность данной ситуации. Kazak 04:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. Well, I'm not arguing with Zolotaryov as much as I'm trying to present valid and sound facts here for the community to judge on the validity of his arguments. It looks like many folks here have been largely misled by the claims that everything Siberian is related to the language Zolotaryov invented. Being a Siberian myself, I'm disgusted by seeing this shuffle of facts. --BeautifulFlying 01:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please make any proofs except personal attacks, that the language is not identical to Siberian and Northern Russian dialects. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I'm not making personal attacks. You are presenting arguments that I consider questionsable, and I do have a right to question them. From my experience of living in Siberia, I can tell that the starozhils have been speaking Russian language, certainly with local specifics, primarily in the volabulary, secondarily in grammar. However, their core language is Russian, and their literary language is that of en:Pushkin and en:Tolstoy. No matter how colloquial their daily life speaking is, they write in what is commonly known as Russian language.
You have invented the language we are discussing, and you are supposed to present proofs that it's based on such and such dialects. Where are your publications with a thorough analysis of these dialects and of your invention, where is any SCIENTIFIC discussion on the subject that would come to a conclusion that the language you invented is identical to what people speak in Siberia? Do they exist? So far the only references you provided are online blogs and forums, and articles from tabloid press. --BeautifulFlying 21:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, please present proofs that the dialects that the starozhils speak are different enough from the Russian language to be considered separate languages. --BeautifulFlying 21:28, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of talking so much, please open any Northern Russian dialect vocabulary and you will see the proofs. Why I should collect them for you? This is you who must prove that Siberian language is not Siberian, because you are accusator. Instead of that your group mixes absurd political accusations with personal attacks. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yaroslav, please don't try to shut me up. I will be talking as much as I feel I must.
You are the initiator of this project, and you claim that the language you invented is identical to what people naturally speak in Siberia, and that the language they speak is not Russian. This contradicts with the common scientific knowledge. Since you are proposing an idea that demands certain status, but contradicts with the common scientific knowledge, this places you in the position of having to present the proofs and substantiation for your idea. This is a common scientific practice, and I don't understand why you are resisting this, and why this request makes you respond rudely. Is this because you don't have any proofs for your theory? --BeautifulFlying 01:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support closing the Siberian wiki (194 votes, 188 signed, 175 authenticated)

  1. Paul Pogonyshev 23:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC) (nominator) authentification diff[reply]
  2. I can confirm all of the above. MountainBlueAllah 00:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Authentication diff to home wiki added my Irpen. 18:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Links to POV innate nonsense languages can seriously impede the encyclopaedic process, because on controversial issues people (both end users and editors of another interwiki) may be tempted to have a look at the version in languages they do not know. I also agree with all that is stated above, so close this project (or at the very least stop the editors there from making these links). --Paul Pieniezny 00:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I cannot find any history before November 4th, I hereby vote again, in SUPPORT of closing. --Paul Pieniezny 20:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Authorization and certification of this vote was given both at English and at Dutch Wikipedia. We do not want some Pan Gerwazy to come here and vote "oppose", do we?--Paul Pieniezny 20:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since I have just noticed User:Irpen wants only accounts from November 5th, and I edited anonymously on West-Vloams (and Russian, and German) at that time, I have replaced it with a link to Dutch wiki. Principle remains the same. No one should think I have voted twice.--Paul Pieniezny 21:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All these POV accusations means only one thing: Russian Nationalists want to push their own POV into Siberian wiki. Actually Siberian wikipedia now has no political articles at all, and no POV articles. All POV accusations were invented by Russian Xenophobes. They cannot put their insults and lies into Ukrainian and Belorussian articles, so they try to close SIberian wiki, because Siberians are small and weak Slavic nation. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Siberians are small and weak Slavic nation" — that's bullshit. Imagine: you heard tha someone said that ihbabitans of Texas (or New England or Kent) are small and weak German nation. What would you think of him/her?
    This so called "language" is easy to understand for any Russian. The biggest difference is usage of writing system that is close to pronunciation (instead of etymological in Russian literally language). (unsigned comment of newly created user)
    Remember, that this is not your Russian wikipedia and this is not your Russian language. Actually you want to delete it because Russian imperialism is mentioned in 2 articles, simply mentioned, whithout any POV and whithput any insults to Russians. But in Ukrainian, Belorussian, Tatar wikies, etc, Russian imperialism is mentioned hundreds of times, because this nations for a long time have problems with Muscovite Empire. So today you want to delete 6500 articles of Siberian Wiki, because Russian Imperialism is mentioned in 2 of them, but tomorrow, if this request will be successful, you will ask for deletion of Ukrainian, Belorussian, Tatar, Chechen and other wikies in the same reason. You simply want dictatorship in Wikipedia to push your POv's, that's all. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my godness, we, "Muscovites" are very artful, we'll not delete Ukrainian, Belorussian, Tatar and else wiki. We will teach they our =) imperialistic russian culture and language, so they'll write ru-wiki with us =) Carn ru 20:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So you want to destroy their nations, you yourself have said this. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 00:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Russia is multinational country. Nations peculiarity should be saved. There is Ukrainian, Belorussian, Tatar nations with their own habitat. What nation are you talking in connection with "Siberian language"? Yukaghir, Yakuts, Inuit, Yukaghir, Koryaks, Kamchadals or maybe Kipchaks? Carn ru 11:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Siberian nation. But even you do not recognize it, lack of nation is not cause for closing Wikipedias - what nation is connected with Ido or Esperanto? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    May it be that the "Siberian nation" is some kind of Russian nation, or, maybe, there is no connection betwen them? Esperanto and later Ido was made to connect people different nations. You want to connect or to separate nations? Or, maybe, you want to create some kind of museum of regional? Carn ru 10:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Some kind of part of Russian supernation, including Ukrainians and Belorussians as Kiev Rus descendants. But that's only my interpretation, and the Siberian Project can have many interpretation - some members of Volgota believes that this is "some kind of museum of regional" We have diversity in Siberian language movement so interpretations are many. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So what about the ab-origin nations of Siberia? What is their place in the Siberian language?If you include the Belorussians and Ukrainians, why do you call it Siberian? ACrush ?!/© 20:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The Slavic colonists are aboriginal nation too. Actually Turks and Finns were settling in Siberia just like Slavs - they came from Europe or Southern Asia. So, though my father is from old Turk tribe, I believe, that Slavs can be part of Siberian nation just like my tribe or Yakut tribe. Actuality the majority of old Slavic settlers have some Turk or Mongol blood, and their dialects are full of Turk and Mongol words. I do not call Ukrainians and Belorussians Siberians, but they are our relatives, because old Slavic Siberian Culture descends from Kiev Rus. So Siberian nation has two kinds of relatives: european ones, Slavs, and asiatic ones, Turks and Mongols. That is specific of Siberian nation for centuries. But that's my POV, which almost do not present in the wiki, so this discussion is irrelevant too. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Lies, calling us Muscovites (I am actually from the Kuban, not Moscow). And no unlike your Siberian indiocy, I have no issues with genuinuity of Chechen, Tatar, Ukrainian and Belarusians languages. So please don't start about imperialism. The one I see here is that a language that is unrecognised, is being used for political sources. If there are no scholarly evidence for that langauge it does not exist. --Kuban kazak 19:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Muscovite this is human who fight for Moscow empire, like you. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 00:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ochen' smeshno! I live in Belgium, the only thing Russian about me is my grand mother who was born into a community of Old Believers (Wojnowo, can be found at http://www.mikolajki.pl/english/atrakcje_en.htm) but had a German passport anyway. I am not fighting for the Muscovite Empire, but only against crazy nationalist POV. What if I were to create some constructed version of the Dutch language (which is my mother tongue now) and fill it with anti-German and/or anti-Polish POV articles? Trolls enough who would be willing to help. Tot wiedrzeen-ja! --Paul Pieniezny 19:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So if you live in Belgium, what can you know about Siberian dialects, Siberian Oblastniks, and Siberians? You know only those thing which Russian Nationalists told you. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A) My nick on English Wikipedia is Pan Gerwazy, I make no secret of that. I read the article in a Ukrainian newspaper that you quoted to prove the language exists, but which had the president of the movement say "Perhaps when I die I will finally hear people speak the Siberian language". And you know I read that, because I quoted it in the AfD on the article in the English Wikipedia. B) What is the difference between me living in Belgium and most if not all of your Magnificent Ten living in Ukraine? The distance is not so much bigger proportionately. I teach English in an Interpreters' School, we have two students from Siberia. So I know very well what I am talking about. --Paul Pieniezny 01:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But this is not knowledge, only some rumours and strong political POV against us. The ukrainians are participating in the language movement - we have many resources hosted by Ukrainians. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Against who exactly? What's the Ukrainian point in promotion of Siberian language and the oblastniks? Are they Siberians in any way? Assuming good faith, which is not obvious from the aggressive discussion: why not call that some Great-Slavic language, uniting not only the Northern and Ukrainian dialects, but also the Muscovite Russian, the Serbian? Why separate Central Russia from your movement? In the end, why not learn some Buryat language and help them in creation of their wikipedia? That would make more sense and far better comply with the purpose of the Foundation's activity. As of now, for me the project seems more appropriate for wikia until the existence and the spread of the language are proven. ACrush ?!/© 20:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And what is the Russian point to fight against the Sibwiki? And Central Russia is not separated from you movement - maybe you will be surprised, but one of our chief editors lives in Moscow. But language is based on northern Russian dialects but not central ones, so it belongs to Northern Russia and Siberia. The SNLF (more general organisation than Volgota) promotes buryat language too, while Volgota is turco-slavic branch and we promote the Slavic language of Siberia and Tatar language. And all this nations and languages have great friendship in SNLF, but that is only Muscovites who hate us and who are so agressive against us, and who want to delete out wikipedia with many good and neutral articles. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps it is because Russians understand the issues in their own country best of all. And you, sir, are a Russian, whether you like it or not. w:en:User:Kazak 15 November 2006
  4. Strongly support All articles is POV-pushing, original research and looks as articles from Uncyclopedia. --87.245.180.194 07:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Sorry it was me. Forgot to login --Morpheios Melas 07:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC) authentication diff added by Irpen. 18:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Lie and propaganda from anonimous troll. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not lie, but true. Not propaganda but facts. Not anonimous but signed. NOT TROLL BUT RU.WIKIPEDIA ADMINISTATOR!!! LOL!!! ))) --Morpheios Melas 07:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But I am sibwikipedia bureaucrat and Incubator admin, so what) Your administarator duty does not make your POV-lie truth --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Its not lie and you know that --Morpheios Melas 08:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's lie and you know that, and everybody can easily check it. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course anybody cat can check! :)--Morpheios Melas 09:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And see that you lie) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite the contrary --Morpheios Melas 10:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, quite the contrary --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't accuse other peoples of lying, from what originages out of your sib wiki, Morpheios is a saint compared to that-- Kuban kazak 19:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But he lies, and everybody can check this. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 00:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No it you tell lies. And it was more than once proved in this discussion. --Morpheios Melas 06:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the discussion shows that you tell lies and propaganda. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    it's a lie! --Morpheios Melas 09:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No!)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes! --Morpheios Melas 10:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No)). How clever admins ruwiki has!)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    More clever than in ru-sib.wiki (witch will be closed soon). Heh! --Morpheios Melas 10:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe
    enough
    for
    those
    childness? Carn ru 15:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ru-sib Wikipedia must be closed, because various violations occured in creating proposal discussion:
    1. Most of votes for creation were anonymous. Yes, all this people provided e-mails, their names in Livejournal etc., but I think that it is not correct to accept this "votes" (I quoted word "votes" because Requests_for_new_languages is rather a discussion but not voting at all). Most of these people have no contributions in any of Wikimedia projects. And I'm sure that e-mails or Livejournal account names are not enough. As everyone know, any person can easily create 100 accounts on various mail hostings, so even if we'll threat Requests_for_new_languages page as voting, anonymous votes should never been taken to consideration. Please also note that supporters deleted anonymous votes of people who opposed creation of this wiki. That's doublethink and should been taken into consideration.
    2. There were two discussions: both on Requests_for_new_languages and Requests_for_new_languages/Non-natural. The proposer, User:Yaroslav Zolotaryov, moved votes from first page to second (when it became clear that there're not enough support for opening wiki in siberian language as natural). Also please note that page Requests_for_new_languages was vandalized sereral times from Philippines IP-s (example), and some votes were deleted from proposal (mainly opposing siberian Wikipedia creation). This vandalism was only partially reverted, and Yaroslav moved votes right after this vandalism. Of course, some of them were lost (mainly "oppose" votes). Many votes of wikipedians were deleted by someone (as example "oppose" vote of ru:User:Maximaximax, bureaucrat of Russian Wikipedia).
    3. Some people marked themself as native speakers but also voted in Requests_for_new_languages/Non-natural. That means they lied. I think that argument for creation "there're already 8 native speakers which are ready to contribute new Wikipedia" should be ignored because it is not true. The language itself was created in 2005 so there're also no "10 millions of native speakers" in real life. Native language of all of them is Russian and nothing else. --ru:Участник:Boleslav1 08:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC) (my identification can be found here --ru:Участник:Boleslav1 19:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC))
    All this was already explained and procedure considered valid, Maximax vote still exists in proper place. Where you have been all the summer? And now you invent accusations to make Russian rule over Wikipedia. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope. There were no explanation. Votes was just consciously "lost". And also I noticed most of your comment being a clear personal attacks. Why your POV should rule over Wikipedia? ----ru:Участник:Boleslav1 09:04, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
    Where have you seen personal attacks in my comments? But this vote and all other similliar votes are filled with personal attacks against me. As to losing votes, you did not show any diff where the votes were lost, so this is personal attack too. I do not push my POV anywhere, but you and your friends want to push your POV, inventing accusations without any prooves, as to voting procedure and as to Sibwiki content. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    See the upper comment, vandalism from Philippine ip, comparison between votes in natural and non-natural proposing sections. And stop refering to some concocted "antisiberian POV". Article about your project was deleted in english wikipedia as unnotable. Or that was a russian provocation too? --ru:Участник:Boleslav1
    Meta is consantly vandalized, and those phillipinian deleted half of page with all the other votings, so what? Just your own guys did not vote against Siberian in non-natural section, but voted ijn natural. And article in enwiki was deleted without any consensus, simply because voting was filled by russian vandals which lied. There are articles about siberian in 7 wikies, constantly vandalized by yor friends, and therefore protected everywhere. Your antisiberian friends also vandalize in sibwiki every day, and this "philippinian IP" possibly was also Russian provocation. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah! Maybe some mythical russian nationalists also write "lies" in your siberian wikipedia? Maybe russian nationalists deleted a link to ru.wiki right after the opening of ru-sub? --ru:Участник:Boleslav1
    There is no lie in sibwiki, and we deleted many links from main page to make it shorter. Al the same, we are not your slaves, and you will not order to us which links should we have in the Main Page. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No lie? So you insist that Pushkin was black? It's not a lie. It's just a funny nonsence designed for uncyclopedia but occasinally found oneself in wikipedia. Next. Isn't it strange that only a link to ru-wiki (one of the biggest wikies) been deleted? -ru:Участник:Boleslav1
    No, I o not insist that Pushkin was black, but you should discuss Pushkin in sibwiki. Maybe you will propose closure of every wiki, where it is written something about Pushkin not according to your POV? No, many links to other wikies were deleted too, that is only your paranoia. And where is the link to siberian wiki from the Main Page of ruwiki? You are still deleting siberian inerwikies and even name of the language from "List of Wikipedias" template --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In the template and the side panel we mention all the languages with a large amount of articles (> 20000) and most minor languages of Russia. 90% of Sib-wiki content - is the bot uploaded stubs. Unfortunately we decided not to delete interwiki's to ru-sib articles. --83.237.242.146 11:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this template - [24] Where you cowardly deleted the language #58, the Siberian, because you hate it. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol! Please, look into the page history. Nobody ever deleted ru-sub. It has no registered code, that's why it has no labeled name. --ru:Участник:Boleslav1
    Sometimes some people want to restore the name manually, but you protect the article and have banned belorussians who tried this. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mae culpa. fixd. Anyway - you started the war against ru.wiki. Agression on the milestone page was caused by you. --ru:Участник:Boleslav1
    No, ruwiki started agression against us. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Stop accusing about agression, it was the Russian en-wiki community that started this off. The first stone was thrown in by ME. [25], on a fully genuine basis, not agression, but about ending xenophobia. --Kuban kazak 19:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think the proposal to close because of one word is not agression? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 00:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak Support. I have nothing against siberian language itself: it is a new created language, as you can see on sib.wiki main page (link "Подробности о сибирском языке тут(укр.)"): (you can see it in the main page : "Сибірська мова — літературна мова, створена у 2005 році" ("Siberian language is a literary language, created in 2005") and it can exist even if there is only a very little number of speaking peoples. But the content of sib.wiki in my opinion is strongly provocative. --DmRodionov 08:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Authentication [26] added by --DmRodionov 23:33, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But you mistranslate the words "літературна мова", which is equal to "Language Standard". --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think, that both translations are ok. But it is only a trifle. --DmRodionov 08:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Artificially made "language" more likely to be a dialect. Initiator of the project - LJ-user samir74 or simply Yaroslav Zolotaryov also always spams some ukrainian LJ-communities, asking for voting support. RU-User:dimi.t@r contribution
    • *Strongly support. "Siberian language" was created in 2005. It is a disgusting mix of dialect words invented for encouragement Siberian separatism. Sib-Wikipedia must be closed. --85.21.4.130 09:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC) (unidentyfied anonymous)[reply]
  8. sadly, but support. I'm disappointed in siberian wikipedia. --MaminSiberyak 10:47, 3 November 2006 (UTC) authentication added by Irpen. 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User with almost no edits in sibwiki articles, maybe created by russians in provocative goals. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not true. I really worked in russian wikipedia for a long time under other name (now I work only someteme in english wiki, also under different name), but when I went to syberyan wikipedia I really wanted to help (in addition to edits articles I adwised, how to use bots and so on, isn't it?). But very quickly I understand, that syberyan language is only toy for nazi and separatist. Also I understand that this language has no future. So why waste money of Wikimedia Fund on it? Sorry me Yaroslav. --MaminSiberyak 12:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And all this story only verifies my first assumption. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes and your next assumption is that this is done on the orders of FSB... original. --Kuban kazak 19:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Who knows? He have not wrote any article, only registered and participated in discussions. All that he did was to provoke conflict with Chernenko and prevent Chernenko to help us. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The ru-sib:User:MaminSiberyak explicitly states at his page that User:MaminSiberyak is also his account, and versa. Here is a diff, proving that it's User:MaminSiberyak who gave this Support vote number 8. I don't know was this user so useful in ru-sib or not, but his talk page shows evidenlty good faith. There is no ruwiki sockpuppet here, but there is an inexpert wiki admin here and/or a blatant liar! Incnis Mrsi 19:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support: this madness must be stopped.
    • Non-existent content of this section: 99% of its contents are empty stubs, as can be quickly seen by looking through a few random pages
    • Insignificance of this "language": it is unknown to anyone outside its section of the Wikipedia and its Livejournal page, mostly promoted by a single individual.
    • Gross violation of No original research: the language has not even been fully developed or ever used outside WP and LJ. The en-wiki article on this language has been permanently deleted as original research.
    • Gross violation of WP:DISRUPT: an analogy would be creating a whole new Wikipedia in Texanian (or some other b.s. language I just pulled out of my ass), and labeling anyone who dares closing it as an American chauvinist. This kind of provocative behavior makes people laugh at the Wikipedia as a place where lunatics and weirdos roam free and talk to each other in their made-up languages. This appears to be the main goal of the ru-sib creator: to push the limits of absurdity and disruptiveness. Csman 11:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    authentication diff added ny Irpen. 19:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Complete lie, 1) sibwiki has 2000 articles, which are not stubs, and grows rapidly 2) language is well-known, many media write about siberian wikipedia 3) language is fully developed, dictionary and grammar exist outside wikipedia in volgota.com and ukrainian sites, 4) the fourth point is mere lie and troll accusations. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Star Trek planets also have their own language, yet they do not seem to be biased against Earth now... As for Ukrainian sites and volgota... I mean further justifies my assumption on this being a Svidomy Ukrainian conspiracy. --Kuban kazak 19:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support per nomination. Bunch of absurd crap lowering the respect to the whole Wikipedia project. Move it to Uncyclopedia or Абсурдопедиа or whatever Alex Bakharev 12:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Authentication diff added by Irpen. 05:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All the 6500 articles are crap? It is obvious that you lie. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, ALL of them! --Kuban kazak 19:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong Support. This so-called "Siberian language" Wikipedia is a very bad fake, created for even worse purposes. I'm from Siberia, my parents are from Siberia, their parents lived there and, if they can, they would tell many unpleasant words about this invention of Zolotaryov. This fake part of Wikipedia makes me to be very upset of the fact that we live with him in one town. MaxiMaxiMax 12:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Auth MaxiMaxiMax 04:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And how's about local dialect dictionares, which Siberian is based on? If you or your ancestors are from Syberia, that doesn't tell anyone a thing. My classmate states that he's Russian and that the belarusian language is crap. Another classmate's parents forbid him to speak belarusian, because they think it's crap. Maybe we should know go and vote for closing be.wiki, because it's HOLY SHIT CRAP? -- 82.209.211.100 14:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is right now a rich proposal in generating the official be wiki, not the twisted original research CRAP that is presentely written there. --Kuban kazak 14:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Support. There is no such language. The project is a dump of obsceneties, ridiculously distorted Ukrainian language and original research. Every joke has its limits. When we sanction interwiki links to a trolling project composed of Russian-language obsceneties, we bring Wikimedia Foundation into disrepute. --Ghirlandajo 13:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC) auth --Yms 16:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no Esperanto, no Interlingua, Laojban, Ido, Solresol, Wenedyk, Slovio, Slovianski etc., isn't it? ALL THE CONSTRUCTED LANGUAGES DO NOT EXIST (that is one of the points shared by Kaganer below). Do you know Siberian, to claim it's DISTORTED UKRAINIAN? I'm sure no, because the language seems to be full of obscenes to you. Deutsch seems very rude language for my ear. Let us close Deutsch wikipedia! And I also think, that you personal existion in Wikimedia, miss "Ghirlandajo", "brings it to disrepute". As you care about Wikimedia's reputation so much, then you have to destroy yourself immediately. -- 82.209.211.100 14:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he not knows "siberian" because it DOES NOT EXIST as a language. --Kuban kazak 19:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per nomination and per MaxiMaxiMax & Ghirlandajo. --Kaganer 14:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Authentication diff to my home wiki --Kaganer 20:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Support Siberian language as far as I am concerned, as far as official linguistics is concerned does NOT EXIST. Everything that sib wiki is built on is 100% RUSSOPHOBIA. None of the articles there are encyclopedic. These people decieved wikimedia to start the project off, and now it has turned into a russophobic rant for gathering of nationalistic pseudo-Ukrainians, nothing else nothing more. That fact that wikimedia's finances go into crap like this is unacceptable. --Kuban kazak 14:49, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    hahaha, Russians are mentioned 3-4 times in Sibwiki))))) All the 6500 articles are RUSSOPHOBIA? Then this is the biggest encyclopedia of russophobia in the world))))) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oddly enough the first time you said something that bears compleate and utter truth. --Kuban kazak 19:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote authorized here against sockpuppetry --Kuban kazak 13:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per Boleslav1, Maximaximax, Kuban kazak and others. The liers can not write NPOV encyclopedia, and sib-wiki supportrers are liers. This statement is not offence, but just constatation of a fact: people who declare a conlang invented in 2005 to be their native language are liers. P.S. Dear Yaroslav, please don't tell that I'm a russian nationalist. I live in Belgium, I adhere liberal ideology, I've voted for the creation of Ukrainian wikiversity and against closure of Chechen wikipedia (above). But I really hate every kind of nationalistic extremism (not matter whether pro or contra). And your language is just a tool of russophobic extremists.Kneiphof 15:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC):::authentication diff[reply]
    I have seen many times that you accuse ukrainians in not NPOV, and you know, that Siberian is not conlang, but attempt to make standard from of certain dialects. So it is native for speakers of this dialects. Therefore, even if you claim yourself a liberal, you are against right of this humans to choose native language, and in reality you are simple imperialist, regardless of what you are speaking about yourself. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    One more lie by Yaroslav. There was only one time I pointed that some articles from Ukrainian Wikipedia could have problems with NPOV, because they were copypasted from an encyclopedia that was published by Ukrianin immigrants abroad. Are you absolutely shure that this encyclopedia was toally NPOV concidering political matters? Luckily, Ukrainian wikipedia now has many active contributors, who are working hard, and I see that those unwikified copypasted articles are being cleaned and improved. I have never accused ukraininan people. Concidering dialect speakers - I think you do much more harm than good to them, since now, because of you, their culture is mainly associated with russophobic extremism. Kneiphof 18:59, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You are definitely against right of sibwiki users to speak any language what they want to speak, so please do not claim yourself liberal. Actually only AndyVolhov and his friends are true liberals in ruwiki. And you want delete 6500 articles because their existence is not according to your political POV, so you are true imperialist. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Siberian" IS conlang. Stop talking nonsence. --83.237.242.146 17:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is project of dialect standardisation, stop talking nonsence yourself. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per Boleslav1, Maximaximax, Kuban kazak and others. Vlad2000Plus 16:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Authentication diff to home wiki added Vlad2000Plus 15:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support This "wikipedia" proved to be nothing more than a nationalist POV-pushing vehicle in the hands of some extremists. If we don't want Wikipedia to become a shame because of such projects, it should be closed... -- Grafikm fr 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I hereby confirm that the vote is mine. -- Grafikm fr 01:22, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strongly Support per nomination - closing the Siberian wiki as language vandalizm. Alexandrov 16:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Authentication diff --DmRodionov 12:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Quite a few articles are absupotely ugly and are not only mockery of the Russian langauge but of the topics described. Others are "original research" and speculations which no one is rushing to clean. The claim about huge number of already created pages is sham. I clicked "random page" about dozen times and with a single exception I landed on a page of a calendar year, like, ru-sib:1324. I checked their Category:Years and lo!, there are several thousand "articles"! Good work! Also, a fact of nothe, their "discionary" does not have the words Siberia or Siberian, the details about siberian language in their main page refer to ukrainian wikipedia. So I guess their main effort was to scandalize, like, article about Hamlet: "М а р ц е л л: Ебьона мать, опеть припьорся дык!" It would be fun to read omething like this at anekdot.ru . And yes, I had real fun to read their Calegory:Poetry. But still voting to close. Mikkalai 17:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC) Authentification diff[reply]
    Bunch of demagogy without real arguments, based only on your feelings. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Ебьона мать, опеть припьорся дык!" Mikkalai 01:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That only illustrates that you have no arguments, only feelings and suspicions. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Not a real language. --Ornil Authentification diff 17:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. The sooner we get rid of this "literary language" abomination, the better. К ебьоной матери! (from what I understood from comments above, this is neither an obscenity nor rude).—Ezhiki 17:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I hereby confirm that the vote is mine.Ezhiki 21:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. per Alex Bakharev, see Comments. ";Siberian language" is no more than pseudoscience. ru:User:Typhoonbreath 18:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC) auth diff added by Yms 14:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support (sorry, I'm has no account at meta, I'm just ordinary member of russian wiki. My ru_wiki page, my IP confirmation: [27]). Siberian wiki was supported in creation as a simple solution to decresize level of flood in ru_wiki pages about siberian language. There is no such language, and during a deletion page "Сибирский язык" (siberian language) no sources was found to confirm existence of such language. After creation ru_sib is was nice time. They wasted there forces on ru_sib, and do not apear in the ru. But currently they want to make a iwiki with russian wikipedia. And this is not funny. I'm think, it must be closed. #!89.104.121.156 18:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Totally xenophobic view. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support 'couse I don't think a dialect should be hosted on the wikimedia servers without any pay for it, till there is no publications on a paper or else. I think they should host theyr own wiki-project - it would be interesting. I like talk to inpolite people rarely - they say directly what they thought. I am ru-wiki user Carn, it's my ip, 85.21.92.222 (telling all this make me feel i am sockpuppet, trying to become real man) Carn ru 20:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Fuck yes, it's high time we teach those Little Russians a lesson! I don't care what crap they belive but we're not going to stand when they publicy spit on Mother Russia. You want to democracy, sure we'll play democarcy: there are 30 millions of you and 150 millions of us - you lose. --82.241.114.214 20:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC) (unidentyfied anonymous)[reply]
    if you had account in some wiki projekt, plz indicate it, and make diff to confirm your IP, like this
    Don't you think that, if you have strong position - you should show mercy to weak position? Weakness need to be aggresive not to die out. Why you are agressive? Carn ru 21:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. I have absolutely no problem with this language being artificial or otherwise. There exist nice wikipedias in artificial languages. What I DO have problem with, however, is that this is not really an encyclopedia. The authors of ru-sib seem to be just "having fun" and pay very little attention to things like NPOV, references, original research, or just plain making any kind of sense. And this is not a problem with some articles only; it permeates the whole thing, yet with absolutely no concern or discussion by the authors. Many articles would be considered outright vanalism on any normal wikipedia (e.g. the gratituous obscenities in Hamlet) yet no one seems to ever be reverting or even discussing. The article just keeps to be happily edited on, with several industrious editors, as if it's perfectly normal. Unbelievable. Sorry guys, I wish you luck with your language endeavours, but Wikipedia has its own rules and culture which you don't seem to fit at all. Try again some other time. 24.137.84.198 21:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC) -- en:User:Trapolator[reply]
    And your opinion is cause for POV discussion in sibwiki, but not for sibwiki closure. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you ended up here, I'm giving my opinion on the subject being discussed here. NPOV discussions might make sense if these were just casual NPOV transgressions in an otherwise normal wikipedia. But it does not look to me that way. This seems to be your policy and general attitude. Even if we ignore the bordering-on-hate-speech "articles" on history and nations, you manage to freak out even in articles on absolutely neutral topics (such as Hamlet). I must say that initially, I was mildly sympathetic to your cause and was curious as to how your experiment will progress. But you turned it into a travesty. -- en:User:Trapolator
    So this is the truth - there is no Russophobia in Sibwiki, only in imagination in minds of those it's readers, which hate Siberian language because of their political position - that's all. Your goal is not this imaginatory Russophobia, which was invented by you - but closure --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yaroslav, calm down, take a deep breath, and please reread everything I have written. You seem to be responding to someone else, not me. -- en:User:Trapolator
    No, just to you - you predict bad intentions to the all 10 active editors only because of your xenophobia to the project. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support per Boleslav1, Maximaximax, Kuban kazak and others. Guinness man 21:36, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote authorized here against sockpuppetry Guinness man 22:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support per above. The Siberian language does not exist. S.L. 22:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC) auth diff added by Yms 14:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    So in what language the 6500 articles are written? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Zolotaryov should play his games of national contempt in a different place. The Siberian language has neither existed nor it exists now. Fake languages belong elsewhere. Caine 07:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I'm a lingvist and know that this language is a fake. (124.157.226.114 please identify yourself) (unidentyfied insigned anonymous)
    And how many anonymous "specialists" we can see among Muscovite xenophobes in this voting!)))--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Your charges of all participants in the Moscow imperialism as suffer from lack of proofs, as well as your reasons in favour of existence of the Siberian language. --Eraser 11:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But this is not voting about status of the Siberian language at all, but about siberian wikipedia. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. The so-called "Siberian language" is nothing more than an artificially contrived construct of obsolete Russian vernacular dialects mixed with some bastardized Ukrainian and Belorussian derivations. If someone crossed the Geordie or Redneck dialect and Jamaican Creole, and then tried to create an encyclopedia in a "language" thus born, that would be an equally ridiculous endeavor. --Dart evader 09:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC) I'm revoking my vote. Unfortunately, there are too many well-known vote-riggers (like Maximaximax, Irpen, Rombik, etc.) on this side. I cannot enjoy that sort of company, sorry. --Dart evader 10:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support per above. The Siberian Wiki is simple waste of resources of WikiMedia's servers. --Eraser 11:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Vote authorized here.[reply]
  30. Strong Support per all above. --Volkov 13:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC) Vote authorized here.[reply]
  31. Support per above. stassats 13:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote authorized here against sockpuppetry stassats 11:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support per Kneiphof and others. --Ptr ru 22:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC) (ru:User:Panther)[reply]
    Vote authorized here against sockpuppetry --Ptr ru 16:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support per above. Khoikhoi 23:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC) authentication[reply]
  34. Support because of fraudulent opening by Yaroslav Zolotaryov (see here for a vote added by Yaroslav while he had already voted under his own name). Errabee 23:56, 4 November 2006 (UTC) auth --Yms 16:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is vote of romanian Anclation, simply transferred from non-natural part, because it was two votings. This romanian exists, and even now votes in oppose to close Siberian wiki, see him in the oppose part of the vote.--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't care whose vote it is, or why you moved it. You don't have the right to move other people's votes; that's called vote fraud. Other people can be quite capable of voting themselves; you only needed to alert them. Errabee 02:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But nobody alerted me about this for 5 months, and even if formally I may be not right, really I am right - this person exists and he voted for us. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support strongly. It is not a language, but a slang of the internet community. Elk Salmon 15:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC) auth diff added by Yms 14:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Slang of which language, Tatar ot Ukrainian?)))) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Of Russian and Ukrainian. What you think phrase Афтар ты Жжеш is a slang of what langauge? Same with your invented language. You just making a slang. Elk Salmon 15:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Афтар ты Жжеш is russian slang of course. Do you know what the word "slang" means, and can you say what attributes of slang there are in siberian?--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong Support. Ridiculous project. --CodeMonk 02:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC) authentication[reply]
  37. Strong Support. Siberian wikipedia isn't wikipedia. It is imbecility. With respect [28]w:ru:Участник:Nejron
  38. Support. Klingon is more of a real language in comparasion. --Cat out 12:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And theoretically - could here be Klingon-wiki opened? =) Carn ru 08:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Good morning! --qvvx 20:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong Support. "Siberian language" is original research of Yaroslav Zolotarev. It is not really language. --Nikolay Kolpakov 17:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote authorized here --Nikolay Kolpakov 02:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. It's just a distorted variant of Russian language. There are no need to have such a wikipedia. A.M.D.F. 08:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote authorized here A.M.D.F. 08:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong Support: 1. "Sibwiki" has nothing common with an encyclopaedia. 2. The language of "Sibwiki" is an obscene distorted Russian designed by Yaroslav Zolotarev. ru:User:Russianname ::Russianname 09:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And all this without any argument - this can be said about any wikipedia. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC) So you would like to say that Engish or French wikipedia are written with is an obscene distorted Russian designed by Yaroslav Zolotarev? Nice statement, bravo. ru:User:Russianname Russianname 12:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Somebody can say that "English is an obscene distorted German designed by Chaucer" for example.----- Someone would say that "padonki" speak their national language. Russianname 16:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC) My vote authorization [29] Russianname 16:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. --Tassadar 11:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC) [30][reply]
  43. Support. There are no any academical researches about the Siberian language, so it is original research itself (maybe, based on some dialects or something, but original instead). You can also check census data (2002) [31], there's no any "Siberian language" in the census. Please, also note, that there are a lot of support votes from well-known ruwiki participants. Does anybody thinks that all of them are "moskovite nationalists" and "xenophobes"? Ilya Voyager 13:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC) (a.k.a. w:ru:User:Ilya Voyager) Confirmation[reply]
    Not all of them, but this is vote-stacking from ruwiki - many of them vote only because their friends told them to do this. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You should keep your conspiracy theories about the Moskals who ate all the salo to yourself. And speaking of vote stacking, an "oppose" vote by a troll permabanned on en.wiki is kinda interesting to observe. -- Grafikm fr 15:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This are not conspiracy theories - 1) there are two anouncements in ruwiki directly telling go ang vote for closure of sibwiki 2) 95% of voters for closure are Russians, when in pro-Siberian part we have real diversity of all the nations. So the anti-Siberian part is monotonous and majority of them have nationalistic motivation, but pro-Siberian part are people from various nations who want freedom and like freedom, even seeing all this lie and accusations, invented by your flashmob. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Among the people voting FOR the closure are one American, one Belgian (and that is not Kneiphof), one Dutchman, one Englishman, one Japanese, one South American and at least one (probably more) Ukrainian. Add Alex Bakharev and Mikkalai, who should not be classified as Russian. And two Siberians at least. Those whom you classify as non-Russian are not 5%, but 20% of the FORs. Most of the opposers of the closure are Ukrainian, Romanian and Belarusian. So the international picture is not at all as clear as you claim. --Paul Pieniezny 16:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    They are Russians, + several friends of Russians + several deletionists who simply like the word "delete")) all the same, 80% of voters are from ruwiki, when siberian voters are realy from different nations. We have even more Russians than Romanians, why do you like Romanians so much, only 2 of them came to support us? ))) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And who invent conspiracy theories, this is some leaders of this flashmob - they say that all the wikipedia, where Russians are almost not mentioned, is the big conspiracy against russians - this is real conspiracy theory and you want to close real living wikipedia basing on this fantasy. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Diff please? ACrush ?!/© 20:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just read the replics of Kuban Kozak - he even use the words "Ukrainian conspiracy" --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong Support. Siberian itself is an original research: a semi-professionaly constructed artificial language loosely based on the Russian dialects of Siberia. Project initiators are politically biased and show aggressive and provocative behaviour in other Wikipedias. Existance of sib-wiki is a shame on us all. --Dmitry Gerasimov 19:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote authorized. --Dmitry Gerasimov 18:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In what wikipedias we show provacative behavour? Voting against you in admin alections is a provocative behaviour? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course not. But repeatedly labeling me and other users xenophobs and nationalists for no reason surely is. --Dmitry Gerasimov 18:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. I don’t care about the political side of this dispute, but I do believe that sibwiki has gone a little bit too far. It is, in my view, a vehicle for propaganda rather than an attempt to create a free encyclopedia. While there are indeed some sane articles in Siberian Wikipedia, the overall course of the project is strongly influenced by politics, and therefore I cannot expect sibwiki to grow into a serious source of information. Although I must admit that I do not know Siberian, I know enough Russian to grasp the meaning of some of the “articles” there. Let’s take for example the now-famous Москальска сволоч. First and foremost, it is a poem, and as you might remember Wikipedia is not exactly the place for posting random poems. It appears however that sibwiki editors have a different opinion: they chose instead to place a notice at the top of the article stating that it will be moved to Siberian Wikisource, once it is created. Nice, eh? Now, this certainly is an insultive poem, telling us about innumerable hordes of evil Muscovites and their deep burning hatred towards all good and Siberian. Regardless of how Zolotaryov defines “москали”, this is still low-grade propaganda, totally unsuitable for an encyclopedia. So you might wonder why this “article” doesn’t get deleted. Guess what? The answer is simple: it was Zolotaryov himself who posted this! Understandably, he’s not going to remove his own creation. You need more examples? No problem, see Московиты, complete with a nice picture stating “thank God I am not a Muscovite”. And the best evidence to Zolotaryov’s position is the spectacular show he’s giving here, with all these accusations of xenophobia etc. To sum it all up: I do not oppose the existence of a Siberian Wikipedia per se, but in its current form it is not acceptable as a Wikimedia Foundation project, therefore I support the move to close sibwiki. --qvvx 20:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    How pervert logic do you have) Thank God I am not a Muscovite! --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The POV accusations are relevant to POV discussion on sibwiki, but not to it's closure. So you yourself do propaganda, wanting to close a wiki because of your political suspicions. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. There is no Siberian language, after I reviewed the demographics of Siberia, none of it said "Siberian" speakers so in case, I have to support the closing of Siberian wikipedia. Rakuten06 23:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Please review information about Siberian Slavic dialects. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. I Support closing this section. It is absolute delirium. The manager ru wikipedia --Torin-ru 04:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Vote authorized authentication--Torin-ru 07:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Personal attack.--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Please this section is unfair; this is unpleasant see in the bigger Wikipedias this hoax Wiki. 7.000 bot made articles in few days? Please, this is a knowledge project, not a horse racing. --Taichi - (あ!) 06:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC). My authorization: [32][reply]
  49. Support Siberian language is falsification Aps
    - false voice [33]
    No, [34]. --Irpen 22:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it is not. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong Support. Stop this original research. w:ru:Участник:Dark-saber
    Vote authorized here against sockpuppetry --w:ru:Участник:Dark-saber
    Personal attack. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    it's covered by me: Carn ru 09:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strongest ever possible Support. Stop this nonsense original research, please. Rombik 07:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC), also known as ru:User:Rombik, uk:User:Rombik, en:User:Rombik, commons:User:Rombik (see diff at Ru-wiki where I admit my identity with my Meta account).[reply]
  52. Strong Support, WP exists for many reasons, but not to further some clique's desire for reassignment of nationality. CRCulver 19:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC) auth diff added by Yms 14:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    And not to further Russian Nationalist push their national POV. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. This is a language constructed about a year ago, not significant enough to have its own wikipedia section. --Anton Khorev 20:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    authorised here --Anton Khorev 21:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not true. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolute true. It was made on no basis in your LJ community. Elk Salmon 07:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolute lie. It was compiled from 500 dialect sources. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    lol, Thank you. You just have exposed yourself. Elk Salmon 11:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Where? Do you understand the word "source" properly? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Siberian language don't exist, is only a dialect of Russian. Same situation as Moldovan language which is a dialect of Romanian. Moldovan Wikipedia was voted for deletion (despite the opposition which came mainly from Russian nationalists, with no idea about Moldovan/Romanian language). Inventing new languages is a hobby in Wikipedia, but it is not the purpose of this project.--MariusM 02:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC) auth diff added by Yms 14:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Marius, congratulations. You made my day. At least someone who is voting with his head. I salute you! --Paul Pieniezny 11:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, existence of Moldovan wikipedia is much, much more grounded, see Alex Bakharev's comment in the 'Comment' section. Mr. Zolotaryov is simply using Wikipedia to promote his own project. --Yms 10:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you or Alex Bakharev know "Moldovan" language? Moldovan Wikipedia was created by a 16 year old kid from USA with little knowledge about "Moldovan" language (self-declared mo-2). He is registered also at Romanian Wikipedia, where he defined his language as "Romanian-Moldovan" [35]. Comparing with Moldovan wikipedia, the Siberian one is a more serious project, however I feel is still an artificial one. We don't have separate wikipedias in Argentinian, Chilean, Bolivian, Mexican, Venezuelan, Spanish language, we should not have separate Romanian/Moldovan wikipedias or separate Russian/Siberian wikipedias. I am also against "Bosnian" wikipedia, before the war in Yugoslavia nobody told about an existence of "Bosnian" language. I understand that people from Bosnia hate Milosevici, but they can hate him in Serbian language. Those who hate Putin, hate him in Russian language! We should not mix politics with linguistics.--MariusM 13:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no information about creation of Moldovan Wikipedia, I only judge about the language which was one of three main languages of the city I lived in for 28 years (Czernowitz). I'm agree that now it's considered just the same as Romanian, but still can confirm that what Bakharev wrote is 100% true. It does not mean that I support existence of Moldovan wiki :) --Yms 21:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong Support, having read this discussion thoroughly and having compared arguments and wannabe arguments from both sides. --Yms 06:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    confirmed here. --Yms 06:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    ... and being from ruwiki, by the way...))) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, it's my native language. --Yms 07:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support confirmed here.w:ru:Участник:DonaldDuckDonaldDuck
  57. Support per Boleslav1, Maximaximax Serebr 12:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC) (ru:User:Serebr)[reply]
    Vote authorized [36] against sockpuppetry Serebr 21:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Strong Support. No such language. w:ru:Участник:Exile
  59. Support I strongly support closing the so-called "Siberian wikipedia". My arguments: (1) the "Siberian language" does not exist; (2) the wikipedia articles written in the so-called "Siberian language" cannot be understood by anybody, with a possible exception of the person who wrote them; (3) "Siberian wikipedia" project creates a dangerous precedent of a marginalized group misusing the Wikipedia resources for the propaganda of their cause --w:ru:Участник:Новый
    There is no suсh user in ruwiki. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "Yaroslav Zolotaryov" attempted to nullify my vote above. --w:ru:Участник:Новый
    Again - this is no such user in ruwiki, so you do not say truth about yourself, and maybe you are sockpuppet --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This is getting ridiculous. What is the use of this vote, if this fellow, "Yaroslav Zolotaryov" allows himself to delete any vote he does not like, by just saying "you do not say truth about yourself, and maybe you are sockpuppet"? --w:ru:Участник:Новый
    No, only about those, who have no account in ruwiki) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Account created in a hour after voting. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wiki does not synchronize itself instantly. "Yaroslav Zolotaryov" should stop trying to falsify this vote. Falsifying the language would not work for "Yaroslav Zolotaryov" either. --w:ru:Участник:Новый
    How pathetic)) And where are the contributions of this Новый before the voting? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Time to end this nonsense. w:en:User:Kazak (Authentication diff to home wiki.)
  61. Support I strongly support the move to close the Siberian Wiki. The quasi-language used to write it is a non-existent language, composed out of distorted Ukrainian and Russian words. It lacks a consistent grammar. Some of the articles quoted above are nothing but a string of slurs, offensive to Russians, Jews and Ukrainians. Allowing the Siberian wikipedia clowns to use the Wikipedia resources will expose Wikipedia to a possibility of hate speech/hate crime lawsuits in many countries --w:en:User:ExcaliburW
    Siberian language has consistent grammar, there are two grammars in use in sibwiki - the full grammar and the learn-grammar. About the articles, you can try to improve them yourself, but they do not contain hatespeech or offencive words. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Close it. As far as I can tell, having spoken with a number of friends from that part of the world and talking to some local professors, there is not a Siberian language. Based on my (limited) understanding of Russian, the Siberian wikipedia is a misuse of foundation resources and a cesspool, and I don't see any convincing arguments for keeping it. --Improv 02:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC) Validated as per here[reply]
    But there are siberian dialects, and this information is verifiable. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    There are probably smaller dialects within those dialects as well - Wikipedias should exist for languages, not dialect. If we took English, for example, and split the British, American, Australian, Indian, and other parts of the world that speak English into separate Wikis, we would lose a lot of valuable collaboration. Wikis are not for nations, regions, or dialects. When you see things like Taiwan and China sharing a wiki, despite their different writing systems (classical versus reformed Chinese characters), you should understand it as inspiration that you can work together with the greater Russian community, and everyone who can read/speak/write Russian will be better off for it because less effort will be duplicated and the Russian Wikipedia will have more good content. --Improv 17:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But Russian wikipedia do not use Siberian and Northern Russian dialect words, so this part of human knowledge will be lost without the sibwiki. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia and Wiktionary are not the same thing. Encyclopedic knowledge is not about using a few words, it's about adequately covering a topic. If you want word coverage, add the words you care about to the Russian wikipedia, noting them as being from a dialect. For topic coverage, little or nothing conceptual will be lost if dialect words are not used. --Improv 09:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Support closing of this offensive project that threatens to bring the foundation to a disrepute. If it were an innocent attempt to promote something, I would have tolerated it. What has been made out of it is the hate-speech site full of ethnic slurs, obscenities, original research and propaganda. One article translates Shakespeare's Hamlet with the translator putting the words like "motherfucker" into the mouth of the greatest poet of all. Article about Pushkin calls his main hero as someone "who has nothing to do and fucks around left and right". This "Wikipedia" includes the Zolotaryov's "poetry" with death threats addressed to different ethnicities, pictures with extreme ethnic jokes, etc. Zolotaryov can publish his amateur exercises in poetry at pay sites. He can also hire a provider to host his xenophobic views. Ku-Klux-Klan does not have a Wikipedia. Neither should other xenophobes. I am skeptical about this vote's being hijacked by socks and flash-mobs but I am leaving my opinion for the record. Since when is the foundation willing to be associated with the web-sites that promote nothing but ethnic hatred and obscenity? --Irpen 03:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote authorized here against sockpuppetry --Irpen 19:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It was already proven in the discsussion, that all this hate-speech site full of ethnic slurs, obscenities, original research and propaganda - only fantasies of the accusators. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Zolotaryov's claims of innocense are false. Examples follow.
    • Obsenity:
      • "Fuckoff the Muscovites", an edit summary by the very user above, Zolotaryov himself, a so called "admin".
      • "Motherfucker, says Marcellus from Hamlet written by Shakespeare (Zolotaryov's translation).
      • Pushkin article calls Onegin "a noble who has nothing to do so he screws the chicks around him."
    • Hate speech:
      • this image, with a poster: "Thank you god, that I'm not a Muscovite"
      • This "poem" by the very Zolotaryov above graciously entitles the "Muscovite Scum".
      • This "poem" also by Zolotaryov himself, saying: "from Ural to Chukchi all the land will be ours and lest the death meets the rest" and also "We will cover out path with corpses".
    Need I say more? Wikimedia's sites hosting obscenities, hate speach and even death threats are bound to undemine the reputation of the foundation. --Irpen 07:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All this examples are based on misunderstanding or falsified. The obscenity to muscovite vandals maybe was error, but they vandalised the wiki about 10 days constantly. Marcellus do not say Motherfucker, you simply translate this incorrectly. All the same, the translations are 10% of wikipedia, and now there are big discssion in wikipedia itself, maybe exclude them from the wiki. You can improve the Pushkin article if you want. Poster is only example and illustration, but not article. The poem is only example and it is now under AFD discussion. The next verse is also only example. Ok, if we will delete the 30 verses, will the antisibwiki crowd disapear? I doubt, the verses is only pretext for them. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All these examples (and many others, quoted above) antagonize and offend Jews, Ukrainians, Russians and people of other ethnicities, living in Siberia and other places. You should not be allowed to continue spreading your hatred, antisemitism and rusophobia through Wikipedia. This is not what Wikipedia is for. --w:ru:Участник:Новый
    Marcellus does say vulgarities in what the "Siberian wikipedia" purports to present as a translation of Act I, Scene I from The Tragedy of Hamlet ... by W.Shakespeare: Act_I_Scene_I. Eg. the original line by Marcellus reading "Peace! break thee off! Look where it comes again!" is translated by Zolotaryov & Ko as "Ебьона мать, опеть припьорся дык!". The latter literally means "Fucking [fucked] mother, [it] came again". Obviously, such "translation" is useless. It only serves to provoke, antagonize and offend. Same can be said about other "translations" in the "Siberian wikipedia" - see more examples above. --w:ru:Участник:Новый
    Your translation does not take into account that "dyk" cannot be used to connect a swear and a normal sentence. I would suggest the translation "Fuck your mother, there is the dick again." --Paul Pieniezny 11:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    hahaha- firstly you have used russian language for finding there "obscenities", but now you use even english to make your paranoia complete!)))))))))) What about Chinese. maybe using Chinese language you will find even more bad words which are similiar to some bad Chinese words))))))) You a the funniest from the crowd, Pan Pieniezny))))--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing of it, we have a lot of Jews, Russians, Ukrainians and others in the wiki. All the "obsenities" are your fantasies. You just want to close it because of your political anti-democratic position, inventing obscenities and offences. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support While ru-sib has created some Belarusian articles, based on what I have seen at EN, but even then, something isn't right about it. Wikipedia should not be the testing ground for conlangs, let alone new languages. Zscout370 23:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support To all baove, the name of the language is false: indigenious population of Siberia is not Russians, and Siberian language is not Russian. there are Finnic, Turkic, Altaic and other peoples, and now Zolotaryov finalizes the colonization in language, too. Mukadderat 00:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC) [ diff http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMukadderat&diff=90158874&oldid=88135202] to home wiki.[reply]
    Sıbır Türkleri Sıbır oturduğu başka halklarla hem ilişki hem de işbirliği kurmak istiyorlar, bu işbirliğini Gaspiralı bile istemiş. --Nefis 11:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Bundan başka, Siberian language is not Russian. This is Russians who say about Siberian "russian dialect". Actually this is Ukrainian and Pomor languages mixed with Turk and Altaic languages of Siberia. Turkic roots are about 20-25% in Siberian language. It is impossible to get free from colonialism without unity of all nations of Siberia, where Turkis now have 5-10% of population. Işte böyle. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support OR. Obvious, encyclopedia dramatica level trolling, specifically material that will be intentionally offensive to Russians, while it can be claimed to admins that Russians don't understand as "it's a dialect." Self-aggrandisement regarding a personal project. Wierd and inappropriate political overtones. Utterly lacking potential as an wikipedia. Dsol 10:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually all acusations about "politics" and "obscenity" are about 15-20 articles, and links to them are repeated constantly by accusation part. So definitely even they are for deletion, it is irrelevent to wikipedia itself. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Try responding to the comments I actually wrote. Dsol 11:16, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I respond to them. They characterize situation "in general", while the factual base are these 10-15 doubtful articles, repeated from discussion to discussion, while they are about 0,2% of the wiki --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What Dsol meant was, respond to ALL of the points of his argument, not just your interpretation of ONE of them. Kazak 23:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support! Antikon 10:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC) (ru:User:Antikon)[reply]
    User's first and only edit. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Account confirmation diff added by --DmRodionov 12:57, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support, per nom. --BACbKA 12:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's first and only edit. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a sockpuppet (confirmed: diff), and this is not my first and only edit. Read my user page for more. --BACbKA 19:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strongly support closure per nomination. This "language project" (as even Zolotaryov agrees that this so-called "language" was developed by himself in 2005, many opposers who talk about "siberian nation" and it's "native language" simply misunderstand the situation) simply isn't notable. I have nothing against various dialects and languages which are in use in Russia, and I have nothing against valuable and notable language projects too. But this so-called 'siberian language' isn't neither notable nor natural. There is no person in the whole world who could use this "Siberian Wikipedia" as a source of encyclopedic information. Has Wikimedia Foundation any need to host such a project which consists only of 1) Zolotaryov's poems written in abusive slang 2) machine-made translations - nothing more than Pig Latin 3) articles full of russophobia 4) bot-uploaded stubs? I doubt. Edward Chernenko 14:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Where have you seen the machine-made translations, I wonder?))) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As a highly qualified programmer I know that it's not problem to convert the words by your quite simple 'rules' which describe how to change russian text to make it siberian text. You work as a bot yourself just because you're unable to write it. Edward Chernenko 11:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    haha, maybe the funniest from russian dreams about sibwiki)))))--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Account confirmation: [37]. Edward Chernenko 18:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support-Greenvert 15:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)-[38]-I hereby confirm that the vote is mine.-Greenvert 07:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. SupportSvetko 16:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC) (look here for confirmation of my voteSvetko 14:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  71. Support. The "Siberian wiki" is definitely a promo action of this original project. There are no native speakers, there is neither large group of researchers. The wiki itself is just a plain POV-pushing tool, and its organisers use POV-pushing techniques everywhere as well. Sometimes successfully (like it was when the wiki was opened), sometimes not (when the deceitful "Siberian language" article was removed). Hopefully, this time they won't succeed. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 18:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Identity confirmation. (If my Meta-contributions is not enough :-) ) Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 14:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually everybody can be accused in Pov-pushing, so this is no argument at all. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support — --Denis Sacharnych 18:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's first and only edit. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It is lie. See also w:ru:User:Denis Sacharnych and w:udm:User:Denis. This user - Bureaucrat and SysOp in the Udmurt wikipedia. --Kaganer 20:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I am. My signature you can see here is real. See also:
    * udm
    * ru
    --Denis Sacharnych 15:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support --Valodzkaconfirm, see comment 23:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support per above, especially argument 1 and this. en:Ev proof - Ev 02:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support — I explained my vote in #Support arguments section. Nikola 02:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I have answered in the same section. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote authorised. Nikola 14:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support per above, especially argument 1. -Lone Guardian 05:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC) confirmation vote Lone Guardian 04:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support, The existence such Wikipedia is simply immoral.It is necessary, therefore to close in a near future!Also this section Wikipedia is created in obvious false language. The concept the Siberian language does not exist!--Юлия Таллирдиева 11:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's first and only edit. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Look my personal page and contribution in Russian Wiki.--Юлия Таллирдиева 07:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Look it!--Юлия Таллирдиева 07:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. VanHelsing.16 12:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC) (confirmation)[reply]
  79. Support per nomination. -- Esp2 18:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC) Confirmed. -- Esp2 15:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support What worries me is an attitude of sibwikians: their behavior that of a cornered wolf: instead of addressing criticism and promising to address the pointed problems, most responses boil down to "you all who vote to close are either idiots or russian chauvinists". Also, judging from their last 500 new pages it seems that this is a personal 'pedia of 3-4 persons, so hardly wasting of community resources is warranted.
    Also, looks like some of their major contribs genuinely don't understand the problem of "original research", as shown in the following text:
    А если кого-то смущает, что статья неэнциклопедична, то я ведь могу и настоящую статью написать, с лингвистическим и филологическим анализом данного стихотворения и с подробными комментариями (в нейтральном стиле). Сделать? <Zolotaryov>
    About "moskalska svoloch" ("muscovite scum") article; summary: "if someone is bothered that the article is nonencyclopedic, I may write a real one"
    Notice also it is written (in talk page) in standard Russian :-) Ilqram 19:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    We think, that the article is notable for sibwiki, because it is about the verse originally written in siberian language. And because the verse was already published outside the wiki, this is not OR. All the same, this discussion is for sibwiki AFD discussion, but not for this voting. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - Agree with most arguments presented here and reading the content. The project appears to be a one man platform for expressing an intolerant political agenda. --Yurik 09:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's first and only edit. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Apparently Yaroslav has problems counting: meta, en, plus over 3 million bot-edits across all wikies (see YurikBot). Even this weak attempt to discredit my vote supports my claim. --Yurik 20:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - I can't understand why ru-sib must exist. --Movses 11:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC) (diff)[reply]
    Again two votes from russians. What does this voting reveal? We know that there are many Russians in the world even without this voting))) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That I'm Russian it's your fantasy. I'm not Russian. --Movses 11:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    But you are from ruwiki. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, my main contribution (around one thousand edits) in ukrainian wiki. In ruwiki I have around one hundred edits. --Movses 11:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Hm. But Yaroslav, your native language is Russian and you edited some articles in ruwiki too. Does that mean that you're Russian? Or you belong to some mystical "siberian nation"? :-) Edward Chernenko 13:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's first and only edit. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    On meta ? Yes, but in other wiki I have more than thousand edits. See above. --Movses 11:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support as per nomination. Olessi 21:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC) (WP:EN)[reply]
    authorization diff - authorisation in the signature of user.--Nikolay Kolpakov 17:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support per all above. —dima/s-ko/ 22:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC) (authorization diff)[reply]
  85. Support per nom. The language simply is not well-known enough (or debatably even existent), nor is the wiki active enough to warrant keeping. AmiDaniel 07:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC) - authorization on enwiki.[reply]
    the wiki is more active than the majority of wikipedias - +10/+15 articles a day, and living community. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That statistic may, however, be quite misleading. When I hit Special:Random, I retrieve primarily page such as this, which, though I don't speak Serbian, appears to me as though the vast majority of articles on the site are generic, template-based articles on years. While it is surely more active than some other wikis, its slight degree in activity over other wikis does not allow us to turn a blind eye to the fact that the language is not a "real" language. (For instance, the exceptional level of activity on the Simple English Wikipedia justifies keeping it, although the language is, well, not really a language of its own.) I'm sorry, but I find the many arguments in support of closure far more convincing than the 10-15 "articles" being created each day. (As another note, all of the 6,760 articles on the wiki have been created by only 70 users, with an average of 3.16 edits per page .. that's not activity.) AmiDaniel 04:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. I am of Russian and Ukrainian descent. I am very upset that so many good Ukrainian wikipedia users get involved by Mr. Zolotaryov's use of their bad feelings about Russians to fuel his absurd project. OckhamTheFox 09:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Vote authorized here.Support rusib is just a waste of time. imagine how would it be with australian, canadian, american wikis ro:Ilie.--Ilie Moromete 10:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Agree.. 86.192.255.226 13:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Get an account, or interwiki to your userpage--Kuban kazak 14:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. I do not speak Russian, but I am a linguist, and I am satisfied by the arguments presented above. Siberia covers such a vast area that I'm skeptical that there is a single Russian dialect, let alone one which is standardized. And leaving aside linguistic issues, it appears that this wiki is being used to advance a political agenda. If Siberian contributors feel that their political views are not being adequately represented on the Russian Wikipedia, then this is an issue to tackle within the Russian Wikipedia itself, not outside it. [vote confirmation]Psychonaut 13:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support I don't know about Russian or Siberian. I'm more confortable on the romance area. But as far as I have been able to read the discussion, pro-siberian-wiki users have not been able to name a single paper, book or dictonary outside the internet that justifies the existence of the language. This makes the whole thing original research and against wiki policies. Ecelan 19:26, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support closure. Initially, I was indifferent to the situation with this language, although it was apparently obvious fake. I knew about the votes and thought I'd rather be neutral and not interfere. But somehow I had got to read all this discussion and glanced at quite a number of ru-sib articles... Whew, the only impression I have now is that there is nothing more but political propaganda and apery. I'm inclined to agree with Irpen's argumentation now, sorry, folks. --Maksym 23:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Authentication diff added by Irpen. 18:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Strong support. I think anyone with sound way of thinking is able to see that this wiki is pure blatant violation of wikipedia spirit, goals and rules. link to authentication diff on my home wiki. AstroNomer-ru 23:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost no contributions in ruwiki, the account was dead from the last year, and no for some reasons "revived" just in voting time=> possible puppet. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 20:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Outrageous claim, particularly as it is made by someone who at LiveJournal explained his followers how to take an account with Meta.wikimedia well after the vote had started. Have a look at Astronomer's last 500 (!) contributions: [39]. He was absent from November 23rd 2005 until September 23rd 2006 - so the user re-appeared well before the vote here.--Paul Pieniezny 09:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Even russian admin Maximaximax acknoledges that this is possible sockpupput of MountainBlue Allah - see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/elections_2006-2, MaxSem section --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support per nomination. vote confirmationw:ru:User:Neko 00:42, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  93. Siberian language is not real language. This language khow only it founders. I live in Sebiria and was not hear about this language. --BelomoeFF 11:32, 19 November 2006 (GMT+5). Authentication diff added by Irpen. 18:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support closure per above. APL 09:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC) authentication diff[reply]
  95. Support. Nonexistent language, as is the so-called "Moldovan language" Greier 19:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support This encyclopedia is almost as much of a joke as th Moldovan one. TSO1D 23:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. Nonexistent language --Glaue2dk Authentication of User in Ru-Wiki10:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support per Boleslav1, Maximaximax, Kuban kazak, and others. SibWiki is a severe violation of NOR and NPOV policies and must be closed. Alexei Kouprianov 10:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC) My vote is confirmed here, on my RuWiki talk page. Alexei Kouprianov 10:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support --B1mbo 16:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC) - Vote authorized here.[reply]
  100. Support. I would stay neutral, if it was a pure linguistic project, but it serves as a primitive propaganda platform in which 80% of information condradicts to worldwide accepted historical facts. Nobody needs such an artificial project, close it down.[vote confirmation] -- Voevoda 14:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, so what sentence is correct - 1) 99% of sibwiki are year stubs or b) 80% of sibwiki is OR?))) This is contradiction)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess the following sentence is correct: 80% of non-stubs in Sibwiki are bullshit. Voevoda 21:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support "Siberian language" is a disgusting fake. -- Vote confirmation: here --Kkrylov 23:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support - FrancisTyers 18:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Authentication here (I think)[reply]
  103. Support. this lang is quasi-language and ru-sib.wiki greated for attackes some nation --exlex 22:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC) confirmation vote --exlex 23:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. confirmation vote Иваныч 00:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support closure per above. Аuthentication diff Ace^eVg 21:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. Closure per Irpen. Wikism 12:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC) Authentication diff added by Irpen. 18:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support closure per above. Authentication diff. Ilyadok 18:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support closure per above. "SibLang" is a protracted joke. Authentication diff. StasFomin 19:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support closure: the arguments to keep ru-sib wiki aren't good enough (vote confirmation, diff). --DIG 02:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. (authentication) Shattered 09:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support closure. (authentication) Kusma 11:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support closureauthentification. Agathoclea 12:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support closure. Authentification User:SFelix
  114. Support closure. Authentification --Dmitri Lytov 06:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support closure per above. (authentication) MarkV 08:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support closure. (authentication) - Introvert 23:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment, I know I am going to be harsh on this and I know I'm joining in late and there's been enough said already, but this is how I feel about the issue.
    This "siberian language" wiki project has nothing to do with encyclopaedia. It is nothing more than an unhealthy prank, a frivolous exercise of those having too much time on their hands, foul play which has nothing to do with humanistic ideas, with sharing true knowledge, with education. The people who engage in such activity confuse permissiveness for openness, dissolution for diversity of opinions, laxity for freedom.
    The enterprise like this, the mere attitude like this is an abuse, an insult to all serious participants of the project, both active and potential.
    It drives serious contributors away from wikipedia -- I am talking about people of great skill and knowledge who also do have the energy and desire to contribute to wikipedia. Yet not only I am seeing such people staying away from even starting working on wikipedia, way too often. I am, sadly, seeing people with their great desire to share the often unique, invaluable information in their possession, people who's already had contributed thousands or tens of thousands of edits, sometimes making significant sacrifices to their personal lives and careers -- I am seeing such people leaving the project out of deep frustration and sheer disappointment at such like activities.
    This tendency alone can lower the reputability of wikipedia as an accurate and credible resource beyond repair. Wikipedia shall be protected rigorously from such unworthy activity.
    That said, I want to recognize who engage in this unhealthy project as often creative and talented and energetic people who may have temporarily lost the clarity of their way. I would want to welcome them to wikipedia -- but not until they've had their attitude changed, not until they will have stopped abusing wikipedia, stopped misusing it for some personal goals which do not go along, which defeat the purpose of the encyclopaedia. - Introvert 23:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    New vote from ruwiki, full of fantasies. Who really has quit wikipedia because of Siberian? Who would remember about siberian wiki with 10 contributors, unless those russian hysteria in the votings? I guess nobody))) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 00:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, for what it's worth, I work on the Russian wikipedia (perhaps on a par with en-wiki), and I relate to the past events on the English wikipedia. And how does any of this make a difference in regard to my vote? I am certainly very far from giving this stuff enough weight to suggest that the people have left the project because of siberian. What I am saying, is that this whole activity falls under the detestable kind that is damaging to wikipedia and therefore it should be culled the soonest. Hard to believe in good intentions, sorry. - Introvert 04:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    "It drives serious contributors away from wikipedia" this is definetely your words, and they are wrong, because nobody was driven away because of siberian. As to words "the people who engage in such activity confuse permissiveness for openness, dissolution for diversity of opinions, laxity for freedom", - they do not correspond with your own behaviour - actually you are a Russian, who participate in ethnical flashmob for closure wikipedia in a language similiar to Russian, just because your mob does not want any openess to us, your mob does not want diversity of opinions and because of this organises POV discussions and accusations, your mob does not like freedom, and invent accussations from nothing. Definitely this is against freedom to close a wikipedia because there is something strange for Russians in the wiki. So it is not only hard to believe good intentions, but I see direct hypocrisity in your words. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support closure. This Wikipedia should not have been created in the first place. --Ru.spider 14:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Authentication diff in ru wiki --Ru.spider 14:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support closure. Unlike flashmobbers from Romania, I was born and still live in Siberia, thus being one of the supposed millions of speakers. Three words: no such language. In any form. Sorry for voting late: this page is always protected.
    Feathered Serpent 08:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC) (en:User:Feathered Serpent in English Wikipedia, ru:User:Пернатый Змей in Russian Wikipedia.)[reply]
    Authentication diff in ru-wiki, Authentication diff in en-wiki
  119. Support closure. I was shocked (and I still am) that such nonsensical project was created in the first place. (authorization) --Oscar 6 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support closure. I guess, Syberian artificial language fans have the right to play with it. But they should not use Wikipedia as a free of charge hosting. (authorization) Xyctka 13:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Strongly Support closure. Please see the authorization here. I was born in the Russian Far East, was raised and lived most of my life in the Siberian city of Barnaul, and I traveled to quite a few places throughout Siberia, western and eastern parts, and spent quite a lot of time doing this, and NEVER encountered this langauge. It's a purely artificial language, and this is easy to proof through a simple online research. I was in the beginning excited about this new language as a nice scientific entertainment project, however, here are the primary reasons for me to support the closure of the r-sib WIkipedia section:
    • this turns out to be purely an OR, a project largely pedaled by a single individual (Yaroslav Zolotaryov), with a support of a handful of followers;
    • the majority of articles are BLANK stubs about years, try a random article: http://ru-sib.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random – this is a fraudulent way to artificially inflate the number of articles;
    • violation of the NPOV principle: most articles that are not blank serve as an avenue for the project initiator’s Moscal-phobic views, such as Москальска сволочь. The language developer’s claims on what he means by the term ‘Moscals’ are contradictory in different occurrences, but the dry remainder seems to be this is a derogatory way to call any Russian-speaking person who doesn’t like the developer’s views on the current state of the "Siberian" Wikipedia. It is often used in conjunction with the words 'fascist', 'chauvinist' etc. The word Moscal is a derogatory word for Russians in the Ukrainian and Belorussian languages, and it is percepted derogatory by Russians – so it cannot be non-derogatory in the Siberian language that derives from the above mentioned Slavonic languages.
    • Zolotaryov doesn’t seem to avoid using this M** word to call his opponents in the discussion on this page, which serves as an example of his general negative attitude.
    • the vocabulary of the "Siberian" language is full of words that are obscene in the East Slavonic languages. They are widely used in the classics translations into the "Siberian", such as Hamlet and Evgeny Onegin. The developer claims these words are not obscene in the language he developed, but the origin of the "Siberian" language makes this claim inadequate.
    • the attitude of Zolotaryov and his followers at the ru-sib Wikipedia main discussion page about this problem is, again, very hysteric, please see О ситуации на Мете, О войне, Москали сочиняют новые правила для голосования практически на ходу etc. Ironically, the discussions regarding the ru-sib Wiki situation among its supporters on the pages above are all in Russian, which leaves no room for misinterpretation of the meanings.
    • While I still consider the "Siberian" langauge a legitimate hobby for its creators, Wikipedia is not the right place for such projects. --BeautifulFlying 20:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support closure. Remaining of "Siberian Wikipedia" in the present state harms to Wikipedia's image and is intolerable. At least the current project administration is unable (and evidently unwilling) to enforce NPOV and factual accuracy (as any other accuracy) regardless of linguistical questions! This administration should be dismissed as soon as possible, as incompatible and possibly even hostile to fundamental Wikipedia goals. See my arguments (many factual data), also serving as my authentication. Incnis Mrsi 00:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    All the 10 new votes above have came from ruwiki because of constantly political propaganda in ruwiki against us, the "arguments" are repitition of lie already refuted by us in this voting. It is ridiculous how russian opposers, being totally politicized, accuse sib-wiki in politization --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    My own political views are irrelevant, and are far from Muscovite chauvinism. I also is not responsible for another Russians' conductship here, but here is almost no chauvinism expressed IMHO. I only demand to stop a politicized project, not because it is opposing my own views, but because I consider Wikipedia an inappropriate place for any separatist propaganda. Had your a correct Russian Federation's map, I probably should even not interfere at all. Incnis Mrsi 15:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    hahaha, a fine reason for closure of wikipedias - every wikipedia which does not have Russian Federation map should be closed))) because it is anti-russian politicized wiki)))))))) you are ridiculous. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Mr, Zolotaryov, does the Siberian state(=держава) exist at this time de jure or de facto? Incnis Mrsi 18:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Just this question shows how politicized mind you have. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear YaroslavZolotaryov, I haven't seen any propaganda in the Russian Wikipedia. I found your project by accident, I got excited about it at first (as I said above), then I got extremely disappointed after reading the articles in ru-sib Wikipedia. I found out about this voting through discussion pages at ru-sib Wikipedia, and I your behavior on this page was the last straw that encouraged me to make my voting decision. I will appreciate it if you please refrain from your further Russo-phobic assumption. Thank you. --BeautifulFlying 19:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I can show 5-7 diffs with direct propaganda and vote-stacking in ruwiki, probably there are more, I did not explore. Since you support the direct and obvious lie which we have already refuted, please refrain from further Siberian-language-phobic assuptions more))) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you admit that your allegations about "constantly political propaganda" actually mean "5-7 diffs"? Or, probably, as many as 10 diffs? --Yms 19:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To YaroslavZolotaryov: Whatever. I didn't see any propaganda in the Russian Wikipedia, and I'm not interested in looking for it. Your side IS using propaganda, and if your opponents are using propaganda - that's fine with me. I don't have phobia of "Siberian" language as such, but I'm feeling disappointed with the current content of the "Siberian" Wikipedia, and with the attitude of its proponents, and here I'm supporting my own view at the issue. I don't find your arguments and your attitude on this page or anywhere else convincing or constructive, so you have lost a potential supporter. --BeautifulFlying 19:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support closure. (authentication) --the wrong man 08:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Strong Support. Siberian language is fictional. --AndyTerry 17:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC) - authentification --AndyTerry 17:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support closure. I've never heard of an siberian language. My siberian friends told me that there are some siberian dialects, but not a language. Wikipedia is not the right place to spread Zolotaryov's invention. (authentication) --Obersachse 10:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Strong Support. 'Siberian' is not a language, it's provocation. --Azh7 11:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Auth: [40].[reply]
  127. Strong Support per above. Nevermind 12:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Strong Support There is no such dialect. The "language" is entirely constructed.auth:[41]--Nxx 12:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support. The arguments have been comprehensively rehearsed. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and until the "Siberian language" (its purely linguistic merits, and the proponents' attitude, aside) gets more recognition, notably in the academic community, it has no place in Wikipedia on a par with actually existing languages or plain vanilla conlangs. Edricson 17:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Authentication diff[reply]
  130. Support per Edricson & above. --Mitrius 17:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Authentification diff.[reply]
  131. Strong Support. nejron 18:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Authentication diff 1, Authentication diff 2, Authentication diff 3.[reply]
  132. Support (auth). --Vladimir Volokhonsky 05:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support Gilgamesh 08:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support per Kneiphof and others. (auth)--FHen 16:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support per Kneiphof and others. (auth)--Hayk 16:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Strong Support Less than original research, I suspect this borders with a hoax. Odedee 03:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Here's my authentication diff in HE WP. Odedee 03:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support -- if the en: article was deleted, why is the wikipedia alive (heck, how it got created in the first place)? (auth) Duja 15:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support --Maqs 21:08, 21 December 2006 (UTC) (auth).[reply]
  139. Support Nothing to add to the arguments given above. Xyboi 12:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC) (auth.)[reply]
  140. Support (Auth.)--Erwin85 14:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support authentification diff. Serguei S. Dukachev 17:27, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support authentification--Aldux 21:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support closing the Siberian wiki authentification diff. --Jaro.p 17:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support (auth. diff) - VasilievVV 21:10, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support. There is no siberian language. Vinograd19 talk (auth. diff)
  146. Support We don't have Wikipedias for individual dialects, and this is not even a legitimate Russian dialect. It's an obscure artificial dialect spoken by almost no one (and spoken natively by no one). As established above, not a single book has been published in this so-called "language." This Wikipedia's creation (under suspicious circumstances) was spearheaded on behalf of the "Siberian language movement" by the self-proclaimed codifier thereof. I agree with Odedee that this borders on an outright hoax. At best, it's an outrageous abuse of Wikimedia resources and an embarrassment to the Foundation and its supporters. (authentication) —David Levy 17:01, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support. Nothing more can be said. (auth). MaxSem 17:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support All arguments were described. (Auth) GreLI 16:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support Given small target audience for project - it can be possible for interested parties to host it on their own resources and promote it without 10000's of interlinks on Wikipedia articles. (Auth) --TAG.Odessa 04:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support. (auth) I doubt this artifical language have gained enough popularity to keep even an article covering it on Wikipedia, not to mention giving it's creators a personal Wiki-sandbox to play with. -- Himself 18:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Auth ST47 19:17, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support. I do completely and ultimately support closure of the "Siberian" Wikipedia. Tholomeo (Authorization) 21:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support --Johannes Rohr 23:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC) (Auth Auth II) Revoking my earlier vote. Whatever reservations I may have about this project, I find some of the hysteria seen here completely inappropriate.--Johannes Rohr 18:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC) Leaving my former statement here, for reasons of transparency: Despite deep sympathy for everything Siberian. The number of speakers given by Yaroslav of North Russian dialects that he attempts to codify lacks any credibility. The vast majority of the current population of Siberia & the Russian Far East are relative newcomers, that arrived with the boom of the extractive industries, most notably oil industry. So, e.g. in Western Siberia, Khanty-Mansi Autonomous okrug, of the roughly two million inhabitants, some 2 percent are indigenous Khanty and Mansi, some 95+ percent are people referred to by the indigenous as neftyaniki, i.e. people who came to Siberia with the oil industry, many from the Caucasus, Tatarstan or Bashkortostan. This speak standard Russian, plus their eventual native language (Tatar, Baskhir, Azeri etc.). There is reportedly also a small number of "starozhily" who descend from Russian old-settlers. Maybe some of them have preserved the dialects that Yaroslav has built his "Siberian language" upon. I don't know. However, in either case, these Sibiryaki make up no more than a tiny percentage of Siberia's current population. 20 million is by no means a reasonable estimate. This combined with many other factors make me conclude that this is not only original research but highly inaccurate original research. Sorry again. The Siberian oblastnichestvo or regionalism remains a deeply fascinating historical subject, just as the Northern Russian dialects. I would certainly welcome a Wikipedia edition in Northern Russian/Siberian dialects, not least because the Russian language has remarkably few dialects and the Northern one is likely threatened by extinction. We also have a plethora of Wikipedias in German dialects, and absolutely no-one would see this as a sign of "separatism". However, this potential Wikipedia should be called something lik "Northern Russian" or "Pomor" rather than "Siberian". Siberia has many languages. The clearly dominant one is standard Russian. As a wild guess, I would say that Sakha or Buryat are likely to have more speakers than the North Russian dialect/language/whateveryoucallit.[reply]
    We consider native speaker anybody who is descendant of Northern dialect speaker, despite of is he russified or not. And second name of this wiki is just North Russian (the full name is North Russian|Siberian), actually we have only one siberian writer in the wiki, but the majority of others are Northern Russians. Pomor language has no only 3000 thousand words, and 5-7 texts, Pomor have the same bad relations with Muscovite Russians like Siberians, so I see no reason for a separate Pomot wikipedia - the Siberian (Northern Russian) wiki is both Pomor and Siberian and Northern Russian wikipedia. Actually we think that both Pomor and Siberian are dialects of one Northern Russian language which should be restored. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting Yaroslav Zolotaryov: We consider native speaker anybody who is descendant of Northern dialect speaker, despite of is he russified or not.
    Mind you, you cannot count someone as a native speaker of a language that he/she does not speak. Descent and language are two different cups of tea. --Johannes Rohr 20:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because you yourself speak that the Northern language is "threatened by extinction", so in this request I mentioned all the people who should speak him, including russified ones. Imagine situation when Germany is for 300 years occupied by England and only some Germans in rural areas remember German words but majority of Germans speak English - is English native language of those englishfied Germans? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Quoting from en:First language: A first language, native language, or mother tongue is the first language that a person learned. According to this definition, as well as to my understanding, you simply cannot be native speaker of a language that you don't speak. (It's called native speaker for a reason.) If I would go 300 years back in history and see what languages my ancestors spoke, I will find a whole variety. According to your definition, I would be a native speaker of (now near-extinct) Silesian German, of Sorbian plus probably ancient baltic Prussian (extinct). I cannot call that anything but ridiculous.--Johannes Rohr 14:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support Unbelievable that we even have this discussion. What a waste of WikiMedia resources! Futurix 13:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC) (Authorization)[reply]
  154. Support (Auths from my acc.s: commons it en ru) Wikimedia foundation makes a bloody IDIOTISM by deciding these things by voting. A vote of an unknown person from the crowd means nothing. Wikimedia could have called/emailed/faxed any linguistic institution/university in Siberia and in Russia and listen to the opinion of trustworthy specialists if there is any so called "siberian language". For example, Tomsk State University (the same city where Zolotaryov lives). Instead, we saw here (when they voted opening the secion) a "democratic" procedure. If democracy had to decide on Galilleo's question, that time the crowd would have voted "the Earth is flat and the sun goes around it". As a result, here we saw a fraud and a flash-mob voting. Shame on Wikimedia foundation. Siberiano 20:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support. It's fine if it's a legitimate dialect with actual published resources, but this is someone's pet project and personal soapbox and it brings the hardworking folks at the Wikimedia Foundation into disrepute. Grandmasterka 03:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC) (Authentication) Grandmasterka 03:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Let them do not disrepute themselves. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support. Wikimedia is not the place for this. Nowhere remotely near enough evidence has been shown that this dialect/dialect group is legitimately different. Hopefully someone can sort through all the mess here and decide based on the evidence, not sockpuppettry. (Authentication). - Taxman 04:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    en:Northern Russian Dialects. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:38, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Does not exist. --Johannes Rohr 08:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, yes, en:Northern Russian dialects. The full name, under which the wiki was requested, was "Northern Russian/Siberian". In the main page you can see message "both Pomor and Siberian languages/dialects" are allowed. Actually some writers in ru-sib wiki write in european northern-russian style, some writers in siberian, so argument about "invented language" is senceless - this is just Northern Russian wikipedia with allowed diversity. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 08:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support. No POV forks, including this one. (authentication) Angr 08:47, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support auth--Ilya K 20:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support, the whole "language" seems to be the work of a small group. authentication Consciousen: 19:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support. Linguistically dubious, but above all, unencyclopedic in content. Personal soapbox project of a very small group, too little genuine interest in real encyclopedia building; some instances of blatantly unencylopedic content demonstrate lack of commitment to Wikipedia ideals. Future Perfect at Sunrise 10:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC) - authentification[reply]
  161. Support - Its language is merely a dialect of Russian language. further more Dialects of Wikipedia edition are mostly have distinct difference from Its standard language and has a proper name. but in case of this language, It does not have any distinct difference from its standard language nor have a proper name. so I support strongly this proposal. -- Alpha for knowledge (Talk / Contributions) 00:23, 27 January 2007 (UTC) confirmation diff on enwiki[reply]
    While this project undoubteldy has flaws, saying that the Northern dialect wasn't distinct simply doesn't hold water. While I never actually heard anyone speaking it (it may be alive only in some extremely remote villages), what I remember from linguistic classes at university is, that it has a number of unique traits. One could even say, that it is probably the only truely distinct dialect in contemporary Russian. Take for instances the definite article, which is postfixed to the noun. The Russian language, like almost all other Slavic languages, does not have any articles. The only exceptions are Bulgarian/Macedonian. But while Bulgarian has articles, it has completely lost declension of nouns and adjectives. So the only slavic idiom in which articles and declension coexist is the Russian Northern dialect. Further I remember that there were some grammatical constructions, which are completely alien to standard Russian (and sound quite funny, in fact). Sorry for being unable to quote. I finished university 9 years ago and I don't remember where exactly I read that. There are other phonetic features, which seem quite distinct to me, as the presevation of East Slavic forms, which have been replaced by their South slavic / church slavonic equivalents in standard Russian. E.g. "ужо" instead of "уже". The former is, btw., used in 19th century Russian literally to mark a character as a uneducated rural person. --Johannes Rohr 20:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because the language in sibwiki is cleaned up from Church Slavonic, it has 50-70% of differences from so called standard Russian (which actually is completely non-Russian language of artificial origin). Differences from Ukrainian are about 30%. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support. Some guys have contrived a language and promote it using Wikipedia. Free Wikipedia from stuff like that! Sergei 22:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote authorized here against sockpuppetry Sergei 22:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Symbol support vote.svg Support No strongly supportive evidence that it is a distinct language. (I propose a simpler one time authentication method of linking from our user page at a project to our user page on meta.) --Pmsyyz 01:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support. Like there is no cabal, there is no "Siberian language". And Russian Wikipedia excists already. Never, ever have I heard of Siberian language, well, until this. --Roosa (Talk) 11:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Strong Support. Constructed language, POV, anti-Russian texts. What else? --Dstary 01:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Authorization--Dstary 02:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support strongly. Unlike most (if not all) the people from the opposing camp, I was actually born in Siberia and spend most of my life there. And I've never encountered this travesty of a language prior to seeing it here. Siberia is ethnically diverse. Aside from Russians, there are Ukrainians, Belarussians, Kazakhs, Tatars, Germans, Estonians, etc. However, they all speak standard Russian in addition to whatever native language they posess. The pages on the so-called Siberian WP are full of disparaging and hateful rherotic. The article for Russia (Россея) refers to the country as the "empire of evil" and the "prison of peoples". Furthermore, according to it, vodka an herring are the main symbols of the Russian mentality. I will also point out that Zolotarev refers to people supporting the closure of this project as scum (мразь). And then, of course, there is this ridiculous notion that a (poorly) constructed language created by people with nothing better to do is notable enough to be recognized by WP. Not a single publication; not a single native speaker. The fact that this debate is still open is ludicrous.Close this profanity down already. Vote authorization. Óðinn 11:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support of course. I lived more than half of my life in Siberia. Went to a Ukraine-language kindergarten for a couple of years cause there were no places in others. I used to speak half Russian-half Ukranian after that for some time, LOL! My father had a Khanty friend, a real deer-owner and all that stuff. And I never ever heard of "Siberian language". It would be great to have one, but alas, there's none. And Wikipedia is not for creating languages - its for providing information to peoples already having their language. --CopperKettle 15:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC) diff[reply]
  168. Support. Say NO to nazi and facsism! [42] --Pauk 23:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support. Strongly oppose this project. Ingwar JR 10:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support closure of this "project" Нечего хренотой всякой заниматься. Kaliy 18:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support. Абсолютно искусственный проект абсолютно несуществующего, никем не используемого в реальной жизни языка, с грубейшими нарушениями законодательства--Sk-ru 19:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC) .authorization[reply]
  172. Support. (Authorization) putnik 15:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support per arguments #3, 4, 5, 8, 9. — D V S [?!], 16:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
    Vote authorized here against sockpuppetryD V S [?!], 16:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  174. Support Authorization --Dennis Myts (117) 08:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support Dark Magus 20:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support Authorization --Alexander Sokolov 12:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support. Wikimedia is not the place for children's games. authenticationAlma Pater 21:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support (authentification) Andrey Fedichkin 07:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support (authentification) for argument 7. A language which has just been created or is being created, a language which cannot be the only way for some two people to communicate (since anyone knowing Zolotaryov's language speaks Russian in fact) - such a language can have sections in Wiktionary or Wikisource, but not in Wikipedia. Enciclopaedias are made for spreading knowledge, not for linguistic exercises. Ilana 08:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support. (authentification) I guess Wikipedia is not the site for political experiments. It's possible to move "sib"-content to Wikia projects. --Egor 08:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support. Insignificant artificial language section used for promoting ideology of its creator (auth). --Fusanari Shimizu 12:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support. The sirs to close very long time ago are time you :) --Afinogenoff 05:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Vote Is authorized.--Afinogenoff 05:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support --Janneman 08:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC) (authentification)[reply]
  184. Support Like Ilana & Egor, see above. When will the voting be closed, finally? --SibFreak 12:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC) (Authentification)[reply]
  185. Support (authentification) Vir iv 08:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support Reason just db-nonsense (for auth, look at my profile) Leotsarev 23:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Strong Support. I have nothing against artificial languages itself, while it's kinda neutral experiment (e. g., esperanto or slovio), but siberian is not of this kind. The only project's aim is to offend "russian imperialists" in unpardonably rough form. Undisguised сoarse invective used to outrage any group has nothing to do with Wikipedia. uBaHoB 22:28, 16 May 2007 (UTC) P. S. I join to Ilana, Egor and SibFreak: when will this voting be closed? Half a year is enough, isn't it? How long this absurd could last? Do people deciding for or against this project after all Zolotarev's accusations and demagogy still think of to close this project or not?! I wouldn't believe in narrow-mindedness, or biliousness of those, who make a decision, but don't they really understand that every day of project existance is free advertisement for these separatists! Я ничего не имею против искуственных языков, если это нейтральные эксперименты (например, эсперанто или словио), но сибирский говор носит совершенно иной характер. Едиственная цель этого проекта — оскорбить «русских империалистов», причем в непростительно грубой форме. Неприкрытой ругани, ипользуемой для оскорбления любой группы людей нечего делать в Википедии. P. S. Присоединяюсь к Ilana, Egor и SibFreak: когда же это голосование будет закрыто? Полгода достаточно, разве нет? Как долго этот абсурд может продолжаться? Неужели люди, решающие судьбу проекта, после всех нападок со стороны Золотарева и его демагогии всё еще думают, закрывать проект или нет?! Не хотелось бы верить в недалекость или предвзятость людей, принимающих решение, но неужели они не понимают, что каждый день существования проекта — это бесплатная реклама для этих сепаратистов! (auth)[reply]
  188. Support, mainly for reasons #1, 2, 4, 5, 6. --Head 23:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support, for reasons 1, (strongly) 2, 5 (and Zolotaryov's own diatribes on this page against everyone who doesn't agree with him lend little credence to his project), and (strongly) 7-9 as one argument for closure: this wiki should be on Wikia, not Wikipedia. Note also that this is a wiki in a language deemed not notable enough for a page on the enwiki... Toki Pona, anyone? - (), 14:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC) (authentication)[reply]
  190. Strongly Support. A kind of artificial language, that have been created as a joke, and then was classicalized as a language indeed. Too much politic support of sib from the western ultras. - Zac allan 13:53, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Strongly Support, authentication Gdn 09:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Strongly Support Конст. Карасёв 15:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC) Vote ia autorized on my talk page[reply]
  193. Strongly Support authentification Lockal 10:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Strongly Support (authentication) --A. B. (talk) 02:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


By the way - does not that the ru-sib project qualify for [[[:w:en:Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion|Speedy Deletion]]] as an obvious hoax? Looks like in this case it is feasible to appeal to the board of trustees to finish that obscene circus off? Elephas 23:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose closing the Siberian wiki (108 votes, 96 signed, 63 authenticated))

Votes 1-30

  1. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC) This is ridicoulous, and this show only nationalistic views of the proposers. auth: [43][reply]
    Actually:
    1. Siberian language is well-known, we have more than 50 articles in online and offline media about it, there is offline newspaper in Tomsk in siberian language.
    2. As to POV discussions, let them discuss in siberian wiki - nobody of them never tried to make POV discussion in sibwiki according to Wikipedia rules. So, if russians will see something not similiar to their nationalistic and xenophobic POV in Tatar Wikipedia or in Chechen wikipedia, they will ask for it's deletion?)))
    3. Sibwiki has more then 50 users and about 10 active editors from them.
    4. Nobody cares whom you consider troll.
    5. If you do not understand Siberian language and think that some words are obscene, who is guilty? That's only your ignorance. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 01:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Well known? give me one university publication that proves it.
    2. There is no POV in Tatar and Chechen wikipedias as far as I am concerned. For two reasons, I do not understand Tatar or Chechen, and I could not care about what Tatars and Chechens write there. But both Tatar and Chechen languages are well known, and as such I had and never have any prejudice against them
    3. Are you complaining or showing off. 10 users that actively work...makes a good joke...--Kuban kazak 19:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. But that is more thaen in many other wikipedias. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Yes but those wikipedians write in languages that are scholarly recognised. And the rip off from Ukrainian anthem that you made is just rediculous, a parody and a spit in the face to many Ukrainians "Ешшо Сибирь-та не задохла". Вот именно, что ешшо, а значит рано или поздно вся эта ахинея накроеться медным тазом...--Kuban kazak 11:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Strong Oppose--148.233.159.58 09:34, 5 November 2006 (UTC)(unidentyfied insigned anonymous)[reply]
    1. This is not necessary, but they soon will be.
    2. Do you believe that you really understand siberian? This is different language, not Russian.
    3. That's true, check the statistics. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Please explain who are you referring to by "you".
    2. The point is, I think everybody here can understand that the nonsense that is written in there is ... well ... nonsense. Nothing ignorant. --Kuban kazak 19:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. And this is only your dream. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I sleep well at nights, and do not remember my dreams, thank you! It seems that you have quite a few nightmares on the other hand. Please don't go OT. --Kuban kazak 11:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Anton Kazmyarchuk. auth [44] by --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 22:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have claims to contents and you don't know the language, tell them on talk page. Article "Московіты" was brought to NPOV with the help of actual discussion. Article "Москальска сволочь" tells us about a poem called that way - it's clear, that young language needs to have all the poems in it collected in wikisource, but since *** oppose creating of siberian wikisource, it's kept in wikipedia (the template upfront the page tells everyone about this).
    If you think "Московіты" is abuse you have no right to use it as a reason to. Russian wikipedia has articles about "Хохлы", "Кацапы", but somewhy no one proposes closing it. In the article, there's just a describtion of concept, btw, and no abusive text.
    Who cares how do you feel like, when you read word "Московіты"? If it's an abuse in Russian, that doesn't mean it must be obscene or abusive word in Siberian. Remember, they are different languages. If someone from Belarus finds word "Weisrussisch" (or something like that) from German abusive that's not the reason to close de.wiki.
    I LIKE THAT GUY!!
    He directly says that
    all the poems of young language will kept in wikipedia (till there is no wikisource)
    that means he will use Sibwiki not like encyclopedia, but in his own purposals
    Who cares how do you feel like, when you read word "Московіты"?
    This means he don't cares about NPOV
    By the way ruwiki says that Хохол (жен. хохлушка, хохлячка) — русское пренебрежительное прозвище украинцев. And have not text like "Бладарю, Восподи, чо я не московит!" and "Обнакновенно слово "московит" корыстуют, кода бессудют чужеядсво Москвы к вобласям Россеи и Сибири." Carn ru 10:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[