User talk:AlexPU/Archive 3

Propagandistic vandalism in progress

People, I can't stand the behaviour of some of Russian (and Russia-biased) Wikifellows. The "behaviour" is the key, cause I don't deny they right to have their highly-erroneus views an present them correctly on WP. But I will renew my fight against the propaganda-driven vandal-like actions like undiscussed deletions and unforgiveable denials of common sense.

I'm going to list such uncooperative Wikipedians here. Feel free to edit and discuss the list.

And let's see are they brave enough to not delete themselves or each other from here.

• User:Ghirlandajo (hopefully, expelled as far as I found out today)
• User:Ezhiki (self-acclaimed, may be not)
• User:El fil (embattled by objective users over East Ukraine)
• User:Irpen --added myself just to spare the effort for the host of the disgusting attack page. --Irpen 23:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

See Wikipedia_talk:Polish_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Another_Black_Book --Yakudza 23:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

A comment on your list above. Polish editors being offended by many anti-Polish remarks on articles’ talk pages, decided once to create a page where they would be able to deal with the offending users. You may see it here 1. Unfortunately, despite their best intentions, few people on Wiki approved the idea, and the page went through two VfDs 1 2. The final result was certainly not the assumed one. Not only it didn’t solve anything, but also it backfires from time to time, like on this RfA 1.

During the many discussions we had held due to explain our view, many people suggested that problems with such problematic users should be solved with the use of the existing Wikipedia policy tools like RfC or ArbCom. And although that is exactly what Polish editors wanted to avoid, today, when I look back at the discussions, how much of our energy they took, and how little we achieved, I really think that the official tools would be the best idea. Some of the comments you oppose were posted on our board, and I can understand your frustration, however, the list is unlikely to resolve anything. Regards --SylwiaS 00:36, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I think I know a better place to discuss the edits of Mr.Ghirlandajo. Why don't you engage there? In fact, there's a balance of views there (created by his proponents ignoring this list). Wishes, Ukrained 10:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you everybody for commenting an important and complicated issue. Please proceed! Ukrained, I already did. And thank you for alerting me of the freaking East Ukraine. Thank you Poles (and dziewczyny polskie:) for info on "black lists". BTW, I hardly could be elected admin because of my short-temperedness and poor English. And I'm happy about it. If being elected means compromise with the disgraced editors - I don't need it. I suggest this approach for Mr.Halibutt particularly. Best wishes, AlexPU 23:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, Ezhik and Irpen, I'll watch your asses most thoroughly if you wish - to evaluate your vandalousness. As far as I remember, Irpen qualifies enough :(. AlexPU 17:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Cool it

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. Characterizing others' edits as vandalism in a POV dispute is a serious breach of civility. Just because someone disagrees with you, even if they are wrong, none of these are justifications for calling edit vandalism. You also need to seriously consider toning down your language. Calling others "Propagandistic" and maintaining some kind of hitlist is not conducive to building an encyclopedia. Try to be cooperactive and civil, and if that doesn't resolve a dispute, use our processes at WP:DR, don't just resort to personal attacks and revert warring. Dmcdevit·t 22:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Alex, leave another comment like this and you'll find yourself blocked for a while to cool off. I know you feel strongly, but that does not justify abusive language. It does nothing to build an encyclopedia, and does much to harm it. Stop. Dmcdevit·t 23:08, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

To answer your questions:

• It is not directly prohibited per se in any policy, but there is a precedent and strong consensus for forcing users to delete them. More importantly though, it is just wrong, and unproductive for Wikipedia.
• All of your edits to Wikipedia are released under the GFDL. That's what you agreed when you clicked the save button. You cannot take them back, unless there is a standar deletion criterion they fall under. But I especially don't see why you'd want to, if they were useful encyclopedia articles. If you're pondering leaving over this conflict, that may be to our loss, but I would hope you wouldn't want to reduce our store of knowledge here (for anyone in the world to access) because you can't get along with an editor. Dmcdevit·t 00:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediation concerning St Volodymyr Cathedral

Hi Alex, if you interested in the St Volodymyr Cathedral article, why not to join the mediation procedure? Please check your mailbox.--AndriyK 09:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I couldn't find enough time. AlexPU 23:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This type of censorship makes me sick

Vote to keep, show these hypocrites what's what, tolerance? ha, only when it's good for them--Diatrobica;l 23:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi. First you read what you wrote :) Wishes, AlexPU 23:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

List of Ukrainians/User:Antidote

Hi, I am struggling to preserve the integrity of the List of Ukrainians from disuruption caused by User:Antidote, who repeatedly and arbitrarily deletes a number of people from the list. I would appreciate if could join me in editing the list and on the talk page.

User:Antidote is involved in a number of edit wars and has caused disurption to various East European, Catholic, and Jewish lists and is probably involved in multiple voting. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote. I would appreciate if you could endorse the request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote#Other_users_who_endorse_this_summary or post an outside view.--Pecher 19:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

What a ... there ... But a really complicated issue depending on general approach. AlexPU 23:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

My Wikistatement

Ladies and gentlemen!

I'm concerned with  the terrible pro-Russian propaganda on
Wikipedia,
and community's failure to stop it.
The supposedly-neutral Wikifellows
permanently can't see (or pretending they can't)
the evident POV-contributions, and most important,
both the vandalistic and the insidious methods
used to preserve those contributions.
This disappoints me very mother-fucking much!!!

So I find Wikiediting a rather nervous (although a high-minded) activity. I passionately hope to see positive changes on Wikipedia NEUTRALITY!!!

I will kindly ask all of you for following:

• Don't purge this statement (even if you find it illiberal) and don't let people whom I described do it. May be it will require watching the anonymous vandalism.
• Don't purge the list of propagovandalists above, even if you dislike the idea. Instead, developing that list would be a sign of a true political correctness - towards Ukraine, Ukrainians, and, not to forget, Wikipedia principles.
• Do discuss the issues raised on my talkpage and elsewhere.

Thanks for reading. Best wishes, AlexPU 17:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Check your E-mail

Hi AlexPU. In case if you come here during your break, check your E-mail. Best wishes, Ukrained 07:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't. And I wasn't checkin my mail all that time. Sorry. Hope to cooperate in future since I'm back. Pryvit, AlexPU 16:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Deal. Check my new mail to you. Ukrained 19:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian presidential election

Sorry, I justb ignored the first rerun, because it was declared invalid. Thanks for your updates.Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 10:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Мілена Марківна Куніс

I recently added a Ukrainian version of Mila Kunis' name in the article. I did find it using my poor Russian skills and a great deal of dead reckoning and guesswork. It would be nice if you, being a native Ukrainian speaker, could verify it and give me some peace of mind. Thank you. --GSchjetne 11:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

(Reply to your message in my talk page --GSchjetne 09:30, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Civility

It seems to me that you have been uncivil on User talk:Irpen. It is important to keep a cool head, despite any comments against you. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and action can be taken against the other parties if necessary. Your involvement in attacking back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors, and lead to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks!

abakharev 07:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

born in kyiv

hi alex, my name is ifeldman84 12:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC) --Ifeldman84 09:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC) and i would like to know whether you have a template "born in kiev" thanks long live UKRAINE

Hi there! No I don't have it, and neither do you judging by your userpage :)) But I'd like to have such template, and support the idea. Where do I sign, vote or whatever (except of draw and design :)?.AlexPU 09:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Calmness

So you made this vicious personal attack and were warned for incivility just above this comment. I'll reiterate: Civility is 1) not hard at all and not much to ask for, 2) non-negotiable, 3) common sense. I reiterate because almost every single edit since then has been uncivil. In combination, you've been engaging in a serious edit war. Edit wars are never okay. Now, considering the previous warning about incivility, I'm going to make this clearer for you. If I see any more incivility or edit waring in the near future, I will give you a short time off to cool down and think about your behavior and desired maturity level here, editing for an encyclopedia. Thanks. Dmcdevit·t 19:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dmcdevit, I don't admit any guilt in EDITING today. You see, all Wikipedians engage in edit wars, some of them get punished for that. If you decide to punish me, let it be so. If you decide to punish only me, ... we'll discuss it later if needed (for now, see the discussion below :).

As for this, so this is really serious. My new last-resort method against Wikipropagandists. Can you imagine what a mess would occur in Russia-related pages if I fulfill my threat, and recruit other Rus.-literate Wikipedians to it (without POV-pushing or trolling, mere supply of article names and external links)? In order to prevent that and keep each side on it's country pages :), you admins and bureucrats should carefully and ACTIVELY treat the issue of pro-Russian propaganda. Thanks for your intervention and sorry.AlexPU 22:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how I can be more plain, but let me try. Calling someone a "Wikipropagandist" is a personal attack, and a violation of assume good faith. Make comments only about the content, not the contributor. Meanwhile, this warning was clearly not about content. I am not knowledgeable about, and frankly don't give a whit about the Russian-related pages. That is for those editors who edit them to decide amongst themselves consensually. And civility is a rerequisite to consensus discussion. So, it doesn't actually matter what wrong you are trying to right, you cannot do it with incivility. Language like "Wikipropagandists," or whatever other personal smear you choose, will get you blocked the next time you do it. Dmcdevit·t 07:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Discussing Wikicrimes and punishments

Alex, please take the advice above seriously. It understandable that it's hard when your contribution is reverted with "nonsense" as summary, but responding by personal insults does not solve the problem. As an example, Kuban kazak has been blocked for incivility twice (while escaping from the second term thanks to Irpen), and is "working" toward his next block. It would be despondently to see you going the same way. KPbIC 21:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

KPbIC, please stick to facts which you know fully well. I intervened only when Kazak was blocked for the second time for the offence for which the original block expired, there is a double jeopardy principle. The second block's summary or explanation didn't say that the blocker viewed the block too short and made it longer. Otherwise, he would have said just that. He problably haven't realized that Kazak was already blocked for his rudeness and was back because the block expired and not because he was never blocked. You've been told about that and you know exactly what you are talking about.

Irpen, it’s your opinion that Kuban kazak was blocked twice for the same offense [1] (which probably was influential in Ezhiki's decision to unblock Kazak). But in my opinion the first block had no effect on Kuban, and I provided all evidences in WP/I, which in my opinion were in no relation to his first block (which he has got for his conflict with Space Cadet). If I steal two pockets, one from you and one from Kuban, and I’m only penalized for stealing Kuban’s pocket, you would probably ask “What about my pocket?”, and that would be a valid concern.

And Kazak will be blocked for each incivil remark and I will not lift a finger in such cases. And I tried and keep trying my best to talk him out of such behavior while what you are doing is basically saying that the AlexPU was right on the issues, just acted the wrong way, and you will miss him. For more, see his entries, edit summaries and the talk page above. --Irpen 21:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, it's too early to miss "me". I'm still here to watch you. AlexPU 06:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow! :) Thanks! Go right ahead! --Irpen 06:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

AlexPU responded uncivilly. It would be sad to lose him as an active contributor, but it’s what will happen unless he drops the uncivil part. This was the main message. (But there are some, not so black/white details). KPbIC 01:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No Personal attacks

This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked for disruption.

This edit constitues a personal attack, sorry but I am getting tired for asking for WP:CIVIL behavior abakharev 07:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Bakharev, I think you are making a wrong judgement of the situation. Not speaking of the previous days, but today (so far), AlexPU and Irpen are on the same page of the civility book, and therefore they should be treated equally. KPbIC 07:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. You have been blocked for these edits [2]. I and other sysadmins have warned you multiple times, your level of personal attacks against other users is inadmissable and would not be tolerated. abakharev 21:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Alex, blocking me wasn't fair for two reasons:

• discussing someone's EDITING APPROACH has F nothing to do with "personal attacks"
• technically, Irpen admitted being a vandal by his own edit to may talk page, so I just let people know that

However, I'm not going to fight over this episode of your wrongdoing, mostly in appreciation of your neutral editing on Soviet partisan. But please no more unjust admin decisions, tezka. This is YOUR last warning! AlexPU 20:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The block was perfectly fair, if you don't like those individual diffs there are dozens more to choose from. If you repeat your behaviour you will be blocked again, and for longer. Please remain civil both in what you write on Talk pages and in your edit summaries. Just zis Guy you know? 12:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Common sense

Dear Alex, I appreciate your edits very much and will help you with them as well as with fighting the Russian bias here. But discussing Irpen's mother ... that's what unaware readers would notice in the first place instead of your numerous articles :(((. I'd share your concerns and more, things have gone much far here while you were out. But wording... You're messing up the whole our point. Can't you understand that swearing is exactly what they want? It is trolling, it is simple, and it allows Russian Group to call you a troll.

Regarding above said, I support your blocking. Yes, Irpen was provoking you for few days. But yes, ... that Guy is right too: you provided plenty of reasons for blocking yourself last weekends. And yes, Mr.Bakharev would eagerly block you (or me) each time we give him an excuse. In other words, that block was entirely legal. Write something similar again, and I'll report you first - to make a point of neutrality and objectivity. Please don't undermine my politics here.

Let's discuss all other topics of our interest elsewhere (preferrably, by e-mail). Best wishes, Ukrained 19:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ukrained, you a wrong here on several accounts. First, right above you are accusing Alex Bakharev of a willingness to use his admin privilleges to POV push. I quote you above: "Mr.Bakharev would eagerly block you (or me) each time we give him an excuse.". Now, admin abuse is a very serious matter, especially to settle the personal grudges and/or POV disputed. You can't just throw this in someone face with no consequences for yourself whatsoever and have Bakharev just take it from you. If he gave you any reason to accuse him in an improper use of adminship, you should post your substantiated claim at WP:AN. If you haven't done so because you know that in view of lack of any evidence and much evidence to the contrary such posting would make you just look ridiculous, you should not use smearing him at user talk pages as a workaround.

AlexPU is guilty of about dozen of personal attacks lately. Still Bakharev blocked only after four (!) recent warnings (two of them "last") and a multitude of warnings above in case you failed to notice.

As for your calling those who disagree with you a "Russian group", it is just as uncivil. Your accusations that people want to simply dismiss AlexPU presenting him as a troll is as unsubstantiated. Of all talk pages entries AlexPU posted lately, there was only one at talk:Viktor Yushchenko that was on the topic rather than an angry diatribe. In no time I posted my agreement with his suggestion and actually edited the article to make sure it is taken into account.

I absolutely don't care about you both calling me names. It is a general disruption that I am concerned about. If AlexPU's article edits start being as reasonable as yours, Ukrained, (yes, despite your trollish talk page entries and constant assumption of bad faith of everyone but yourself), this all will be a different story. I am looking forward to it but with little hope. And, Alex, if you intend to post another attacking message, better save your nerves and time. This really doesn't upset me anymore. --Irpen 05:30, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel I should answer some semi-official issues mentioned above. First, I accused Mr.Bakharev in willingness (or readiness), not in commited admin abuse. There's a bif difference herem which I realize. As for his willingness, he expressed it on his talk page long before his adminship started. As you may remember, I made it public on his second RfA (when your group clowned the election attacking virtually everyone voting "Oppose"). However, we should consider that AlexPU is an experienced user. Thus, following Mr.Bakharev's logic, AlexPU shouldn't be punished at all :)). By the way, I was only answering the AlexPU's naive amusement of why so reasonable editor as Bakharev blocked him.

And yes, AlexPU was "guilty" (just like User:Kuban kazak here, I have dozens of such diffs). And he (I mean Alex, not Kazak :( ) was punished properly. And I find his article edits reasonable.

As for my reasonable edits, I'm afraid they only seem like those for you because I was out for two weeks in April and now retro-patrolling my wathclist. Sorry If I upset (or don't upset :) you. Ukrained 10:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi

It is good to see a contributor from Ukraine on Wikipedia. I believe many articles need more Ukrainian editors to preserve NPOV I would like to see a greater cooperation in areas interesting to Central European topics that are native to the region. I know work with certain other editors can be frustrating sometimes, but It is good to hold your anger, it would be a shame to loose a contributor from Ukraine, since they are so few. Have a good day and please don't let others provoke you. --Molobo 23:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

PS:If you believe there is a topic on issues connected to Ukraine/Poland that requires neutrality I would be happy to help in discussion. --Molobo 23:37, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Internal Troops

Hi, Ukrained sent me here. He suggested that I might touch with you about Internal troops. I can't directly contribute since I don't speak Russian, Ukranian, Polish or any other Eastern European languages. If there are any English language books or articles on this topic, i might be able to polish it up as part of my interest in Gendarme units. --V. Joe 18:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Internal troops, prt ii

Legal status: I suspect that the Internal Troops are indeed legally Gendarmies, which means that they are subject to the same treatment as any other internal force. For example, American Police officers oath, is identical to that of soldiers, except for the "juridiction of". So, I "X" do solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States, agaisnt all enemies, foreign and domestic, in the jurisdiction "Y." In the unlikely case of an invasion, US police/sheriffs would act as the "light infantry. So Internal Troops would be treated as troops, rather than civillians. I am not 100% sure, but pretty sure. Other than that, i don't think they rate any official status as "soldiers," but again, I suspect they have the same status as the local border patrol/ coast guard. That they are civillian in peace, soldiers in war... --V. Joe 05:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I see... OK, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Let's keep in touch.AlexPU 10:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

AlexPU: Valentine here again. To let you know, I don't know too much about templates, but am willing to learn--[[User: Valentinejoesmith|V. Joe]] 02:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You see, Valentine, I was thinking of some templates (navboxes or whatever) regarding Soviet/post-Soviet law enforcement and military pages. I recently avocated purging one (purely misleading), but started to like the idea. I'm willing to plan them, but not ready to draw now:). If you don't draw neither, we could try to volunteer some experts in that and concentrate on the template contents. E.g., I feel a need for some navbox distinguishing gendarmerie, military police etc.

BTW, if any template-designing expert is reading this message, let them know their help would be appreciated.AlexPU 09:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Tomenko

Just to let you know that it is the policy of those who maintain WP:DYK to not feature stubs there. The article to qualify has to be 1) less than 5 days old (3 days until recently); 2) not a stub. Please unstub it asap if you want it featured. If you are busy, uninterested, blocked or whatever, I will try to find time to do that on my own but I can't guarantee. It would be a pity if the article on such a colorful person misses DYK. I linked a full English L bio in UP and much of it can be used directly as UP only requires it's material to be acknowledged and does not object to its being used. Just a suggestion. Feel free to heed it, ignore it, delete it or whatever. Please don't waste your time for another attack though. Not for mine but for your own sake. That said, I do think that your return (a prolific contributor in the past), might be beneficial for the project. I hope you learn some manners and we will work on improvement of Ukrainian topics. --Irpen 19:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

So much you want him to be blocked, and to teach him manners, Irpen ... Please don't try pushing people to your point very much. Instead, take care of Shalashik who keeps surprising me (who else could call user a "балда" and greet him with Victory Day next morning :)

And please, Irpen, don't prevent that Tomenko stub from reaching DYK in any way (although you were right in your criteria objection). As you may remember, two episodes of yours and Ghirlandajos' questioned DYK behaviour happened so far. I wouldn't like to witness a third one. By the way, AlexPU wrote/enlarged several big articles already this month. This said regarding your "contributor in past" incinuation. Best wishes, Ukrained 08:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ukrained, please point out where exactly I tried to perevent any UA article from appearing at DYK. Make sure you check before posting some imagined comments because I am doing all I can to make sure as many UA article appear at DYK as possible. Even for this article I dug up plenty of references and an extremely valuable Eblish L bio that makes unstubbing it extremely easy. SHould I have wanted the article not featured, I would not have done anything for it. And this is exactly the reason why I posted this call for expansion at the first place, and, besides, posted it at the author page rather than the article's talk or under the DYK submission to make sure I post it quietly. If I knew, I would have time within a short time-span when the article qualifies for DYK, I would have just unstubbed it. I, however, did the second best thing: linked sources that anyone, yourslef included, can use to unstub the article. Your perpetual assumption of bad faith all the time are notorious and make you look just as ridiculous. --Irpen 16:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. And I don't want him blocked. Reread my last sentence. While his rudeness beats all records of what I've seen, I developed an immunity here to this kind of stuff. For now I just want him learn some manners because his current manners are disruptive. If it takes blocks to learn, it is not my fault. If he can reform himself on his own, it is just as well. Actually even better. --Irpen 17:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Bohdane, he made his input indeed. And I don't know what DYK problems are you talking about. If Irpen did something to my Tomenko proposition, let me know ASAP.

The thing you're right about: I dont' like instructive stuff like "learn" and "reformed" on my talk. Before writing such mentorical ... here, Irpen, don't forget why did I used some swearing on you. I mean I won't forget your vandalistic purgings of info in the Soviet partisans and subsequent ignorances of my clear arguments in edit summaries. I WILL DO MY BEST TO "REFORM" YOU FIRST, IRPEN. If it takes blocks from any admins, let it beAlexPU 18:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Kuban kazak's report on WP:AN/I

Please, please, please, avoid any questionable comments, or you will be taken down. This is as simple as that. Cossack wrote yet another nonsense, but people around are not blind and they can more-less see it. Check especially Lupo's response on his talk page. Then at the end, what is the point? Also, if you want to engage in that RfC, then do so, but making it conditional on Cossack's action s reckless and bad faith, as nobody would take your comments serionsly on that RfC from this point, and this would be the right thing.

Respect others, think before you write (which I know it's hard, and I forget about it by myself, but it's still the right advice). Almost everybody around would help to fight "the imperial propaganda", just make it clear on what is the propaganda. Please work with Irpen, he is not preoccupied with any old conficts. There is some trolling here and there, but don't be a fish for "smart" fishers.

Again, there is still a lot to be written or added to the wikipedia, ther are alot names to be mentioned. Let's work on this, instead of the identities of POV pushers, which don't deserve to be mentioned. KPbIC 03:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I could not agree more on that last point. I do recall how AndriyK in all his wisdom is not remembered for the useful contributions that he made because there were...none? ;) --Kuban Cossack 19:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

To Cossack: I didn't know you, but you deleted my very first message to your talkpage. Should I do the same? Next time I will unless I see decent constructive usage of talkpages from you. And please don't litter this page with Muscovite propaganda images! I'm deleting this shit from your signature. Regarding your message here: were you drunk when writing it or what :) ? What AndriyK has to do with your impudent conversation with Lupo or with this section :))?

My response is my policy, I do not feed the trolls (особенно тех у кого словарный запас желает лучшего). --Kuban Cossack 20:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

To KPbIC: thanks for your support, and please supply me with your reasons on that Lupo-images issue.AlexPU 19:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Mykola Tomenko, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Cactus.man ✍ 16:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

AlexPU: Glad to help. VJS --V. Joe 22:39, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

POV in History of Christianity in Ukraine

Gigantic POV additions in article History of Christianity in Ukraine by User:Kuban kazak. Please help to clean up. --Yakudza 14:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If you check the history of the article then today's edits were nothing but copyediting of the existing text that has been there for about months. --Kuban Cossack 14:52, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I guess we'll have problems with every each edit of this Kazak :).AlexPU 09:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:RedArmy_kursants1933.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RedArmy_kursants1933.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 15:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:POWs

Here are some official documents [3] more to come. --Kuban Cossack 13:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. But I already warned you about those F flags, didn't I?AlexPU 10:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Bad faith

The "crap, bullshit propaganda navbox" you removed from the Russia page was added by user:Alexandru Busa, a Ukrainian-Romanian user, who is not known for pro-Russian POV-pushing. Besides, this kind of offensive edit summary rings "Troll!" regardless of the actual edits you make. --Illythr 20:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, a bit too late, that. Nevermind, then, I guess... --Illythr 20:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

An interesting CfR vote

Hi. Recently I started an obvious CfD case and lost it, probably due to lack of interest among adult editors. There's still a chance to address the issue here. Why don't you join and defend the common sense? Best wishes, Ukrained 11:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, but what can we do now? Both category names just reflect idiotistic idea... Can we really vote for deletion there? I'm afraid it's too late :).AlexPU 17:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for a week for violation of WP:3RR and continuing incivility despite my own previous warings. You have, in fact, had "final" warnings and continued. Hopefully a week off will let you know that we do not tolerate this misconduct, and you will be better behaved when you get back. Dmcdevit·t 20:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. BTW, asking you to block also Russian vandals and trolls would be fruitless I guess? Especially after I started to edit Russian articles... :)AlexPU 20:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Your message to me

Hi, Alex. I generally have nothing against your most recent edit to Russia, although it looks that in some portions you were overeager to expose negativity that wasn't there or to interpret some of the sources you provided in, eh, somewhat too liberal way, but I take it that you understood my attitude when you reviewed my edit.

As a hard and fast rule, I don't play anyone's games except my own, and the rules of my game are quite simple—stick to the facts; maintain NPOV; provide references, especially to the edits that may be viewed as controversial; be polite, and don't hesitate to listen to others even if you strongly dislike them—you may just discover that you are occasionally wrong. Hmm, looks like I've just quoted most of Wikipedia's key concepts. Oh, well.

I don't particularly enjoy adding negative information about Russia or, for that matter, about any other country or subject (one may say that's because I am not a journalist :)). I much prefer balanced approach—if there is only negative, or only positive information about some controversial topic, it means that the article is pretty much useless. I will never cover up some horrid fact be it about Russia's past or present, but I will do my best to tone it down to make it sound more neutral, while still preserving the core factual information, and, of course, to make sure, that it's indeed a fact. For example, that was the reason why I commented out your addition about militsiya "not usually interfering" with hate-crimes: first of all, it may or may not be true in different parts of Russia, so you cannot draw a general conclusion about this being a practice in Russia as a whole; second—the reference you provided only describes one case; one in which militsiya's inaction was a subject of speculation. Notice that I am not saying that the "not usually interfering" part is untrue—I am merely requesting a better source (one newspaper article is certainly not enough to draw this broad a conclusion). Of course, if I had such better source on hands, I'd added it myself.

Finally, even though I am a Russian admin, I cannot take responsibility for behavior of all Russian editors. It certainly hurts me to see that some folks (both on Russian and Ukrainian sides, with you, unfortunately, not being an exception) are unable at times to stick to a civil discussion. It's no less disgusting when any of the sides tries to push their own POV. With all that in mind, I am but one admin; I can't fix the whole world. I interfere when things get really ugly, I always try to help or mediate when being asked, I always enforce policies when I see one being breached, but unless the sides start listening to one another, my efforts often amount to a nerve-wracking, productive editing-distracting waste of time. Often the debates are over the subjects I either know little about (Old Slavic Ukrainian/Russian architecture being a good example) or have no interest in (such as militsiya). Furthermore, any interference by force means the sides are deprived the possibility (however remote) to settle the disputes among themselves on their own. Sum this all up, and you'll have a decent guide explaining my attitude toward the majority of issues. I often wish I could do something to ease the tensions, but not being born a baby-genius it's not easy for me to do :)

I hope I explained my position. Hope to see you continuing with great contributions of yours and discontinuing some of your less-than-productive behavior. You don't have to like or agree with the Russian editors, just show them some respect—everyone deserves as little.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Soviet partisans etc.

Alex, if you happen to read this before you check your mail: please present here links/references about UPA-partisans negotiations. You were the one who promised such references. My favorite admin is requesting those references instead of deleting the issue like his friends ;).

And please don't answer the posts from above section. Some of them are trollish (while some are painfully true), and all those people are expecting some answer from you. I suggest you to ignore any expectation, at least for now.

By the way, if you are willing to add some new pages/sections during your block, feel free to insert them on this page or e-mail me, so I can read and possibly contribute to the respective pages. Of course I don't mean minor edits or rewritings of existing texts. Cheers, Ukrained 20:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Alex, до того воно і йде, що ти просто мусиш "працювати" тут поки заблокований. Бо я вже не встигаю відстежувати й фіксувати або відкочувати кожне їхнє порушення. А ти поки лінки шукай, добре? Cheers, Ukrained 13:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Easily:

• Dnepriada:The Black Hole re: nuclides in the reservoirs; draining them

• Not Sure how to translate Re: possible flooding of Kiev

• Not Sure how to translate Re: Fake terrorist alert of 2005

No English versions :(((.

But he already reverted you, must be aiming to AfD. Don't you care about links cause they won't. Just revert.

More links coming up on Soviet partisans and Category:Russia (I already have about a dozen, and counting). Like Khruschtchev said: Ми їх поховаємо!

And thank you.AlexPU 17:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bohdan and other Ukrainian Wikipedians, why don't you revert this irrelevant propaganda-hinting categorization? It wasn't DIRECTLY OR MAINLY about geopolitics, no matter what Kremlin jingoists say :(AlexPU 10:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Trolling of a blocked Wikipedian by Russians and their Ukrainian friends

translation from Ukrainian above by Irpen

"Ми їх поховаємо!" = "We will burry them!

AlexPU, are you still not feeling well? Your block was quadrupled specifically for trolling at your talk post-initial block. Why continue with burrying stuff? While you have time, could you pleae bring up any references of Rudniev's article consipracy theory? I am almost done rewriting it and will post a new version soon. I will not include any of your speculations unless you provide the source for them. It was funny btw to read your "he was not a communist" for the Old Bolshevik who took part in storming the Winter Palace.

Before resorting to new outbursts, please take a breath (and a pause, if necessary). I would really like just to see the links or names of the authors for the Rudniev's material.

Besides, I copyeditied your reservoirs article and I think it should be at DYK. I thought the unsourced info there is correct (except another unreferenced conspiracy theory about Stalin's "time bomb". Thanks for useful info and please don't troll. --Irpen 19:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, just who do you think you are? For mentoring me? Telling me when to breath? For "including" or not my passages? To decide what is "speculation" and what's not? Please get lost out of my talk and take your trollish Russian friends away with you!AlexPU 10:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Maybe consider apologising to Irpen and the whole Ukrainian community which you shamed, before putting the unblock template. Too bad for you I am in Feodosiya right now and thus unable to keep a watchful eye on you. Finally don't bother insulting Russians, you should know we are immune to such pathetic "clown-shows". Oh and do remember that this page is part of an international project and deletion of HARD facts from the text will not purge from the history: [4]. If I were you I would enjoy the remaining three weeks of your vacation. --Kuban Cossack 14:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Internal Troops prt iii

I posted the following remarks on the talk page, as well as did some clean up in re: grammar. Here goes:

Reviewing over, I have additional thoughts about the status of the Internal Troops. If you have a gun and fight in an uniform, you are probably soldiers according to the laws of war. Therefore, gendarmes are closer in status to the United States Coast Guard (which assists the Navy during times of war). Most prominently, many of the bosun's at Normandy were Coastguardsmen, and not sailors. Additionally, part of the chain of command during John Kerry's stay in Viet Nam were USCG officers. If they are indeed deeply involved in the Chechen conflict/war/revolution/whatever, it doesn't surprise me that the international media has mislabeled them as "Russian Soldiers/ Russian Army". Especially as very few reporters outside of the US or UK have any expierence in millitary matters, and even in the US media, reporters are often dreadfully confused about the most basic "Army stuff." and occasionally mistake soldiers, airmen and Marines with each other, and even American and British troops at a distance. (They wear different variations of camoflauge and carry slightly different weapons. Also, the Union Jack on the sleeve is a dead giveaway :)). I'm going to do a minor edit for grammar, etc in this new addition. Thanks: V. Joe 05:34, 7 June 2006 (UTC) (V. Joe 05:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC))

Duly noted, Valentine. We do need disambiguation in many pages where "army" and police units are mistaken with each others. There's a related problem: some conflicts (like in Chechnya) are not "declared wars" according to international laws. Therefore, only police/gendarmerie-like units may participate in them - according to their national laws. Instead, those units are not allowed to act like conventional army (that's really the issue in Chechen war), but only like police. Despite the fact that they fight in a uniform. I guess we should develop this topic everywhere if it wasn't still. I'm going to add notes to the lead of Internal Troops, if you haven't. Do you read my poor English so far :)?

By the way, I'm blocked from editing for the next few weeks over a conflict. That's why I can only read your edits and share my thoughts here, where you're always welcome. Best wishes,AlexPU 10:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On June 7, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dnieper River reservoirs, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your efforts to create this article. ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi AlexPU

Was wondering if you might be interested in this recent article (Islam in the Soviet Union that I encountered. I think its pretty neat, but because of my lack of knowledge of slavic languages/ History of the Soviet Union/ Russian Empire that you might observe this page and put your two cents in. I look foward to your feeback. Thanks again.V. Joe 08:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for pointing. A very interesting topic, largerly Russian one, but partly Ukrainian (regarding Crimean Tatars). I'll take a look, and my thoughts may appear here.AlexPU 10:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Just as I thought: no mention of Crimean Tatars, poor explanation of a similar problem with Chechens. The last paragraph is really poor, although the article as a whole is relatively good. Needs serious corrections and enlargements.AlexPU 10:47, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Unblock

{{unblock|Wikipedia articles need my further input :) And I've been blocked for over a week so far}} If you are unblocked, do you plan to keep edit warring and being incivil to other users? Sasquatch t|c 21:27, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Heh. See a few sections above : "Please get lost out of my talk and take your trollish Russian friends away with you!" or "We will bury you!". It is pretty self-explanatory... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: a prescheduled unblocking of this user (or other users in his situation) may positively affect my attitude to some administrators and their friends :), and the other way round. To guarantee AlexPU's actions when and if unblocked, I suggest him not to fill edit summaries and talkpages at least for month (this rule isn't enforced anyway).

Sorry Ukrained but the block is there for a reason. And your relation to admins is irrelevant to this discussion, actually this block was not done by Mr. Bakharev but by a 3RR watching admin who saw my message and carried out the initial 1 week block.--Kuban Cossack 09:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As for judging his behaviour, I could agree with posts of this section... if only Mr.Grafikm wasn't adding filthy Russian abbreviations and scoffy comments on this page a week ago :(. I hate doublestandarding. And trollism too. Ukrained 19:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The block was extended after continuing the disruptive behaviour after being blocked. As per the above, if unblocked are you going to stop? --pgk^(talk) 22:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well guys, thank you all for visiting my talk, although I'm much less than happy to see two of you here :(( Regarding my unblock: none of you are an admin that can do that. So, if you dropped by just to humiliate me by fruitless discussion of unblocking, please don't waist your time, OK?

I don't reall believe in my early release: there's a Russian cabal in Wikipedia. They didn't like my changes to Russia article, so I'll stay blocked at least until July 2. Hey, why am I saying "they"? At least two of you are in that :)).

Bogdan, thanks for your diplomacy, but I'm afraid it will be of limited success. BTW, leaving the summary fields blank will be another excuse for them to reblock me ;). Although I really don't fill the talkpages' summaries.AlexPU 18:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board

Hello, I noticed that you identify as a conservative Wikipedian. So I would like to invite you to post any conservative issues you might have over at the new project page, Wikipedia:Conservative_notice_board. Thanks. --Facto 05:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks like good useful project. I'll be there some day. I AM a conservative, may be liberal in some practical methods (that bloody job :), but anyway conservative by my views. BTW, they call me a nationalist so I'm supposed to be conservative anyway :))).AlexPU 18:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Important announcement: E-mail changed

Attention people, I've recently changed my E-mail address in order to stop that spam flow. Those whom I've been writing to frequently may be able to contact me by clicking that E-mail this user button (to the left of you). Although I'll try to send all of you notification letters from the new address. Thanks.AlexPU 19:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:Ukrainian Navy

Alex, I've just found out that your Ukrainian Navy still lies in ruins of stubiness :(. Black Sea Fleet, your another article, is in surprisingly better condition. Wrong priorities. Why don't you start working on our navy already while blocked? Big well-structured pieces of info may be added technically by me.

Oh, and I got a fresh stub for you: Kiev Military Academy of Signals and Control, extracted from your old article. Cheers, Ukrained 20:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

OK! Thanks for KVIRTU. But I couldn't develop it up to DYK: got info only for a stub level.AlexPU 06:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

We got it! As well as your red-linked State Border Guard Service of Ukraine.AlexPU 09:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And see my additions at Ukrainian Navy. Better late than never.AlexPU 20:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Boryspil Airport development

Hey, are you interested in helping me expand the Development sectino of Boryspil International Airport? Since you're actually in Ukraine right now, maybe you can get more accurate information about it. I'm going back to Ukraine this summer, but that's all the way in late July. I found a few pictures that might be good to add to that article. Anyway, let me know what you can find out. There's some information available at [5] and [6]. Thanks! — Alex ^(T|C|E) 03:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly in! I got something in mind about development unless you've already added it. But please note that I'm unable to edit until July 2. Anyway, place your requests for help or clarification here - I'll be glad to help.AlexPU 10:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to what I could find so far, terminal B was already expanded. I'll add that to the article. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 16:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If you promise to spend the extra time on something positive like Ukrainian Navy or Boryspil Airport rather then personal attacks, I could try to unblock you. Please take into account that in the case of new uncivil behavior from you it would bring embarrasment not only to you but to me also abakharev 15:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

My 2 cents: I do need AlexPU's help in editing and so do several other users (see above). And Mr.Bakharev somehow owes AlexPU after a little intrigue with Threat of the Dnieper reservoirs, so a pre-scheduled unblock would be natural. Also there are some procedures alternative to blocking (I guess they're called mentoring) which I could participate (co-participate) in.

On the other hand, WP:NPA is rather unspecific. For instance, I'm being accused of its violation on a weekly basis, predominantly undeserved. And what is "I could try"? (AlexPU, my tactic thoughts are in e-mail). Instead I suggested a more exact condition for unblocking last week (see above). Mr.Bakharev, why don't you negotiate more specific conditions under which you would just go and unblock him (which you should do anyway)? Ukrained 19:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

My dear User:Ukrained, Bogdan (if you insist on personofication, I have NO problems with it), with all due respect, since when does Alex have to accept conditions, have you ever heard of WP:FAITH. Alex has proposed to Alex that as he is ready to make useful contributions, he is ready to allow him to continue so. Where do you come into this? I mean I can understand that you are thinking for him and trying to negotiate your own settlement, but with all opinions, one has to assume that AlexPU is a big boy and needs no babysitting on your behalf. I mean if you are getting so involved why can't I make my own suggestions? Alex Bakharev is proposing a clear condition, that AlexPU returns to writing, but would stop disruptive behaivour, yet you are critising him for that? Honestely who do you think you are to do that?

My condition for a premature unblock is that AlexPU must apologise to all the people he insulted, and to the Ukrainian community which he shamed. --Kuban Cossack 20:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked

OK, I have unblocked you. You already served the 3/4 of the block and somehow promised not to engage in the personal attacks anymore. Until July 2 consider yourself on probation, please do not get yourself involved in anything controversial. Work on the articles instead. As an act of a good will you may consider to bring your apologies to everybody you insulted. You may also want to say thanks to Kuban Cossack who strongly argued in unblocking you. You may also want to improve the article on the Kievan reservoirs that is still in a sorrow state despite all the Irpen's efforts to save it. abakharev 01:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Alex, I haven't promised anything yet, but here I am: I'll do my best to avoid swearing and discussing of editors beyond their editing. I also apologize for my language.

As for "probation", I'm not sure what you're talking about because:

• I didn't reconsider the actions of the Wikipedians that I characterized objectively, but in an obscene way
• I won't say thanks regarding blocking history of Russian users
• I will immediately get involved in many things "controversial" like:
  • process against Irpen
  • fighting Russian neoimperialistic propaganda
  • editing Category:Russia with neutral and sourced info (they deleted almost all my changes to Russia, but I'm back!)

BTW, my reservoirs article hardly needed "saving" from anything at the moment when I wrote it. There are thousands unreferenced articles in Wikipedia that nevertheless reflect truth.AlexPU 06:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I might add, that a) just because you are unblock does not mean you can continue your crusade, like a dog let of a leash, b) Apologising to Irpen would be the least you can do to save face of Ukrainians on Wikipedia, c) Remember Bakharev acted in good faith and gave you a second chance, you do realise that if you waste it you'll be blocked sooner than you expect. You are of course welcome to NPOV articles, but careful about terms neoimperialistic, as there are people watching each and every one of your edits. --Kuban Cossack 14:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Kuban kazak, please be carefull with "like a dog" as there are people watching each and every one of your edits.--AndriyK 15:26, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

However I do not bark insults at my own people, particulary those that have written so much articles, but you wont know how that is...--Kuban Cossack 15:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No I don't know how to "bark insults". Are you an expert? ;)--AndriyK 16:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Andriy, I like the way you answered this ... funny guy. Got nothing to add, except of removing his trails. I mean the flags of the defective slutty dynasty.

No, changed my mind. He called me a dog after all... Kazak, here is a fresh link for you: Путин любит целовать маленьких мальчиков в живот. Going to add it somewhere in Category:Russia :), when finished with limiting your activities within Ukraine articles. Still wishing you best, I hope that your beloved PR-president was only drunk or affected by narcotics, not showing some paedophilic inclinations.AlexPU 18:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, okay. Take it easy. I don't want you to get blocked again, we got work to do. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 02:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

History of Boryspil Airport

Hey, can you please translate the History section of uk:Бориспіль (аеропорт) into Boryspil State International Airport? I haven't been in Ukraine for a while, so my Ukrainian is rusty. Thanks! — Alex ^(T|C|E) 07:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Already started, tezka. But not going to finish before watching today's GAME (two minutes-readiness :)).AlexPU 18:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving discussion to Talk:Boryspil State International AirportAlexPU 20:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Please tone it down

Hiya. You really need to tone down your edit comments. Comments such as "reverting propaganda", "propaganda fantasies", "bullshit", and so on are not conducive to civil editing. You might well be right -- it might be propaganda, it might be bullshit, but civility requires we not bare our teeth when engaged in discourse. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, sorry for "bullshit", but propaganda is a scholar term which I, being a professional political analyst, could apply only properly :). Please also note that civility is required from all Wikipedians but Russians. They're are kind of untouchable here: bare their teeth to everybody who stands up to object their propaganda :(.But anyway thanks for dropping in.AlexPU 21:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ukrtelecom

I just made a stub on Ukrtelecom. Feel free to expand it. :-) — Alex ^(T|C|E) 02:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

You got it. More coming up when I'm done with politics and mil stuff. Thanks for tipping.AlexPU 21:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Raions

Please discuss further edits at my talk. Thanks!--tufkaa 18:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Crimean_anti-NATO_protests_of_2006

Alex, here is an important request for your expansion. I'm too lazy to deal with political and especially military details there. However, the article was inadmissably one-sided and incomplete, so I took first steps to cleanup. Why don't you join with context, citations and so on? How could we miss such an interesting topic when the page was still an "ongoing event"... Wishes, Ukrained 21:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

OK. Indeed an important topic.AlexPU 09:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Upcoming Independence Day

::August 24th, 2006

Happy Independence Day - Ukraine!

З Днем Незалежності України!

--Riurik 04:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith

Just a reminder for you to assume good faith, especially when you encounter someone else for the first time. Your relevant edit is this one, or rather, its description - by calling my edit a "propaganda-related censorship" you are ascribing to me specific intentions with no good reason, and I fail to see how my nationality, which you also mentioned there, is relevant at all. That edit is now reverted with a more detailed explanation for the reasons, and if you still find them not good enough, let us civilly discuss them, shall we? -- int19h 13:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Jogaila

Hi Alex, as you might hold an in Poland-Ruthenia-Litvania, have a look at the vote there; you may also notice how certain uchastniki have devoted themselses to their higher cause. Truthseeker 85.5 11:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)