Hello, Alex Kov/Talk, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Thanks for a very useful image. I think it is excellent for the Rurikid article, but I took a liberty to remove it from Kievan Rus' which is too broad for it and there are so many images that potentially fit to it, and so many are there now, that we should be careful in selecting. Let's discuss it if you disagree.
As far as Holodomor is conserned, true enough several govs and some scholars view it as Genocide but, at the same time, some academics think otherwise and such view is not restricted to the fringe outcasts in academia. As such, the applicability of the term is not assured. That's why the article has a separate chapter on the issue where the reader is presented with facts and opinions. Stamping a cat over the whole thing means prejudging the issue in advance. --Irpen17:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alex, I absolutely agree with you about the cat:genocide vis-a-vis Holodomor, but the nature of Wikipedia necessitates your active participation not in just editing but in discussion of your position. People with different background and different conceptions of History edit here. You may continue to insert the cat or you may work towards a consesus whereby the cat will be the accepted categorization. Why don't you give it a try on the Holodomor talk page and present a cogent argument for why the Holodomor is genocide. Best regards, --Riurik(discuss)18:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, let me state first that, persoanlly, I am undecided on whether H was a Genocide. There are strong arguments in support of such view but the evidence of the applicability of the Genocide (not of the fact that Famine was artificial, which is not seriously disputed) requires a Genocidal intent of the authorities. We have only circumstantial evidence for the latter, that it even once archives were opened, not a single document popped up about Stalin's intent to target Ukrainians specifically, just because they were Ukrainians.
As for presenting the arguments at talk to support that H was a Genocide, this is not our job. The arguments in favor and against are already presented by scholars and our job is to summarize them. We should put aside political statements by the governments because they may (or may not) be politically motivated and restrict the analysis to the scholars, or (as per the Wikipedia's systemic bias) to the Western scholarship. Respected representatives of the latter still disagree on the term's applicability and that's what makes the issue different from the Holocaust, where there seems to be no disagreement among the academics. --Irpen18:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and, I repeat, this is not the same thing as to say that the Famine was artificial, which is not disputed. --Irpen18:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because no political pressure was on them, and their works are thoroughly peer reviewed. A POV publisher quickly loses his credibility in Western circles. In the former USSR, however, pseudo-scientists like Suvorov continue to exist. -- Grafikm(AutoGRAF)18:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was me who wrote Svyatopolk I in February 2005 and uploaded real (not imaginary) trident-like symbols to this article. On the other hands, your images are factually incorrect, because exact attribution of symbols to one or another of Yaroslav's descendants is purely speculative. Even with seals, which normally bear an image of the ruler's patron saint and his name, attribution frequently presents insurmountable difficulties. What makes these images even less acceptable for an encyclopaedia, is that the symbols are clothed in the Ukranian heraldic colors, which had not been attested before the Galician period of Ukrainian history. In short, unlike the images in the article about Svyatopolk, the modernised interpretations which you uploaded are speculations with a nationalist background. Please read WP:NOR. --Ghirla-трёп-09:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir I of Kiev: Please don't use in historical article pictures you draw yourself. Just as writing some text requires references, images of wikipedian's authorship are inadmissible as a kind of original research. You can upload only photos of authentic objects or drawings prepared by experts and published elsewhere. . Because the main rule is Wikipedia:verifiability.`'mikka(t)16:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making edits logged in at last. It saves a lot of aggravation. I will research a little of Glaskow's background and post the response at the article's talk in a short while. Please note that if you don't log in, you incovenience your colleagues by making discussions difficult. TIA, --Irpen04:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do things in your way. You deleted my images of trydents for "unknown validity". I agreed with it. Now i will delete the self-made images (maps. etc) that were made by others for the same reasons.--Alex Kov17:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet, click on the image you are trying to delete and see that unlike your drawings, the map is sourced. And while at it, also check WP:POINT. --Irpen17:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look why are you revert warring? What difference does it make to you when Cossacks were founded. Most important is their historical prominance. For Russian Cossacks this was the 15th and 16th centuries, when you had the colonisation of Siberia, the wars during the time of troubles, the Russo-Turkish Wars. Zaporozhian Cossacks became prominant only in mid 17th century (which is explained in the paragraph preceding) during the Khmelnitsky uprising. Then during the 18th century Russian Cossacks take over again as being most famous, Napoleonic Wars, Balkans, Caucasus and up until the Russian Civil War. In the 20th century Soviet World, the Ukrainian Cossacks are re-established as the dominant image whilst we are kept out of public view. Now we have Abkhazia, Chechnya, ex-Yugoslavia where we Russian Cossacks made the world recognise our prominance, whist Ukrainian Cossacks, as such do not exist (in terms of military). So its 3:2 in Russian Cossack's favour. I agreed to take out the most prominant and fomous, for consesus sake leave the article as it is. --Kuban Cossack19:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not divide Cossacks into nations. There was no national state when they emereged. Thus dispute about "Russain" and "Ukrainian" is nonsense. We can speak only abou the Cossacks who lived on the teritory of modern Russia or Ukraine.
Cossacks from Zaporozhya were know in Europe in the 15-16 centuries. Habsburgs and French kings hired them before the Khmelnitsky aprising took place. French, Swedish and Prussian politicains of the 18 century used Cossacks of Zaporozhia in their strategical plans against Russian empire. Only after the Sich was destroyed, and Napoleon decided to blow on Russia, Europeans learned about Don, Yaik and other Cossacks. I dont want to minimize the role of Don Cossacks in conquering Siberia, but for most of Europeans they were unknown. Russia had been seen as non-European state (culturally). So 3:2 in Ukrainian Cossack's favour. However, I dont want to divide them into nationalities.--Alex Kov09:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactely what the first paragraph is about:
Cossacks became first widely known in western Europe in the mid-seventeenth century as a result of the great revolt[1][2][3][4] of Bohdan Khmelnytsky and the Zaporozhians in Ukraine against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which shook the geopolitical foundations of eastern Europe.
However this is not article about the perception of Cossacks to European people, but this is about a general Cossack article. There is a History of Cossacks which expands on this. I am not trying to downplay the significance of the Zaporozhian Host (after all they are my ancestors), but the overall tone of the article has to be neutral. It is true that Cossacks had no ethnicity, but they called themselves Ruthenian - which we continue to do so. (i.e. we are not Veliko- nor Malo- russians, but Russkiye Kazaki). However in that case your Ukrainian to Russian debate loses point, as you have cotradicted yourself. For sake of consensus lets leave the paragraphing like it always was. --Kuban Cossack13:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it depends on the naming convention, so lets begin with that. Russian for me = Rossiyanin = Citizen of Russia. Ukrainian = Ukrainits = Citizen of Ukraine. Ruthenian = Russkiy = Ethnic Eastern Slavic. The latter group consists of numerous subethnical groups: White Ruthenians = Belorussy = Belarusians; Small Ruthenians = Malorossy = Ethnic Ukrainians; Great Ruthenians = Velikorossy = Ethnic Russians. However, in addition to that there are also Carpathian Rusyns, Pomorians ... and Cossacks which do not fall under the great or small unmbrellas, but under the main Ruthenian peoples' umbrella. The biggest confusion is that in modern terminology Russkiy = Velikoros, which incorrectely "privatised" in the 20th century by the Bolsheviks.
Now then that aside. Let's return to Cossacks. Cossacks are Ruthenian people that do not have ethnicall association with Great or Small Ruthenians. So what is the difference which paragraph goes first. Well from the NPOV (not European one mind you). The one that played the biggest historical role should precede. What have we got for Russians, as I said before, activity takes off in late 13th century and the colonisation of Siberia (Yermak) all the way until the Time of Troubles. The impact of the Zaporozhian Cossacks at this time is not exactely that massive until mid-17th century, when arrives the Khmelnitsky uprising, the Pereyaslavl Rada and the Russo-Swedish war. At this time Don Cossacks make themselves famous with numerous uprisings, in particular Pugachev's. Russo-Turkish wars give both Russian and Ukrainian Cossacks equal prominance. Then with the end of the Sech, the split of the Zaporozhian Host, and the Ukrainian Cossacks after that have no impact on History at all. (For what they are worth and for Michael's analysis on Talk:Cossack only the Danube Cossacks can still be called Ukrainians, however the Azov-Black Sea and the Kuban are from now on Russians). At this time you have Napoleonic Wars, Balkans, Caucasus etc, where Russian Cossacks play a massive role. Russian Civil War, World War II, Modern local conflicts. There are no Ukrainian Cossacks there at all, in none of those pages of history books. So in any case I still see why you choose to put Ukrainians first, as the chronology argument loses value and the European POV is not NPOV. --Kuban Cossack17:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do raise the questions you have to the map at the article's talk and try to contact the map's author. Do not just delete it. Regards, --Irpen 17:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I've already done it but. No replay. I see no need to keep this badly made map in the Sviatoslav article--Alex Kov16:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So, I gather you are not interested in writing articles. Too bad. OK, I will write an article about a couple of Hetmans myself one of these days. Take care and happy revert warring. --Irpen18:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you've used the word "vandal" in some of your discussion; I'd like to ask that you refrain from doing so, in the future -- quoting from Wikipedia:Vandalism: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." I encourage you to assume good faith whenever possible, and to keep a cool head whenever possible, working out your disagreements with other users without resorting to name-calling and accusations. This is just a friendly reminder. You are free to discuss, but please be sure to create an environment where people can speak freely and a variety of opinions can be welcomed. Thank you for your time. Kind regards, Luna Santin10:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the message. I've used word "vandal" towards Ghirlandajo because of his rude manner of reverting articles. My thoughts concerning his behavior have already been written down at the "accusations noticeboard by other users whom he accused in making "personal attacks". Bless you,--Alex Kov07:45, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II
under the header 'Ukrainian women and German soldiers'
Stop deleting the statement of German historian and researcher Kerstin Muth in relation to this topic, especially since you failed the read the talk pages where it is agreed that this is an important addition to the article, what you are doing is vandalism --Yarillastremenog21:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made this edit because the {{Neutrality}} template isn't what you're looking for; it's {{Globalize}}. In any case, please don't put tags like these on the article while it's on the main page; there is no reason to panic, the problem (if there is one) will be fixed in due course. Also, you might want to have a look at WP:TIGERS. Mikker(...)09:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted your changes in this article. The reason for this is because the battle of Noryang was not suppose to block the entire Japanese army from retreat. It's goal, as clearly stated in the article (and carefully derived from numerous reputable sources), was to keep Konishi and Shimazu seperated and do as much damage as possible to Shimazu's fleet. Once Admiral Yi knew that Shimazu was coming to Konishi's aid, he knew that the blockade was untenuable. All Japanese ships linked up in Pusan and left a week after the battle of Noryang. WangKon93615:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule on Medieval cuisine. In the future, please solve editing conflicts through discussion rather than edit warring. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.
Look why are you continuing to troll on the article repeatedly? Why do you always insist on marginalising the Russian role in the Cossacks? Like for example according to Zaporozhian Host article in the aftermath only a small fraction left for the Danube, against those that went to the Kuban, and later many Danubians migrated to the Azov and from there - the Kuban? Or do you disagree that Kuban Cossacks are not considering themselves Ukrainians and thus in your WP:POINT violation it is necessary to "omit" that fact? --Kuban Cossack16:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I disagree. Those so-called "Russian Cossacks" of Kuban are just a small part of Cossack traitors who supported Bolsheviks and Red killers. The majority of Cossacks left Kuban with Germans, if you know that. They never consider themselves Russian, as well as Don Cossacks. They were just Cossacks. Kubanian Host in its culture and traditions was linked greatly with Ukraine, but not Russia. They were Ukrainians not in the modern national sense. Ukraine (not national entity but name of the country since 16 century) was the land of their ansestors. Thus they were Ukrainians and still have a strong sentiment to Ukraine. Of course the story of so-called Russian Cossack minority who supported Bolshevik is different... Also I dont understand you desire to minimalize the role of Ukraine and its culture in Kuban. Its very POVish. I also want to warn you that if you wont be civil (troll...) in your expressions I would ask admins to punish you for that.
Are you threatning me? Lol for the comments, but if you think that we are insignificant today, and btw if collaborating with Nazism=good for you, then really you just smeared your own image. As for Kuban Cossacks, don't worry about them, but it was us who took Sukhumin in 1993 as well as Trans-Dniester and a few other conflicts. We have two armoured brigades and a VDV parachute regiment (25 thousand men in total). And 90% of us are pure descendants of Kuban Cossacks, although just because we chose not to collaborate with the Germans and fight in the 4th Guards Kuban Cossack Regiment of the Red Army (who later walked on the Red Square in 1945) we do not see ourselves as traitors. Actually to this day we are loyal to the Pereyaslav Rada, and just like in the olden days when the Kuban Cossacks made up the majority of the Imperial guards, more than 70% of the Kremlin Guard are pure Kuban Cossacks ;) So please watch the personal attacks, and stop this BS about a Ukrainian Kuban which never existed and never will exist. --Kuban Cossack12:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you the desedent of those colaborators with Commmunist? Those who helped NKVD and later KGB in murder Cossacks in Kuban and Don? Do you think that they are "real Cossacks"?. Well, you expose your real face. Tell this tales about Pereyaslav Rada to somebody else. The oawth was given to the tsar and monarchy, but not the Red bloody regime. Cossacks
defended the throne and they did it to the last. You call modern "Kuban Cossacks" faithfull, but its look oposite. They are the traitors of monarchy and Bolshevik agents. I wonder how such people can call themselves "Cossacks"? Looks like a game in modern Russia and Ukraine.
Concernig your comment: Firstly, the majority of Cossacks left Kuban and Don with Germans. I gave no evaluation of this fact. Only say that is bad or good. I see it only from position of historian. The modern Kuban Cossacks are the Cossacks as well as the modern French are the Franks. Secondly, your effort to minimalize the role of Ukraine in the role of formation and culture of Kuban is vain. Its already fixed in the history that Kuban and Ukraine has a very close ties. --Alex Kov16:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately your knowledge of history is appalling. No offense but that is exactly what it is. First and foremost before the Don and Kuban were settled NOBODY lived there. During the Soviet Times even after the eviction of the Cossacks, which actually happened during the Russian Civil War not during World War II, there were no migration to those lands. Last but not least for your information most Kuban Cossacks actually fought for the Red Army in the Russian Civil War. Now I will not comment on whether that was bad or good, but they fought in what they believed in and they fought bravely. My Great Grandfather was a commander in the Red Cossack cavalry. Now contrary to your opinion the Cossack culture of the Kuban did not end there. Take the world famous Kuban Cossack Choir. I actually agree with you about the modern Cossacks not being the same as our Zaporozhian forefathers, however that does not mean anything to me. Because it is their legacy that lives on amongst us. Today the Kuban Cossack host is by no mean marginal and it plays a massive role in the culture of the Kuban. Yes there are some people who choose to join us who are not descendants, just like there were Tatars, Greeks and Poles in the original Zaporozhian Host. Yet all adopt the Orthodox faith, all become very skilled in horsemanship and our rigorous combat training. I have authentic Georgian crosses that date to the mid-19th century, original medals from the 18th century all in our household. In our Stanitsa the gravestones of my ancestors date to the first time we set foot on this land. And my stanitsa is by no means the only one with such legacy. So when you are saying that I have no right to be a Cossack or just because someone has taken our regalia during the emerge period, it shows me your arrogance and that you know #&%@ all about life. Furthermore the reason why my English is on such a level as it is, is because my school teacher was a grand daughter of a Kuban Cossack emirgant family from our stanitsa who returned in 1988 and married a local Cossack and well helped a lot to rebuild our Cossack heritage.
You should apply all this ( WP:POINTing, WP:TROLLing and WP:ATTACKing . Finally WP:DICK! ) to yourself. You:re just playing in Cossacks without knowing history. The example of it is your understanding of Pereyaslav Rada. Being in Russian Army doesnt mean to be Cossack. Go on, keep your allegiance to KGB-sort politician, those who have riped and mudered true Cossacks. I:ll still revert you POVish remark concernig Cossacks who lived in Ukraine. --Alex Kov17:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is "playing Cossacks"? Is that something that you do? Being a Cossack, by definition - loyalty to oneself (us), loyalty to the state (us), loyalty to Orthodoxy (us), horsemanship (again us), combat (you bet!) ability to control a large land and territory (Russian Cossack bill of 2004 - we replaced Militsiya in Krasnodar Krai), be always ready (well last summer we managed to pacify a group of drunken Spetsnaz men that outnumbered my group) have love for the land you live on and the country you live in (an argument you used before for the Cossacks fighting for Poland and being "defenders of Catholicism"). Also strictly speaking only in time of national war does our control fall under the Russian Ministry of Defence, so you right, that being Cossack does not mean being part of the Russian Army which technically we are not, although EVERYBODY serving in our Cossack hosts has served in the Russian Military sometime or other, myself included. So really if that does not qualify on being Cossacks than what does? And your argument about Cossacks leaving with Germans is laughable, if there are 25 thousand of us in the Kuban, there are 100 thousand in the Don. And btw who is the vice-governor of the Rostov Oblast? The supreme Ataman of the All-Great Don Host, Marshal Volodatsky. Last but not least what does Putin have to do with this? I did not even vote for him fyi. The original Union of Cossacks which under the order of Mikhail Gorbachev back in 1989 essentially restored all the lineage of the original hosts. In Ukraine on the other hand (with the exception of the corner of Lugansk Oblast which Don territory) I laugh each time I see your "Koza...no sorry Kozel-ks" especially since you have more cossack "hosts" than you have cossacks in them.
Знаешь как я на это реагирую? как на баптистский цирк когда они демонстриуют мол что могут излечить и т.д. Ты такой же клоун как и они (именно клоун, до националиста ты еще не дорос). Далее я тебе советую посетить Кубань или Дон, только советую держать язык за зубами, у нас не все с таким чувством юмора как я. Мда...историк мол, профессионал, знаю все лучше чем остальные... облажался ты и не слабо. Да кстати раз ты так говоришь об "Украинской Кубани", найди мне на Украине хоть одно место где носят Черкесски, пляшут лезгинку а под теплой звездной ночью в степной станице, после долгого дня в разъездах, у костра запоют Любо братцы любо?--Kuban Cossack12:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Слушай, Кубанский черекс (козаком тебя врядле назовешь), ты вообще читать умеешь? Пишу на "московском наречии", поскольку "козацька говірка" у подобных вызывает затруднения. Я писал не об "украинской Кубани", а о влиянии украинских козаков на культуру Кубани. Вас, вмести с украинскими "шароварщиками", и впрям клоунами назвать можно. Кто лажанулся, так это ты, да и на полные галифе... Козаков ваши ГБ-сты истребляли, а потомки палачей в клоунаду играют... Черкески никто в Украине не носит, потому что с кавказцами не воевали, а с турком, татарином, ляхом и москалем, в основном (отуда и одежда местных казаков). А песни поют не хуже чем на Кубани. Не забывай, что украинские козаки не только запорожцы. Украина была и будет страной козацкой. Почитай рукописи козаков. То, что ей сейчас правят ГБ-сты и крестьяне, неведомого роду и племени, напару с "росействующими" - временная болезнь. В отличии от "козацтвующих" детей краснозадых, нормальные потомки козаков такой пурги на Украину не гонят. А судя по твоим правкам и стилю статей, на козака ты походиш мало...--Alex Kov13:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Братья казаки. Не мешало бы вам обоим поостынуть. Если охота поспорить о политике, пожалуйста на майдан.уа или анти-оранж. Есть еще форум правда.уа и форум иносми.ру (кому что по вкусу). Незачем тут разводить флейм. --Irpen13:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]File:KubanCossacks2.jpgМой дед, третия ряд, четвертый слева, он кстати кавалер Ордена Славы.
Просто хотел чтобы это свидомое ...эхм... заблескала своими истинными красками. Судя по его Руссофобиским выговорам это и случилось. Сам как в политику ушел, что исторических аргументов нету? Я больше кормить этого тролля не собираюсь, ибо казачья дисциплина для меня этого не позволяет. Но на последок оставлю картинку. И еще никакой я не Черкесс, хотя КЧР входет в территорию Кубани. Да кстати наш говор, балачка гибрид казачьего говора 18-го века и современного Русского языка. --Kuban Cossack14:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Какой-какой "славы"? Скорее "бесславия". Благаодаря этим соладам краснозадые до конца века у власти продержались... Знаем таких "козаков"... Как и церковь... Избералась кем и чем известно. Той Росии о которой вы поете, исчезла после 1917 года, благодаря вашим же рукам... А по истории учи мат-часть. Раз сам не знаешь, не вали на других. История казаков не с Кубани начинаеться. --Alex Kov07:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just wanted to let you know why you can't use those figures in Rusyn language. They're of ethnicity/nationality, not language spoken. A person can be Ukrainian (by the estimation of the government of Ukraine or by their own self-identification) while still speaking Rusyn. The Rusyn language (or dialect if it is considered such—there's no real difference) can be spoken by many people who consider themselves Ukrainian (or other nationalities). To argue otherwise would be like saying that people who speak different dialects of German, and who live in Germany, are not German. Try not to conflate ethnicity/nationality with language. Lexicon(talk)18:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know there is no strick rule for logging in. Readers have right to edit articles as anons. So I have free choice to logg in or not. Thank you for the comment.--Alex Kov03:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is not a law but a courtesy. Editing with an editor who is logging in from ever changing IP is more difficult. It costs you nothing, makes others' lives easier and guarantees no accusations no suspicion of socking would ever be raised. But the latter is only one of several reasons. --Irpen04:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bless you!
Who do people reaact here on such accusions in sockpupeting when they are false'?
Well, it is a pattern of how they eliminate people, who disagree with their verison of events. Also, if you could wait with editing that article. Maybe we should file for Mediation to prevent another revert war? --Hillock6513:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you should submit to his wishes. Please consult WP:BRD. If you think it should belong in the article, go ahead, be bold per WP:BOLD. He does not and will not have an ownership of the article. Just be careful and don't get involved in the revert war. If it starts, don't get involved. I will help in discussion at talk page. --Hillock6514:22, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think you can do anything about that instance of his behavior, it has been reported at WP:ANI, unfortunately people are afraid to get involved with that bunch. If you wish, you can present your evidence of dealings with Irpen at ArbCom page (see the link above) and not just this one, but others as well (provide diffs). Just mention that you are not involved in the case. That's all you can do. Be careful and do not allow yourself be involved in edit wars as they will use it against you. If the revert war starts again, I will file for MedCab, maybe they will help to mediate. Just be careful and don't allow them to get you banned. --Hillock6515:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ive written it down here. Poor guy, his first moves in Wikipedia were blocked by Wiki admins... I can imagine what is going here around other articles, which are in the sphere of interest of other groups. Looks like its not bout science or education but politics and informational war...--Alex Kov15:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I ve remade temlate of Eastern slavs but it was broken by anon. See talk in Kievan Rus and the temlate hiostory there.--Alex Kov16:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I have no relaton neither Zgoden (talk · contribs) nor Zgoden2 (talk · contribs). We are diferent users. I had never any anothe account in english Wiki except Alex Kov
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Alex, please don't do anything. Wait. Let them win this time. I asked to be blocked too for speaking out. I will file for mediation. Let's see if those who revert war have valid reasons to justify their actions. --Hillock6517:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's how we treat editors who edit war, create sockpuppets to continue their edit war, and then waste our time protesting unfairness when they're caught, yes. Maybe this is pure coincidence, that just as you most needed some backup in your edit war on Kievan Rus, new accounts conveniently show up to back you. If it's pure coincidence, I for one feel just fine with you being unfairly blocked, because most of the time I'd be making the right choice, and in the end an unfair block is much less of a problem for Wikipedia than allowing this kind of abuse. Mangojuicetalk17:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On what grounds are these accusations are levelled? It never occurred to anyone that it may not be him? It never happened that other users were real people, or it even might have been his opponents in a content dispute creating socks in an attempt to get him blocked. Unfortunately they succeeded because someone thinks it is beyond them to substantiate any accusations with provable FACTS. I second Alex's request for Check user. Do I get to get blocked for that too?--Hillock6517:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alex Kov, I know you view me like an evil incarnate and please don't spare time on repeating this with your friend Hillock. I was off-line and did not see this incident. I came here to tell you that 1. I have no relation to your block (you kinda called it upon yourself by combative post on ANI while I was off-line) and 2. I never said that Zgoden-socks are yours. To the contrary, I think they are not. They are socks all-right but they pass the duck-test for someone else who I know perfectly well.
I think you edit-warred at Kievan Rus' and well into a 24-hr block but since the war stopped the issue is now moot. So, while I had my own share of pleasure from dealing with you at both en- and uk-wiki, I will try to help this unfair block lifted, like I did for Hillock when he was abusively blocked for socking. Please give me an hour to compose an ANI post. Thanks for your patience. --Irpen18:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for meditaion. Good and old KGB trick of two "investigators". One plays the role of the butcher, while another plays role of the angel. But I think you did it not for me, but for saving the face of some english wiki admins, who dared to block me for no reason. Bless you!--Alex Kov11:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, man. I am not in any sort of mediation business. Cut down the Gestapo stuff. This is both unwarranted and highly inappropriate. I am LEAST interested in saving the "face of admins on English wiki." I think that a big chunk of this face is pretty ugly and I made no secret of this opinion of mine many times. There are several enwiki admins who would eagerly block me under any excuse. See here and here for some context of the controversy which can be reduced to just a few issues. I am for the openness, transparency and accountability while some like to work things smoothly behind the scenes. I also deplore frequent disengagement of admins from content writing while some tend to see the WP as a social venue to make a career, sort of. Many en-wiki admins don't like me because I make my opinion well-known and, in several cases, some of en-wiki admins were deadminned under the circumstances where I actively called for such deadminning. Of course they were not deadminned solely because of my opinion but my opinion merely happened to agree with that of the community.
Now to the narrower issue at hand. The admin who blocked you is no friend of mine. However, this block of yours by him was clearly made under very plausible circumstances. He looked at the facts and made a conclusion that was seemed very obvious to him as it would to most of the people. One has to be aware of the history of UA-related articles and the characters of their editors to be able to tell you from Krys. I know that insidious provocations is not something you do. So, I recognized whose act this was. It would be difficult for someone unfamiliar with the circumstances.
In the very similar circumstances, I interfered when Hillock was permablocked under the false accusations of socking (his blocking admin was deadminned since that time.)
You don't have to waste your time badmouthing anyone in this case. When your block is over, I request you to stop screaming and allow the matter to achieve consensus. Clear content disputes such as this, unlike the Kyivization, can and should be resolved via a reasonable discussion. I won't mind the mediation even, while I see no need for it either as people can discuss at the talk page without involving the clueless "mediatior" from the MedCab.
While your block is still on, we can discuss the infobox at your talk. Whatever you think of me and whatever I think of you, one thing we have in common is that we want to make the Ukraine's coverage at en-wiki better. This is a good starting point to build on even if we disagree on what exactly constitutes "better". --Irpen18:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked you for the sockpuppet violations per information from Irpen, but re-blocked you for one day less (6 days in all instead of 7 days) for inveterate edit warring, personal attacks, disruptiveness, and turning Wikipedia into a battleground. See the block log and this ANI thread. Please edit more collaboratively when you return from this block. Bishonen | talk10:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
What about the appologize of those admins who were boldy accusing me? Looks like wiki admins try to hide their yesterday "mistake" by newly-created reasons "edit warring, personal attacks, disruptiveness, and turning Wikipedia into a battleground". Nice trick to block me again. Well, perhaps, thats the way of doing things in english Wikipedia. Nice job! Go on!--Alex Kov11:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shortening your block and removing your unjust (though also very understandable) block reason are the only actions I've undertaken with respect to you, and you insult me by way of thanks? When your block expires, I would really urge you to think before you post, and to give some indication that you're here to help build the encyclopedia. If not, I predict you will soon find yourself indefinitely blocked as too unpleasant and unproductive to keep around. Bishonen | talk11:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
No one owes you an apology here, especially Bishonen who unblocked you based on the word of the editor in whose integrity s/he trusts. Also, Sandstein acted totally within reason and you have to thank your false friend Krys/Zgoden/many-other-nicks for mass-production of socks that looked like yours. I did not interact much with Sandstein in the past to defend him from your general accusations but this particular suspicion of sockpuppetry would have been made by almost anyone and you should thank Krys for his socks for this. But Bishonen is one of the most fair, committed, honest and content-writing admins there is at enwiki.
Last but not least, you are the last person in the world to ever speak about admin abuse issue. With your own history of administrative actions on uk-wiki that includes blocking your content opponents, running revert wars and locking the articles in your versions, you should really self-reflect a little before raising the issue of adminitis ever again. Regards, --Irpen18:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are forgetting that he is not the only one, who protested this injustice. For all the ills of uk wiki there hasn't been a single person accused on purpose of sockpuppetry and then hounded not just by one but by several admins, who only preferred to listen to themselves. And what about this drama for trying to interject some reason? Asking someone here to aplogize for yesterday's abuse can get you banned again, you know. Instead, without any reasons the same nonsense is leveled against another user, again, without any proof whatsoever. I don't have anything else to say, at least not something that I won't get banned for. The fact, that the likes of you with all this are thriving here, needs no comment. --Hillock6519:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, Hillock. He is not the only one who protested this injustice. Your protested it and I protested it as well. I was bugging Sandstein to the degree of having him annoyed,[1] I started an ANI thread about the injustice,[2] similar to the case of your unfair sock-block where I even asked for an ArbCom which eventually took place,[3] and I put my whole reputation on the line by asking Bishonen to take my word that Zgodens are not Kov's but Krys' socks. Bishonen knows me, true enough, but she would have never done any block or unblock just for me asking her. There are admins who know me better and are more likely to believe what I say just from dealing me in the past. I chose instead to contact one of the best-known admins in en-wiki, and also known for the utmost integrity and fairness. S/he would have acted only if convinced that what s/he is doing is fair and serves the Wikipedia. I told Bish, look, you know me for not a lier, I am 100+ percent sure I know what happened and who is responsible for it. The only reason I used an email and not her talk was that the case involved the IP info. Generally, I only do things in the visible way, unless there are exceptinoal circumstances that warrant non-public communication.
Also note that it was me who was so fiercely badmouthed by you and Kov and I still spoke up against the unfair accusation, similar to what I've done when you were blocked, if you remember.
Sandstein continued to demand "evidence". Sorry, he is not a checkuser and he is not entitled to know IP's just because I know them. RFCU would have been useless for Zgodens since Krys stopped editing long time ago, longer than IP logs are kept in the database. Therefore, I did not pursue the issue with Sandstein any further.
I knew that if I turned out to be wrong, it would be extremely difficult for me to convince such a high standing admin like Bishonen to take my word and act on it ever again. I acted purely based on my conviction that slanderous accusation of socking should be lifted even though I think Kov deserved a block for other things he've done.
Also, Hillock, you have to admit that on the surface your sock-block and this one look differently. While yours was totally made of the thin air and the author of the report and the allegation was a known sockmaster himself, Betacommand, known for the love of the block button, blocked you just because he had an excuse for yet another block. In Kov's case, there was a very plausible evidence that the sock that appeared out of the blue to conveniently support him in the war was created by him indeed. One needs to know Krys' ways to recognize his style, something that I do and Sandstein does not have to.
Finally, Kov's behavior was clearly overall disruptive. He revert warred to over 3RR and brought grievous unfounded accusations against fellow editors. Instead of at least accepting my interference graciously, he now unloaded a bunch of Gestapo crap.
Sanstein did not act improperly. Most people would have done the same mistake. Also, seeing the pattern of Kov's edits it was easy to see a disruption pattern and assume he engaged into a next wrongdoing (socking) over the previous ones (revert warring, POV-pushing and overall disruption.) You want such admins at uk-wiki. God help you there.
19:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
13:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
