User talk:Ghirlandajo/Spring 2006

A question

How to translate to English the title of this article? many thanks -- Vald 08:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Cappella Palatina, 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.

--Gurubrahma 11:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for your voting!

Hi, thanks for your voting on my RFA. It has finished with the result 88/14/9, and I am promoted. I am really overwhelmed with the amount of support I have got. With some of you we have edited many articles as a team, with some I had bitter arguments in the past, some of you I consider to be living legends of Wikipedia and some nicks I in my ignorance never heard before. I love you all and I am really grateful to you.

If you feel I can help you or Wikipedia as a human, as an editor or with my newly acquired cleaning tools, then just ask and I will be happy to assist. If you will feel that I do not live up to your expectation and renegade on my promises, please contact me. Maybe it was not a malice but just ignorance or a short temper. Thank you very much, once more! abakharev 07:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD vote

Hi, Since you are an experienced editor who has edited articles about acting in the past, I'm asking if you could take a look at this AfD regarding Jason Bennett. This article was posted by an editor who claims that he is one of the great acting teachers, but to me it sounds like an advertisement. He keeps inserting links to his acting school in anything related to Stanislavsky and method acting, I've notice you have reverted some in the past. Since I am not an actor, I am only able to judge based on the claims the article makes - I cannot find ANY third-party sources regarding his notability, only listings in commercial directories of acting schoools. If you have the time, your vote and comment would be appreciated. Thank you, Marcuse 16:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

I just wanted to say thank you for voting for my RFA, of course if you ever need a hand, let me know :) - cohesion★talk 23:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Studion, 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.

--Gurubrahma 03:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jarilo

Thx for the input on Zbruch idol. I did a little rewriting and added a pic. Mayhaps you could take a look at new Jarilo article? Cheers -Hierophant 20:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guus Hiddink

Hi, Guus isn't the national manager of Russia yet - nothing official has been announced (even despite the claims of the title of this page [1], if you read the article it says: I emphasize this once more: the Russian Football Union does not confirm Hiddink’s appointment. Also, he wouldn't be able to take over until after the world cup even if he were to become the next Russian manager. Cursive 14:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

interwiki links for GLBT cat

There is nothing out there. I've checked all links. Perhaps, someone should find appropriate (new) cats. I've checked German one and find only smth. called de:Liste historischer Persönlichkeiten, bei denen eine homo- oder bisexuelle Identität diskutiert wird --tasc 17:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Pavel Kiselyov, 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.

--Gurubrahma 17:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Knyaz Talk

All right, thank you for the information, and I apologise for making it look like I was using it for chat. I wasn't; you didn't read me getting personal or asking personal details about users...but I've told many people before, we are all human and sometimes we get excited. Watch a session of British Parliament and you'll see nobody is excluded. So far, most Wikipedians have been very good in they have answered questions which I have asked, related to whichever topic the page is on. I ask the questions because things are unlcear, or certain facts are not presented. Always remember, presentations are for everyone, not just those with 95% prior knowledge...I also know that Knyaz can be KNEZ in some languages, like Serbo-Croat and Macedonian (-ez). So I am still convinced that an earlier word in the language which gave birth to Germanic and Slavic featured a word from which Kuningas is taken - and your word Knyaz. OR, it might just be the case that the two words evolved seperately by accident...I mean what is to say that Knyaz was not something more Slav-like before? Celt 1 March 2006

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Nikolay Mordvinov, 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.

--Gurubrahma 09:59, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mariinsky Theatre v. Bolshoi v. Imperial

Just after writing this but before sending, I looked at the discussion page of the Mariinsky article. It solves some of the issues, but not all. Shall post a version of this on that page also.

After finding a reference to on the Verdi page to the premiere of "La forza del destino" taking place in the "Imperial Theatre" in Saint Petersburg, I found that the link went nowhere, so created a link to the Mariinsky.

As you know, I also highlighted the name of the Imperial Theatre within the body text because I assumed that this indeed was the Imperial Theatre before a name change, but you changed it back.

So, that sent to me various texts to see what the source of all this is was, and I found the following:

Budden, Vol. 2,(paperback), notes on page 427 a letter to the composer asking "would Verdi consider a commission from the Imperial Theatre of St Petersburg".

Phillips-Matz, page 439, says "a proposal from the Imperial Theatre" was sent to Verdi in December 1860.

NOW - Budden gives the first performance as: "Bolshoi Theatre on 10 November 1862" (p.426), whereas Phillips-Matz states in the Appendix: "premiere at Imperial Theatre", same date as Budden, (page 893).

THEN - I looked at Thierry Beauvert's Operas Houses of the World and he refers to the "Bolshoi Theatre" constructed in 1783, rebuilt in 1817 after a fire; then later to the 1855 Circus Theatre which burnt down and was reconstructed by Cavos (sic) as the Mariinsky. (page 68). But he states (page 72) that the world premiere of Forza "was a work commissioned for the Maryinsky" (sic).

SO - what are your sources for any of the Mariinsky page? Can we assume that the "Bolshoi" is the same as the "Imperial"??? Who's right, who's wrong?

PS: books named above are referenced in the Verdi article, plus the Beauvert is on the Opera houses page.

Any ideas?? I'd like to solve this mystery..... Vivaverdi 19:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re-writing makes a lot more sense now. Well done.
I've added a note, based on Beauvert, re: the post-Revolution name of the theatre pre-Kirov.

The Opera magazine book names it as the "State Academic Theatre of Opera and Ballet" 1917- 1934. Which is a better English translation???

We still have the issue of Verdi's "Forza"; was it premieried at the Mariinsky??

Vivaverdi 15:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your rewrite of your re-write is excellent and adds great value to the original text. I'm glad that you have re-visted the article in light of the confusion of names, etc. over the years.

QUESTION: I read that the name was changed after the Revolution. Did it take as long as 1920 to happen?

QUESTION: by your continued inclusion of the Mariinsky being the site for Verdi's "Forza", can we assume that there is authentic backup for that??

Vivaverdi 01:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo and 153.19.48.103

I seems quite plausible that Molobo is 153.19.48.103; and I've put in a req for CU. But do you have any particular evidence? William M. Connolley 19:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Russian/Soviet military history

You're always creating new articles. Would you like to collaborate again? If my understanding is correct, the Soviet Union had more female combatants in World War II than any other other major participant. If you're willing to handle the bulk of the research I can supplement a little and copyedit on whatever aspect of the subject strikes your fancy. Regards, 68.101.254.59 02:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for restoring "Talk:Slavic peoples"

My removal of most of the comments was not on purpose. Just a result of a mistake I made.

Walks.ru

Алексей Трошин дал полное разрешения на walks.ru, скачивай чего хочешь, вот шаблон http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Walks.ru на пользования.--Kuban Cossack 18:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great news, thanks. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New sock?

Hi, you may want to have to have a look at this: Stefan cel Mare (talk · contribs) --Latinus 16:41, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:54, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

St. Petersburg

Hello Ghirlandajo - fascinating name! Just seen some banter between yourself and User:ALC Washington as regards the above redirection/disambiguation page, so wondered how I might help fix the situation. As neither a Russian nor American, I don't understand why having St. Petersburg as a disambiguation page is "trolling". The St. Petersburg previously known as Leningrad and Petrograd (and, incidentally, a city I look forward to visiting, not least for the Hermitage Museum) is what first comes to mind when I hear or read "St. Petersburg", but I'm also aware of its namesake in Florida. Best wishes, David Kernow 17:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirlandajo, I'm a little disappointed by your edit summary and revert at St. Petersburg, which would seem of a lack of desire on your part to WP:AGF. I hope we can clear the air and disucss the pros and cons of doing different things in a rational manner on the Talk:Saint Petersburg page. But to answer your very serious accusations in your edit summaries, my edits were made after making a fairly detailed and, I think, thoughtful proposal on the Saint Petersburg talk page. After over a month without reply on a rather well-trafficked page, I took this to be acquiesence to the changes I have proposed. To the extent that you disagree with the changes I have proposed, you have not said so on the talk page, despite the fact that my edit summary of "St. Petersburg" directs the dicussion there. So my edit had in fact been open for discussion for quite a while, and was hardly trolling. Since neither of us want to violate the WP:3RR, let's discuss this on the Talk:Saint Petersburg page. See you there. ALC Washington 18:26, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just posted to ALC Washington's talk page:

On second thoughts, since there seem to be only two (notable) places in the world named St./Saint Petersburg, I reckon the status quo ("St. Petersburg" redirects to "Saint Petersburg"; "St. Petersburg, Florida" and "Saint Petersburg" each include {{otheruses4}} directs to each other) is fine. Worldwide I'd guess the Russian St. Petersburg is significantly more well-known than the Floridian (correct adjective?). Best wishes, David Kernow 16:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you felt unable to say hello. Best wishes, David Kernow 16:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maslenitsa

Hello. Just wanna let you know that a link to the Maslenitsa page is on the MainPage today, on 'Forgiveness Sunday'. Happy Maslenitsa. :-) -- PFHLai 00:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget that tomorrow is Pure Sunday, when new page in life must be started. As today is Forgiveness Sunday, I apologize for any wrong doings which may have displeased my colleagues here in Wikipedia :)) --Ghirla ^-трёп- 00:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baku Khanate

Hi. My information that it was general Bulgakov (no first name given) and Glazenap who has taken Baku, not Gudovich as you stated, so I have changed the article. Please provide your sources. Also, Baku was taken without a fight as the khan fleed at the advance of Russian forces Abdulnr 01:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image of 1000 ruble

The image you uploaded, Image:Rouble jarislaw.jpg, could be renamed to Russia1000rubles97front.jpg to be consistent with the other ruble images. See Russian ruble. --Chochopk 11:33, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nominations

Thank you for the recent DYK nominations of my translations! It was really nice to see my work linked from the Main Page. Kusma (討論) 02:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know??

Hi Ghirla, you have come up with excellent suggestions for DYK on a regular basis. You may be interested in having a look at this. --Gurubrahma 06:41, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Hermitage Theatre, 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.

--Gurubrahma 13:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Demetrius

Hi, curious as to why you replaced my uploaded scanned icon of St Dimitrios, as I did not understand your reasoning: restored authentic image instead of kitchy copyvio. Cheers, Dimitri --Maggas 02:33, 7 March 2006 (ACDST)

Because I prefer encyclopedic articles to be illustrated with authentic images (a 12th-century mosaic in this case) rather than outsized contemporary comics-like pictures with violent colours which are claimed to be "private domain". Cheers, Andrey. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

Hi Ghirlandajo,

I really need your help with a user who wants to move Sukhum to Sukhumi. He denys that Abkhazia is independent and is trying to push the Georgian POV. See the discussion at User_talk:Khoikhoi#Sukhumi and User_talk:Papa_Carlo#Sukhumi. Please help, thanks. --Khoikhoi 06:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually wondering if you could talk to him why on Wikipedia the page should be at Sukhum, not Sukhumi. I've argued with him long enough. --Khoikhoi 07:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I have to say that I don't really care anymore. I don't mean to be rude, but I've talked with Papa Carlo so much about it that I suddenly have no more interest in it. Thanks anyways though. --Khoikhoi 00:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copy & paste moves

I am sorry. I did not know how to move the page properly. I asked Khoikhoi, but his way did not work. He also did not mention anything about WP:RM. Do you think he forgot?

As for listing it on WP:RM and voting I'd like to see the discussion and vote when the name was movedby in the first place. Is this information accessible?

Also can you please clarify what will happen if I just revert to the version prior to the last move (there's practically no editing done since this move)? Is that allowed? (PaC 07:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Sukhumi

user:El C carelessly deleted the page when he was making his page move. I will restore the history. mikka (t) 07:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I appreciate your help in restoring the article's history to normalcy, I don't think that Sukhumi is the proper name. It is passing out of use in Russia and, when I went to Gagra last year, I never heard it used it Abkhazia as well. Probably a vote would be helpful to determine which name is proper. Previously, the subject was discussed on User talk:Khoikhoi and User talk:Papa Carlo. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Nomination for adminship for (aeropagitica)

Hello! Thank you for taking the time to vote for me in my recent request for adminship It ended successfully with a final score of (40/10/5). I value all of the contributions made during the process and I will take a special note of the constructive criticism regarding interacting with users in the user talk space. If you have questions or requests, please leave a message. (aeropagitica) 17:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Варшава

A friendly reminder of WP:POINT policy. --Lysy^talk 19:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want such things appear in articles on all the Polish towns, please moderate your friends Molobo and Kosmak. Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I don't mind Варшава appearing in the article. Maybe the context is a bit inappropriate, but it used to be the name of the city for quite some time. This said, I'm really fed up with all these name-wars but have no idea what can be done about this other than a strict policy. --Lysy^talk 19:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, no.

I'm sorry, but Hermitage Museum simply can't remain that way. I'm surprised it lasted for so long in that condition, frankly. I did get pretty picky with my edits, and I'm willing to compromise, but a lot of those POV adjectives need to go. See: peacock terms. --Berserk798 23:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to compromise, too. As I have 100 times as much edits as you, I didn't like it when you started to preach me the basics of editing. As I person who studied Rembrandt almost professionaly, I'm positive that the Hermitage's collection is the best. And I'm sure that its collection of ancient gold is "breathtaking", as the world has no other to compare it with. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 23:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I understand why I put you off, and the article is written well, but for it to really be an asset to Wikipedia we need to clean up some of the adjectives. Perhaps the collection of gold is breathtaking, but you shoud tell more about it so people realize how amazing it is without using peacock words. I don't mean to be preachy. --Berserk798 02:45, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond. This article can't remain calling the faberge collection "superb" or the ancient gold collection "breathtaking". We can't describe anything as being "tragic". This has to change, and if you want it to still be to your liking, I'm willing to discuss, plan, and compromise. --Berserk798 17:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi there, Andrey! I incidentally found out that your picture of the Chudov Monastery in fact shows the Ascension Monastery, or Воскресенский монастырь. I'm not sure if I'm right, but see for yourself. http://www.dionisy.com/dionisy/34/ KNewman 13:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But it never presumed to show the Chudov monastery. The caption says that it is the Ascension convent (a neo-Gothic church by Carlo Rossi). As both monasteries were situated close by, I don't think there is something criminal in our illustrating the Chudov article with a picture of the Ascension convent. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. KNewman 18:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanguszko

My dear Andrey (Ghirlandajo), why do you say so taxative: (I quote) "Like other princely houses of Poland, its origin has been considered murky"? Gustav Korwin-Szwedowski 02:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on User_talk:Gustav Korwin-Szwedowski --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vyborg

Please, you insist I present my point at the talk page, but you fail to comment them and instead revert back immediately. Why? I agree, that Siege of Leningrad is relevant in Continuation War article, but could you please tell why it is relevant in Vyborg article? --Whiskey 08:32, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not good to deny community opinion in order to push your nationalist POV. Your deletions are just inacceptable. I listed the article on WP:RFC and asked for a third opinion of other editors. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've not so familiar with RFC process, should we produce some kind of presentation of our differing views? --Whiskey 10:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although this issue is already in RFC, I'd like to try to find solution also here. I do believe, that most of the differences here arise from misunderstanding; language, shortly written entries, different philosophy on enclyclopedic articles etc.

First, I do fully recognize that Finland contributed to the siege of Leningrad, and it should be present in relevant articles. Second, I also recognize the lethality of the siege, and also it should be presented in relevant articles.

Third, I believe that article Vyborg is about the geographical location, its history and especially its present day and everything which is presented there should have strict connection to it.

And it is this test that disputed text fails to address. The siege of Leningrad was 130km away. Finns severing connections around Lake Ladoga happened one and half months before capture of Vyborg and over 170km away, too widely spaced in time and space to being relevant.

Also, it sets a bad example, as using it it would be possible to add anything to every article which could have nothing to do with an article in reality. (Like Vladivostok: "During WWII Finns never get even close to Vladivostok, but elsewhere..." or Cordoba:"During Napoleonic War French-Spanish fleet was defeated in the Battle of Trafalgar, only 200km from the town...", really, not a good idea.)

At the bottom of same chapter as our disputed text, there is a mention of another battle, Battle of Tali-Ihantala. Is it relevant? In fact it is, as both Tali and Ihantala villages were part of Vyborg municipality. Not the town itself, but the municipality surrounding the town (http://www.luovutettukarjala.fi/pitajat/viipurinmlk/viipurinmlkkart.htm).

On the siege of Leningrad, I'd really like to know when the last rail connection and land connection from the town was severed and where. I consider they should be told in the article of the siege.--Whiskey 10:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actions speak louder than words...

I hail Ghirla for his efforts in improving DYK entries, through not only suggestions from articles that he starts, but other articles as well. I present him the inaugural DYK medal. --Gurubrahma 10:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

....and so, I indeed consider it a privilege to award you the inaugural DYK medal. Keep up the great work!! btw, with the main page re-design and with changes in process for {{C-uploaded}} images, I'm thinking of some changes in the DYK updation process so that a slighly higher no. of admins can update the same. --Gurubrahma 10:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghirla, you are welcome. As for your query, as things stand only me and nixie regularly update the DYK. She is on a wikibreak and I too may go on one shortly. Many admins find it daunting to update DYK, as the back-end involves lot of work such as archiving, protecting, uploading etc. apart from checking the history of articles, reading articles etc. So, I am trying to simplify some of the processes so that other admins can find it less daunting and step in when required. A typical updation takes from 15-30 minutes generally. --Gurubrahma 10:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Dear Andrey your answer is quite convincing. I am sorry, I misunderstood the concept of “murky”. Gustav Korwin-Szwedowski 07:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Turkish Literature FAC

Hi. In your Weak oppose vote on Turkish literature's featured article candidacy, the main reason (as far as I can tell) for your opposition seems to be your statement that "the prose is far from 'compelling'". Fair enough; however, I wonder if you could possibly pinpoint what it is that makes it uncompelling, tell me what problems you see in the prose, etc. If you could do so—either on the candidacy page, my talk page, or the article's talk page—I would greatly appreciate it (especially insofar as only one vote of opposition can prevent a page from being accepted as a featured article). Thanks for your time. —Saposcat 13:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:DYK

Apologies for the mistakes - I've updated DYK several times in the past before without any trouble, and this time I noticed that it hadn't been updated since before the weekend, and no one was getting to it. As such, I decided to it, but was tired because it was late in the night for my time. Never a good combination; I didn't even notice the repeated "the"... The bolding, though, was from the original nomination; I didn't change it at all. Thanks for fixing everything up, though! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shepilov and Muranov DYK'd

Thanks for chaperoning Shepilov and Muranov through the DYK nomination process!

I have to admit that I am a little ambivalent about the whole idea. How much does an encyclopedia really benefit from having more or less random (although perhaps amusing/informative) facts showcased on its front page? I guess it doesn't hurt and, besides, this is The Brave New World which hidebound conservatives like myself are liable to find bewildering. Back in my day, we edited encyclopedias the old fashioned way, via letters delivered by homing pigeons :) Ahasuerus 20:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a reasonable point, although everybody's "command of English" is of necessity "limited", sometimes more than they realize :) Ahasuerus 14:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:Calmouk

Hi, I tagged his images as "no source". I'll leave him a note regarding public domain too, I've seen worse though. At least he haven't uploaded hundreds of images like that, and those maps seems to be legitemate PD at least. --Sherool (talk) 12:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Ghirlandajo,

Thanks for the barnstar - I really appreciate it. I’ll add some new articles to the Russia portal these days. How can I check if they are already present? Thanks again! Kober 19:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Front

It aint pro-german I have balanced it I made the test page I know what pro german is you should have seen the versions before and the edit war that followed. And there are huge diffrences with my test page and the locked one. That editor who said it is very german centric only wishes to glorify the germans and nothing else dont make comments unless you know the whole story. I have fought for months trying to keep the article neutral. Every fact that I have added I have needed to back up with millions of sources just to equalize what others pulled out of their asses. So dont think for a second that my test page is pro german you have no idea what pro german is if you want to see what pro german is check out the locked page and the versions by ksenon there you will see pro german(Deng 19:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I think we should what Deng is doing the great service to the article. Just check his work. He sometimes does things in haste but overall he had a huge positive impact on the article and I hope he will stay around. Cheers to both of you, --Irpen 19:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The major diffrence Is ofcurse the mention that 4.3 million Germans died and not 2.5 million, also the Bagration now fits with the article operation bagration before it hade way to low german casulties and much higher soviet ones. Also Industrial production is diffrent and all graphs are now black grey and white so that color blind people can read them to. The Industrial production also now mentions that the soviets lost production capacity and the germans gained it by takeing over the lost land. Raw material production was lost by the Soviets and gained by the axis. The introduction is also very diffrent.(Deng 11:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Eastern front page used to be a real shame, folks, written and managed by a group of very pro-Nazi(and respectively, anit-Russian) biased people. With all my due respect to other opinions, it wasn't even close to maintaining NPOV. Quite honestly, I was hesitant to fix it, since I didn't know where even to start. It is in a somewhat better shape now, but still far from being perfect. I don't have all that time in the world to watch after it, but I'd seriously suggest someone else, with decent English, a bit of extra time and good neutral sources, should. I'd give my credit toDeng, which has been trying to, but I think he got overwhelmed by the alien forces out there. Ilvar 01:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Krasny Bor

Hi - I did a bit of work on it today to address your concerns. Let me know if you think it is improved now. Andreas 15:53, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, just because you lose more men dosent mean you didnt win also if you have questions about nummbers ask this guy User:Woogie10w and Andreas does have lot of knowledge about ww2 and I dont know shit about that specific battle so I am the wrong person to ask. (Deng 17:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Krasny Bor

You are quite right, of course, that Battle of Krasny Bor refers to a different settlement (namely to an urban settlement of the same name in Leningrad Oblast). There are also at least four other villages of that name elsewhere in Russia (Nizhny Novgorod Oblast included). I will create the dab page. As for Savicheva, looks like she was indeed buried in Nizhny Novgorod Oblast [2].—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are behaving like Molobo did in the Moscow Victory Parade. Please pull yourself together and contribute constructively. Andreas 09:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of St John

Greetings, I was just curious as to the reasoning behind adding the Russian Orders category to the Order of St John page. From what I understand, having a Russian Commander in the Order would not make it a Russian order. Just curious. --Evadb 18:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I think that you might be confusing the Order of St John (or the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem) with other Orders of St John. I'm not sure who gave the article about the MVOSJ such a definitive title, but it clearly states at the top that this article deals with the order after its 19th century revival. The Order discussed in this article is currently a British order of chivalry. I'd be all for renaming the article to more accurately reflect the fact that it is NOT the only Order of St John in the world, but I'm fairly certain that it is not a Russian Order.--Evadb 07:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, there is a lot of confusion. I looked through the interwikis - some of these lead to such articles as nds:Johanniter or bg:Хоспиталиери - which are clearly not about the British order. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the whole situation needs to be reorganized. The Dutch and German Johanniter Orden are both allied with the British Order and with the SMOM. Perhaps someone can go through and get everything straightened out.--Evadb 08:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to be a russophobe vandal...

... apparently, just adding {fact} to an article about some aspect of Russian culture or history is sufficient. Or did I miss something vital about your recent reverting of "vandalism" in Kievan Rus? Regards, Burschik 13:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Art galleries

When you get a moment, could you please review recent anon additions of art gallery sections to articles on Nizhny Novgorod and Saratov? They are not very informative, but nevertheless POVish. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 14:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Successful RfA

Thanks for your support and kind words on my recent RfA, which I am pleased to say passed with a final tally of 80/1/1. If you ever need any help, or if I mess something up as an admin, please let me know.

Cactus.man ✍ 20:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ru wiki

Hi there, how do you think is it possible to do smth. to improve situation in russian wiki? seems like vandals're not only being majority, but they're trying to get elected for admins. --tasc 17:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DFA

Hi Igor, good to see you again in a new guise. I'm only an occasional wikipede, I'm spending too much time researching Egyptian genealogical and calendrical stuff. But I saw the DFA article and it was an easy one to contribute to. --Chris Bennett 17:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suburbs of Saint Petersburg

Don't worry, I'll take care of it. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 17:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Marie Palace, 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.

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Balchug, 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.

East-West Schism

Although that section is very poorly written, to the point where I cannot tell exactly what is being described in parts of the second and third paragraphs, it looks reasonably well-balanced to me. One might choose some adjective other than "hot-headed" perhaps, as I'm not certain how possible it is to gauge a historical figure's temprement strictly from his surviving writings, but the premise that there were political intrigue and power games on both sides is basically true. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with a POV-pusher

Hey Ghirlandajo,

I really need your help on the Abkhazia page with a pro-Georgian POV-pusher. He's not Georgian (not that it matters), but he continues to attempt to add his own bias to the article. He has cited works such as "History of the Georgian people" and "Making of Georgian Nation"... See the talk page for more information. Thanks. --Khoikhoi 02:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

This edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Renaissance_in_Poland&diff=prev&oldid=44978069 is not a good practice. Fred Bauder 19:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[3] ? --Irpen 21:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as bad Fred Bauder 17:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Germany/New article announcements

I moved your comment to Talk:Chinese House (Potsdam) because this list is included directly on Portal:Germany and should not be used for discussion. I am planning to split the list into one used for display and a larger one that can include stubs and dicussions; I hope I'll get around to this soon. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 17:07, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the format, and created an extra list that is shown on the Portal page. Kusma (討論) 04:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"please explain your problems on talk"

The main purpose of my three edits that you have reverted ([4], [5], [6]) was to remove hardcoded image sizes (as I had intended to make clear by the edit summary "remove hardcoded image size"). From Wikipedia:Extended image syntax:

"... the default thumbnail width can be set in the preferences, so typically it is better not to specify "px", in order to respect the users' preferences (unless, for a special reason, a specific size is required regardless of preferences, or a size is specified outside the range of widths 120-300 that can be set in the preferences)."

Another of my changes that you have reverted was to separate the category links at the end of D.S. Mirsky onto separate lines. Although I cannot find a specific guideline for this, it seems to be a widely supported general convention.

You also reverted my moving of the image on Afanasy Shchapov from the left side to the right side. This is again supported by (somewhat less consistent) convention, but I do not claim any great authority for it. The article simply looked better to me that way.

Finally, I would like to point out an apparent inconcistency in your summarily reverting my changes with a request for further explanation (even though explanation is given in the edit summary), while your changes require no justification beyond "please explain your problems on talk".

Peace Pissant 19:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pissant, our edits are supposed to improve the articles in question. Unfortunately, I have yet to see a useful edit from you. You failed to quote a specific guideline to justify your changes. Judging by your edits, you have plenty of spare time - please do something more useful for Wikipedia than moving the pictures that others downloaded from right to left and otherwise. Peace, Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigizmund Krzhizhanovsky

You've done a brilliant job fleshing out the stub on Sigizmund Krzhizhanovsky. Many thanks. (JoeBlogsDord 11:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC))[reply]

My RFA

	Thank you! Thank you for supporting / ~~opposing~~ / ~~vandalising~~ my RFA! The result was 71/3/0 and so I am now ~~still a normal user~~ / an administrator / ~~indefinitely banned~~. Your ~~constructive criticism~~ / support / ~~foulmouthed abuse~~ has ~~given me something to think about~~ / helped me immensely / ~~turned me into a nervous wreck~~. If there's any way I can help you in return, please ~~ask someone else~~ / ~~suffer and die~~ / drop me a line! --Sam Blanning (formerly Malthusian) (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Blanning, thank you for choosing the ACME Auto-thanker! Simply strike out the phrases that do not apply and tear off this strip at the indicated line to give all your supporters and detractors the personalised response they so richly deserve. N.B: DO NOT FORGET TO TEAR THIS BIT OFF, MORON!

RfC Rydel

Almost done, I really have to leave know, please finish it off (and edit my commets if you want to) Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rydel--Kuban Cossack 18:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo

I unblocked him at his own request, not anyone else's. I had only blocked him because it had been reported that he had violated the three revert rule, which did not turn out to be the case. --InShaneee 19:46, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nemtsov

Hi, i did the german article to Boris Nemtsov, de:Boris Jefimowitsch Nemzow. As you did upload some "russian" pictures, I wonder where i can get a picture of Nemtsov, do you have an idea? -- Cherubino 21:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Connections in Australia

Thanks for finding it! Yes, I believe it deserves a WP:DYK. With the trivial questions, like who was the first Russian setteler in Australia. The article itself is obviously improvable and expandable, I might work on it my evening abakharev 22:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stalking

I'm not sure your recollection is accurate. However, you can find information about stalking on Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Harassment. Formal complaints are best made to ArbCom, I believe. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 13:14, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Principality of Polatsk

You have changed the name of the article 'Principality of Polatsk' to 'Principality of Polotsk' suggesting that this is the old Slavonic name of the principality. This is not true: Polatsk (I user Belarusian name for the city as it is a city in Belarus) was mentioned for the first time by the Primary Chronicle in 862 as Polotesk (Полотескъ). In my view, it would be accurate to use either 'Principality of Polatsk' (Belarusian name for a state which existed on the lands of today's Belarus) or 'Principality of Polotesk' (as the initial name). But not 'Principality of Polotsk' which is a Russian name.

I ask you to correct the article.

[7] - 221 hits, [8] - 278 hits, [9] - 0 hits. I would incline to use Principality of Polatsk abakharev 22:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi, thank you for nominating the article Muslim Magomayev for inclusion in Did you know? section. Regards, Grandmaster 09:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonaparte

thanks; I had no doubt that all was in order, I was just missing a quick reference to what this was about from his ban notice. dab (ᛏ) 13:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. Facts from the articles Jean Armand de Lestocq, Anna Lopukhina, Lieven which you recently created, have 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.

I know relatively little about Russia.

I would be happy to write Russia-related articles, but I am Uzbeck-Russian and I know relatively little about this country. Only common data from textbooks. I still Russian according to my self-determination, but my grandfather arrived to Uzbekistan at the time of beginning of Russian invasion, therefore history of my family substantially got mixed up with this country. I am sorry... Thank you a lot for improvements of Gates of Tashkent. Best wishes Jabez 12:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC) P.S. I didn't understand how Ismail Samani is related to Russia?[reply]

Your threats

I know you will delete this comments soon, but I don't care: your threats are not going to intimidate me, and I invite you to go take this to RfC or RfArb or wherever you want. I believe that the community is wise enough to see the truth. and rule fairly, and I am tired of your constant attacks and accusations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grande Images

Hi. I appreciate the Pic you added. But what does it really have to do with Napoleon's engineers? It can stay, for now, because some image is better than none. But if you know of a better one, say of the pontoon bridges over the Berezina, please add that instead.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 06:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guru Tegh Bahadar

I added suitable cleanup tags. It should be cut down to its encyclopedic core, and that should be merged with Guru Tegh Bahadar, which is itself still a stub. regards, dab (ᛏ) 06:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vitsebsk - again!

In the Dutch Wikipedia, someone called Hardscarf [10] who claims to be interested in Russia because he has a girl friend there, has made a Dutch version of Vitebsk and ... called it Vitsebsk! By the way, Vitebsk en Witebsk google 1074 times on Dutch non-Wikipeia sites, Vicebsk-Wicebsk google 33 times, and Vitsebsk-Witsebsk ... 12 times!)

He also added the following information on "Vitsebsk":

1) Ivan Grozny destroyed the town + between 1654 and 1667 it was destroyed and occupied by Russian troops (strange order of words - but there it is) + it was completely burned down by Russian troops of Pter the Great in 1708 + in 1812 it was re-occupied and burned down by Russian troops (the German version which is neutral in the other cases here blames the French)

(oops I forgot to mention the use of the word "Moskovië" = Muscovy in this part!)

2) it is also claimed that "the inhabitants were of course very unhappy when the town became a part of Russia during the first partition". (strange - a century before they drowned a Polish bishop). Small wonder therefore "Napoleon received a hearty welcome, because the inhabitants hoped to regain the freedom they had enjoyed under the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth" (strange, even the Polish version has nothing on this). There were also major "uprisings against Russian rule" in 1830 and 1831.

As for the last one, because of the date, I suspect this was actually an uprising directed by the Romanized Polonized gentry of the town. Am I right? Perhaps the same people were involved in 1812? (though, of course, Jews may also have preferred Napoleon to the tsar - as they may at first have preferred the Tsar to the Poles - but how many Jews were there in Vitebsk around 1172 and around 1812?)

Can you direct me to some credible info about this on the Internet? I understand Russian. I have checked the Vitebsk website, but I did not find anything conclusive about burning Vitebsk.

I suspect that Hardscarf may yet be a "Russophobe" - some of his edits in Chechen contexts look suspicious too.--pgp 12:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Paul, could you please respond to my response on the talkpage of Vitebsk instead of trying to portray me as a russophobe? This is not the way we work on the dutch wikipedia (and I hope not on the english wikipedia either). If you have problems with my edits (I corrected the one on Grozny to the current English version if you mean that with "Chechen context" (and mentioned it to you, thank you) and I am trying to set up a neutral story there, including mentioning information about the activities of all sides; Russian including Cossack, Western, Chechen-nationalistic, Chechen-wahabistic, etc.) then mention what you think is not neutral as I would be the first to admit that I am wrong. I feel sad that you try to work it out this way.

About Vitebsk: "of course" is not done yes, I apollogise for that (it should never been written as the reader has to point that out himself), I would be the first to admit that. Information about the destructions by the Russians has been added on the talkpage and indeed the part about the French occupation is not correct: But Paul, feel free to correct that.

The insurrections of 1830-1831 are being mentioned on [11] and on History_of_Belarus#Russian_Empire

About the burning. I already pointed out that I couldn't find info about this too except for the German wikipedia and the vitebsk.com website, so I am also very interrested.

About the jews, I am interested too about this matter. Maybye Paul can add it afterwards to the dutch wikipedia next to the other edits I would like him to do as referred to on the talkpage of Vitebsk.

I hope everything is now clear, and if there are any questions, please ask instead of putting insults somewhere I don't see them. --Hardscarf 11:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hardscarf, I did ask Dedalus who welcomed me in Dutch Wikipedia and got no real answer. I also put my thing in the Dutch Vitsebsk article (where Jörgen then did point out a few sources). Sorry, but after the "infidel dogs" passage and being told to look at a page which you suggested was the do it and all for transcribing the Cyrillic alphabet (until I pointed out a possible error and you changed that) I wanted to have a lot of information before I talked to you. I may have uses the R a bit too fast - "if it is unbelievable, anti-Russian and it does not even appear in the Polish version, it must be R".

The fact that Dedalus doesn't know about this name is caracteristic as we do not have people that do know how to translate the name of Vitebsk well. If it would have been on the page of the taalunie then that name would have been used, but as you can see here it is not. To use google to support your point is not immediately an accepted vision, but as you speak the Belarussian language it is clear to me that we should use the name Vitebsk as you suggested.

In this case Google obviously comes up with the normal Romanized spelling in Dutch, and the normal Romanization in Vitebsk itself. The real alternative is "Vicjebsk" (that would be "Vicyebsk" in English, I suppose) and Google does suggests "c" as second highest.User:Pan Gerwazy--pgp 23:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "infidel dogs" passage, as I guess in the article Ramzan_Kadyrov#Trivia, was being translated by me from the English wikipedia to the Dutch wikipedia. If this statement was never said by Ramzan but was made up by someone, then it should be corrected here and on the Dutch wikipedia. But the Sint-Petersburg Times claims too that he said it ("Kadyrov makes no attempt to conceal his true feelings for Russians. When former Prime Minister Sergei Abramov was staying at Kadyrov’s compound — complete with chickens, horses and various other farm animals — he was regularly hounded by Kadyrov’s fighting dogs, which would be let out “by accident” as Abramov’s car pulled up to the house. Everyone in Chechnya knows that Kadyrov doesn’t respect the legendary 19th-century political and religious leader Imam Shamil because he surrendered to the Russians — or “infidel dogs,” as Kadyrov puts it — in 1859."). So I didn't pointed out that Russians were "infidel dogs" on your talkpage but (as I was surprised about the person of Kadyrov) wanted to point you to the page of Kadyrov to show his behavior and ideas about Russians described there as it shocked me too. But -true- it could have been read differently and I should have made more clear what I meant. --Hardscarf 17:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Infidel dogs" is a dubious phrase, in fact much more often used by anti-muslim activists who claim it is how Islamists call non-muslims (just google!) than by radical Islamists themselves. "Everyone in Chechnya"? Did he really say it (when not drunk of course, if we believe all these stories) or did the journalist make it up from that Abramov incident? Even the article (which I read before of course) itself is unclear. To complicate matters:

1) "everyone in Chechnya" knowing his father's personal history may think his father once said it during the first war - before he broke away from Maskhadov.

2) he may have said it "in quotation marks", referring to Basaev, who boasts of that first name. E.g. " Shamil - is not that the guy who surrendered to the "infidel dogs"? " Because Basaev does use that phrase.

I do not like the phrase for various reasons. In this case, poking fun at the Kremlin because they depend on "a guy like that". As if the "guys on the other side" can boast of high moral standards after some recent events. User:Pan Gerwazy--pgp 23:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla, again thanks for the info. I hope I will find the time to work all this through and use it.--pgp 16:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I already started to use it a bit in the article as I was too curious. I hope you don't mind. --Hardscarf 17:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, go ahead. In any case it "feels" your article. Although I do not like the tone, I feel I should respect your work until I am satisfied I am right about facts. Until now, I never edited anything but typos before announcing my problem on the talk page (two exceptions, where I simply added "according to") I do not want to start editing before I feel sure about a number of things. The Khmelnitsky thing eg bothers me. You don't destroy a town completely which you intend to occupy (or even keep) for years and you don't destroy a town after a peace treaty. I also found that contrary to what some websites say, there were Jews in Vitebsk long before the 19th century (at the beginning of the 17th the Polish King issued a degree ordering all Jews out of Vitebsk, but they managed to stay thanks to the mayor) but whether there were enough of them to be noticeable in 1812? By the way, after writing this, I feel comfortable Ghirla knows enough - if he does not comment, we had better go on elsewhere: on your page or mine?User:Pan Gerwazy--pgp 23:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On your Dutch talkpage? But as a matter of fact multiple cases (Kadyrov and Vitebsk) are mentioned, so I would rather place them on the corresponding talkpages (respectively nl:Overleg:Ramzan Kadyrov and nl:Overleg:Vitebsk). This also goes up for the Muscovy case (nl:Overleg:Moskovië). Sorry for spoiling your talkpage Ghirla, but I had to clear

my name here, as you might understand. --Hardscarf 08:58, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, my reaction was based on the tone of it all, and on the knowledge that 1) the 17th century occupation coincides with the start and the end of the Khmelnitsky rebellion (which ends with a peace treaty), that 2)the 18th century burning happens at a time when Poland and Russia are allies, and that 3)the German version blamed the French army for 1812. I did not mention 1 and 2 in my original posting here, because I know Ghirla knows that too. ;>)

Ghirla, I do hope you do not feel offended? Again thanks for the information. It seems to have cleared waters here.User:Pan Gerwazy--pgp 23:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

I usually do, I just didn't yesterday. :) It was just that I was fixing and adding some templates to articles so I used quick summaries. Regards, --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 20:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian architecture article suggestions

Please take a look at Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Warsaw and the discussion about another missing article about Millenium of Rus' monument in Novgorod at Talk:Konstanty Wasyl Ostrogski. If you are ever in the mood to work on them, you could do it better than most of us. --Irpen 04:36, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hello Ghirlandajo. Thanks for your support in my RFA. The final vote count was (88/3/1), so I am now an administrator. Please let me know if at any stage you require assistance, or if you have comments on how I am doing as an administrator. Once again thank you and with kind regards Gryffindor 17:59, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading

Hey, since yesterday I have been unable to upload any images not even via commons. Any idea what's going on? The page keeps loading for several minutes eventually displaying: The page cannot be displayed.--Eupator 23:37, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian rulers

Hello,thanks for your respond!In fact,I wanna find the chief editor of these articles for another reason:I think the designation of those princes in English Wikipedia may have some problems.In Russia a prince of Rurik Dynasty can be many cities'Kniaz,that cause that there is no more reason to name a prince of"this city"than"that city",especially when we name them with so-called sequence,such as I,II,III.For example,"Yaroslav III of Vladimir" is also "Yaroslav I of Tver".

So I think we'd better use the system of Russian Wikipedia to name them:not to figure out which city their titles are aranged to.So "Yaroslav III of Vladimir" can be "Yaroslav Yaroslavich".Well,that's only my personal thought.And there is a web site may be helpful to your work on creating lists of Russian rulers,[12].I think my work in Chinese wiki is very like yours in English Wiki.--Douglasfrankfort 04:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lieven

Hello Ghirlandajao. Thank you for your contribution Lieven. Could you have a look at the talk page Talk:Lieven however. I raised a question about the "Caupo's pope trip" there. I'm in the process of translating your article for German wikipedia, hence the interest. --Gf1961 11:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sołtyk and Saltykov

Could you provide a reference that Sołtyk's are polonized Saltykov's? I don't recall anything about it in the 20+ bio from PSB which I read while working on that article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you'll have to wait until I find enough time to write the article Saltykov (this will be a long one). Suffice it to say that the Polish Soltyks descend from Mikhail Glebovich Saltykov, who was the leader of the pro-Polish party during the Time of Troubles and fled to Poland after Pozharsky's army took Moscow in 1612. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so there were too branches. I was worried how Kajetan could be related to Serge Saltykov, who lived (more or less) in the same time. Distant cousins then, I guess...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV at Great Schism

You tagged it with POV and you explained why by citing two statements from the article. I responded on the talk page, but I wanted to ask you directly here: I can see why the sentences struck you as "papist," but I cannot see anything factually incorrect with them, what's wrong? Anyways, I explained fully at the talk page and I just wanted to see if you could explain further. Thankyou. Srnec 04:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation of vandalism

You accused me of vandalism. You responded to my question by suggesting I discuss it on the discussion page; I have already done that. Please refrain from attacking me for a badly-needed edit. DMorpheus 16:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete whole passages again, and you will not face admin action. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian censusform of 2002 PD-RU-exempt?

Hi, I was wondering: can a censusform as uploaded on the Russian wikipedia (by a former employee of Goskomstat, if I read it well on his page) be considered PD-RU-exempt? Or does law nr. 8 not qualify for this sort of images and should it be considered as fair use? --Hardscarf 21:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not competent to comment on the issue. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our Minneapolian freind IP:134.84.5.xx

Sevastopol, Ukrainization, Volhynia, Lutsk. Blanking, trying to clearely push a POV. Shall we do something about him. Considering he is yet to show a serious edit input.--Kuban Cossack 22:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. Facts from the articles Samuel Greig and Peter Lacy which you recently created, have 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.

Did you know? has been updated. Facts from the articles Millennium of Russia and Church of the Twelve Apostles which you recently created, have 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.

Gothic sites

Why did you post Gothic sites of etc. categories to be deleted? Whhy "Roman sites of..." are allowable, and other kind of arts are not? Let me know. Attilios 18:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Please learn to express your views in talk'

"We should never forget that our prime aim is to write an encyclopaedia." Please learn to use appropriate edit summaries. And why is keeping the old wording more important than being encyclopedic? Guinnog 18:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Николай Гумилев

Зачем Вы переименовали Gumilev в Gumilyov?.. Повсюду, в английском языке, используется именно Gumilev, еще с 1918, когда он был в Лондоне и давал интервью местной газете. Зачем вносить путаницу? Да, Gumilyov, тоже используется, но как вариант, а не как основное написание, его можно упомянуть в вариантах, но поменять фамилию во всей статье и имя статьи, на мой взгляд - не верно.

А с другой стороны - один чёрт, просто привык к Gumilev :)

SuperDeng

I'll rescind the block. Then YOU can deal with him. Have fun! --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at this and this and this, you will see that this is not isolated. Deng has been blocked several times for his behavior. So it's not as if this just came out of the blue. Next time...before calling me disruptive...look at the evidence. Thanks. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 06:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic

Please read the talk page before your revert back into an article material removed in large measure because sections of it were plagerised from another site in prosbable breach of copyright.Alci12 11:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Novgorod Republic

I'm gonna fix the "Teutonic 1250" map. Give me about a week, though, 'cause I'm very busy trying to fight trolls on the WIKI. Thank you for catching my mistake. Пеший Космонавт

On the other hand, though, Poland was also fragmented during that time. And no Polish users were offended that for simplification (remember - the maps are about the Monastic State not about Poland nor Russia) I called all Polish Duchies: "Poland during Fragmentation". Space Cadet 01:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caserta palace

Can I ask you to give a glance for copyedit of articles about art & places I've just rewrote? These are Reggia di Caserta, San Pietro, Perugia and some churches in the Perugia#Main sights section. Thanks in advance! Attilio

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. Facts from the articles Russian Geographical Society and Pyotr Semenov-Tyan-Shansky which you recently created, have 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.

Kusma's RfA

Hello, Ghirlandajo! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. If you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Especially do so if you have suggestions how we can make the Germany portal announcement page more useful for great DYK-hunters like you. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 19:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bumper sticker

I hope you'll like it. Space Cadet 02:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arvo Tuominen

Thanks for the DiK nomination :)

Sorry I haven't been able to spend much time on the history side of WP lately. User:Alvonruff and I have been trying to get Portal:Speculative fiction/Article announcements going, but hunting for contributors has been an uphill battle so far. Ahasuerus 04:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistan

Hello Ghirla. I am writing to you, cause you as a Russian Wikipedian can help. Do you think categories such as Cat:Uzbek society or Cat:Uzbek people should be renamed to "Uzbekistani"? Uzbeks are an ethnic groups, many people from Uzbekistan are not ethnic Uzbeks, so I think it is wrong to have for example ethnic Russian resident of Uzbekistan under "Uzbek people" category. What do you think? - Darwinek 13:24, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur completely. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I don't stalk you :). I am just interested in history and read many of your new articles, which I appreciate. But also I hope you have read WP:CITE. - Darwinek 13:56, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uzbekistan categories nominated on WP:CFD. You can vote or comment here. - Darwinek 18:31, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of Azerbaijan

For the History of Azerbaijan article, could you actually revert Sampa and re-add your edit? Thanks. --Khoikhoi 19:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Большое спасибо. --Khoikhoi 19:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ВСХВ/ВДНХ

I propose that we, together, work to give it a massive upthrust, including separate articles on all the pavilions. Besides we got our best vintage pre-1973 photo source BCXB.ru.--Kuban Cossack 21:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polish trolls

What do you think [13] --Kuban Cossack 12:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bud Neill

Hi Ghirla, I have now added it to DYK as you suggested. It wasn't an easy one to trim down to concise wording, but hopefully it's OK now. Cheers. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say...

...hello again and thanks for your work on the Russian Geographical Society article. I found it through spotting a link that had turned from red to blue! Best wishes, David Kernow 09:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. —Ruud 10:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all :) --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Lazarev

I have been planning to do that for a while now. I wanted to write about the varous buildings in Russia by their name as well. The only problem I have is figuring out which Lazarev belonged to which Lazarev family! There is another Lazarev noble family hailing from Novgorod. I might ask you for help when I start working on this. Also, I have to ask you about Suvorov's mother. What do you think about this? МАНУКОВА ЕВДОКИЯ (АВДОТЬЯ) ФЕДОСЬЕВНА and Мать Суворова. --Eupator 14:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why Wiki Doesn't Require editors to log in

The vast majority of editors start the process of editing with NO Wiki accounts and they do not want to discourage the practice as it leads to logged in edits. Some people won't log in EVER for privacy or even security reasons. For example, I know for a fact that [[Theodore Roosevelt's great granddaughter, Joanna Sturm, comes and goes in Wikipedia, making edits here and there on Roosevelt family articles and deliberately never logs in. For her, I suspect its a privacy thing. I'm the guy who started that article on Baron Rosen. Spaciba for providing the related dates! Do you have an article on him in Russian? SimonATL 16:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space Cadet

Indeed. I'll be keeping an eye out for Space Cadet, Kuban Kazak, and Sciurinæ (and anyone else who decides to get involved in this massive, wide-scale edit war). All three have been warned, and next edit war, 3RR or no, I plan on blocking. As for the 3RR listing, my warning came afterwards, and he's already blocked for personal attacks, so let's see what happens. As I said, if he doesn't change his ways, I'll certainly deal with it. Dmcdevit·t 02:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Khatyn massacre

Hello. I would like you to comment in the talk page if you do reverts - you have asked the same from me once and now I always try to do that. It would be nice to hear your opinion on Khatyn massacre if you would insist that the general facts about the nazi occupation of Belarus (which at that version actually takes up a large part of the article) should be explained in detail. Thanks in advance. Burann 12:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sanssouci

Hi Ghirla, I wondered if you would be interested in reviewing Sanssouci here [14], like all architectural pages voting is rather slow - don't feel obliged to support (I have only given it a huge copyedit) but some more opinions would be useful. I am back on architecture now (after a break from it) and looking for a new subject - any ideas? Is there anywhere Russian not yet covered or very well known, there's a Polish place Lazienski, (I'm not sure that's the correct spelling - that tempts me) Have a great Easter - it's quite a big holiday in Russia isn't it? Regards Giano | talk 07:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just found this Łazienki Park what is the significance of the strange "L" - obviously I am going to have to do a great deal of research for this one, begining with the spelling - nothing so good as starting at the bottom! Giano | talk 07:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks that has given me something to think about, I want a subject I have to look up and research without having pre-conceived ideas. the Russian palaces have interested me for a while. especially as they are a gaping hole in wikipedia's architecture section. Even sanssouci is relatively unknown, so it has given me some inspiration. Thanks. Giano | talk 11:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Do have an edit it Sanssouci if you want, it has become very much a community project! Giano | talk 11:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DYK

OK, I'll have a look, but I'm not familiar with the procedures and norms for updating, so it may take a wee while to get it done. Bear with me. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghirla, yes I know the user talk page update is now "optional", but I think it's only polite to inform people directly that their hard work is featured on the main page. If I become involved in this work in the longer term, it's something I would always do as a courtesy. I also saw that the main DYK page entry was shorter than the other sections and thought about adding another item but, being a newbie updater, I erred on the side of caution. The guidelines kind of hint at 4 entries, the old section had 6 entries, so I settled for 5 :-) I'll have another look and add an extra one shortly I think. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The Battle of Budapest almost made my cut, it's an interesting article but I just felt that the wording of the entry was a bit light on interesting facts. I'll have a closer read of the article and see if the entry can be "spiced up" a bit. As for images, I followed the guideline again which seemed to indicate that only the 1st item should have an image. It was a close call between Image:Petrus de Ebulo.jpg and Image:Shuv_rokot.jpg. If there are no prohibitions on having two images I'd be happy to add Ivan Shuvalov because it's a nice image. I'll take your advice on this because you seem to be a veteran contributor to DYK. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:05, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I also forgot to list the previously shown images in the archive section on the talk page, thanks for fixing that. --Cactus.man ✍ 10:18, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Renaissance

Well the Manual of Style woon't like it, but I think it's a very pretty page, in fact I quite like it. Shame the text rather spoils the pictures! Giano | talk 17:32, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. Facts from the articles Russo-Persian War, 1826-1828 and Persian Expedition of 1796, which you recently created, have 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.

Did you know? has been updated. Facts from the articles Ivan Shuvalov and Nakaz, which you recently created, have 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.

Caserta

I only has a look at it when I saw your message abovem and copyedited a couple of paragraphs. My personal view is it is a horrible place. The Baroque comes from its massiveness, and commanding presence which is indisputable. It terms of beauty (IMO) it is rivalled only by Escorial. I dispute too the fact that the park is more beautiful than Versailles (as the article states). I may add something later, but at the moment we realy ought to do something anoy Neo-Renaissance - can't leave it like that - pretty as it is! Giano | talk 14:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about a reference

Please see my comment on Talk:Russophobia. Balcer 21:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaliningrad

Помоги отодрать этого хмыря --Kuban Cossack 08:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. Facts from the articles Nikolay Kamensky and Russo-Turkish War, 1806-1812, which you recently created, have 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.

Ivan IV

You reverted a recent edit of mine. You said "shopped phrases are good for 8-year-olds only; his mother was not a "Lithuanian princess"; please don't trivialize account by excluding colorful details". What is a "shopped phrase" and why are they good for eight-year-olds. Was Elena Glinskaya not Lithuanian, not a princess, or neither? What colorful details have been excluded? Cwiki 11:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Elena was Serbian through her mother and Ukrainian through her father. If you don't understand what "chopped phrase" is, I'm sorry for your English. Shuisky's dirty boots on a boy's bed was a "colorful detail" which you chose to suppress. Also, after creating hundreds new articles for this project, I advise you to discuss articles on their talk pages, not here. If everyone came here to discuss each of my 30,000+ edits, this page would have been endless. Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of Ancient Rus

Hi there, Andrey! This is regarding the references for the Culture of Ancient Rus. I translated most (if not all, I can't remember now) of the article from www.russianculture.ru. I'm kind of afraid to add this reference, because I've already had problems with references for the Sergey Ivanov article. One guy even told me that publishing personal translations is a copyright violation or something like that. What do you suggest we do? KNewman 13:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

Hi Andrey,

Can you please help me out with Chisinau (talk · contribs)? (aka you-know-who) So far, he's reverted the following pages:

Please contact other people if you feel that it's necessary, thank you. —Khoikhoi 20:08, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Renaissance

Gosh! There is Ferrières and Mentmore sitting uncomfortably on top of an apartment block. I think our readers should be told! Giano

Indeed :)) Unfortunately, I have to go offline until Monday :( --Ghirla ^-трёп- 20:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quote

Ghirlandajo, I really don't care for edit summaries like this one. If you accuse me of stalking, please provide evidence.

As for my call for the exact sourcing of the quote (and that includes information about translation!), I am supported in this request by Irpen (see User User talk:Irpen#Tag). You might note that it was Irpen who first inserted the tag after the quote. If you continue to remove the "dubious" tag without engaging in the discussion on the talk page and providing the requested information, I will revert your removal as simple vandalism. I believe such reverts are exempt from the 3RR rule.

As for your suggestion for going to the library, let me assure you that I go to libraries quite often. Unfortunately, the obscure book which you are quoting is nearly unobtainable in libraries on the North American continent. That is why I am making my requests for additional information. Balcer 13:32, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I provided reference, it's up to you to find it. Should I go to Warsaw to discover the book for you, scan the pages and post them online? There is no Wikipedia policy that allows to discard editions of historical documents as "dubious" only because one wikipedian failed to find the book in his local library. As for translation, I'll have to add similar tags to 90% articles of Soviet-Polish relations, as most of their content was translated either from Polish or from Russian and one can never tell whether "translation" was accurate. In short, you behavior may be described as tag trolling - we've been through it before with Piotrus and his buddy Molobo. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Prince of Moscow

Can you tell me what means "no need for POV forks"? The article shoulden't be merged into list of Russian rulers. Their relationship is like Duke of Bavaria and king of Germany. And in fact there are Princes who ruled Moscow are out of the list of Russian rulers. See Grand Prince of Tver.--Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 13:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And see here [15]. You can find Михаил Ярославич Хоробрит, he is a Prince of Moscow, but he isn't in the list of Russian rulers. --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 14:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winter War

If you want to have the paragraph of Laaksonen's book, it is ok for me. But... I will add the caveat about the method he used in his study. Personally, I'm great fan of counterfactual history and I like to think myself about the what-if situations, and I do consider that Laaksonen's book is entertaining and has its merits, particularly about the situation of March 13, but as conclusions from that, he starts using this method not approved by majority of researchers, and if that part is notified in the article, then the warning about the method should be issued. --Whiskey 20:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paul I of Russia

Regarding Paul I of Russia: user:ChevalierJean is a sock of user:Shran. User:Ordre St Jean and User:24.235.156.253 may be other idneitites as well. I have now blocked ChevalierJean for abuse of consensus in other articles. Please let me know if Ordre St Jean appears to acting in a disruptive maner, or is ganging up with other Shran identities to skew consensus. Thanks, -Will Beback 23:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After I wrote this I went to Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Shran, where I found that I'd forgotten the nearly identical User:Ordrestjean. -Will Beback 10:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jean has done nothing wrong and only tried to present accurate information as opposed to your blatant pov. Your arrogance is incredible. SockMaster2000 19:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Prince of Vladimir

Hey I found the list of Russian rulers is not a good idea for listing all major Russian Princes. There are some rulers of Vladimir who only held the city (or got the "certificate" from Khan) for 1~2years; they should be involed in the "Grand Prince of Vladimir", but now they are not in any list of Russian rulers. One of them is Mikhail Khorobrit. Do you want me to creat a list of Grand Prince of Vladimir? --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 04:41, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to spawn listomania. Mikhail was never Grand Prince of Vladimir. He just took the city for a few months without official leave of the Khan. Leave him out. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then where is Dmitry Konstantinovich? He had receive the leave of the Khan(1359 - 1363). --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 06:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the List of Russian rulers carefully. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, who I should refer is Mikhail Alexandrovich(1370-1371,then 1375), he is the last one who had the leave of the Khan and not a member of Moscovy. --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 06:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-Turkish War

Hi Ghirla. Your attitude to alternative points of view at the Russo-Turkish War, 1877–1878 article is most counterproductive. In the same way that I have warned Greier about personal attacks, I think it is not OK that you simply reverted his edits without an explanation on his talk page, and then reverted again with what can be seen as a quite intimating edit summary. You claimed that he had inserted Russophobic comments to a stable version, however the concept of a stable version doesn't yet exist at Wikipedia and it is part of the spirit of Wikipedia for editors to be bold in updating pages. From what I can see, Greier's edits were not at all vandalism, and were in fact contributing to a more complete article, even though he did leave out a sentence in his edit ("The nations delivered by the Russians from the centuries of Turkish yoke still regard this war as the second beginning of their nationhood."). In any case, I think your way of dealing with this was not particularly good faith. You're probably going to tell me that Greier has a history of "vandalism", but that shouldn't matter at all - his contributions to the Russo-Turkish article should be taken at face value. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Alexandrovich

Hey I have created the article about him, see Mikhail II of Tver. I hope you can believe he really got the tilte Grand Prince of Vladimir. --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 11:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Probably not a big deal, but I figure I should explain myself on this one. The term "Wikilawyering" sounds bad, and according to Wikipedia:Wikilawyering is bad, so if that's what I'm doing, I'm sorry. However, my interpretation of "wikilawyering" is that it is simply finding ways to break the spirit of the rules while complying with the letter. I cannot find any 300 word requirement, and if it exists I stand corrected, but I will base this argument on the frequently cited 1000 character/byte requirement (see both WP:DYK and Template talk:Did you know). The article meets the requirement (Notepad said 1557 bytes of prose), and I strongly disagree with any implication that this article attempts to break the spirit of that requirement. I did not count references in that number, I did not count further reading, there are no lists, there are no extra space-filling characters; all we have here is a simple article that covers the topic concisely. The bottom line is that the guidelines are clear, and many people clearly comply with them (not just me, lots of people), but others still claim that those same people are not complying with them. That's what frustrates me—if you want to changes the rules, feel free, but don't claim that I'm not following the rules (either the spirit or the letter) when I most certainly am. --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 16:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Казанский дракон

Привет! Можешь помочь вывести Зиланта в Today's featured article? --Untifler 17:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geloni

Why? It needs cleanup, but it is perfectly salvageable. dab (ᛏ) 18:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WWII

I looked at the axis-soviet Template talk and well I dont see any big problem with either way everything is fine with me I have nothing to add to the argument.

I also looked at the Battle of Königsberg It looks good to me but then again I do not have detailed information about that battle.

(Deng 19:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Who cares about his citizenship?

For one, I do, as should have been obvious. Why don't you remove this irrelevant information from the Igor Stravinsky as well? Lambiam ^Talk 20:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beloselsky-Belozersky Palace

Fortunatly there seems little Neo-Renaissance about that palace! That is neo-Baroque through and through. No I would not have guessed it was so late, but then compare it to Linderhof and it is not such a surprise - is it? Giano | talk 20:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. Facts from the articles Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti and Ippolit Bogdanovich, which you recently created, have 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.

Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti

Nice article :-) I am a little confused about the picture - it's definitely the 28 June 1711 edition but the title doesn't seem to be just Vedomosti (the article says that before 1727, that was the title). Is the reference to St Petersburg at the top just a reference to where it was printed rather than an integral part of the title? Or is it because this is a 19th century reprint with the new title retroactively applied? I asked the same question on the talk page, it would be interesting to see it cleared up! TheGrappler 17:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Guchkov

That's right, Guchkov is long overdue, although I'd prefer to cover the whole family at once. I guess I could do a quick and dirty stub for now. Thanks for the reminder :) Ahasuerus 16:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: FAC Comment

Thanks for your great work on Mosque. I hope this one will get featured. By the way, I see you are a Muslim and I would like to hear your comments about Martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadar. The article says that "fundamentalists thrust Islam by hook or by crook... by sexual harassment and forcible abductions of the daughters of Hindus and other satanic misdeeds". Is it true? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:39, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All I have to say is that Martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadar is in serious need of cleanup. It's hardly coherent as it is. If you want to discuss the merits of Mosque becoming a featured article, you can leave your comments at its FAC page. joturn e r 22:41, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monomakh

Ancient rulers didn't, wikipedia does. Take a look at Rulers of Kievan Rus. I see problems with numbering of rulers from non-autocratic period, but I also see the convenience of numbering as well. `'mikka (t) 17:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be consistent, you have to reconsider all these rulers in the list. I also see the problem that one knyaz could have been ruling in several places, and it is quite possible that, say, Mirobor II of Kiev was Mirobor III of Novgorod and Mirobor I of Moscow, so indeed, this numbering may be more confusing than useful. I suggest you to discuss the issue with all russians. `'mikka (t) 18:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empire strikes back!

I think you are wrong to describe the Opera as a good example of Second Empire, as a building it is almost unique, none of it copies were as fine. Far better and more typical examples of Empire II would be the Hausemann streets and Boulevards - even city planning (itself a Baroque feature!) - anyhow that is not today's problem. On a lighter note you were completely right to remove the American examples - whatever were they? Neo-Renaissance is going to have to have a stronger American mention, I'm hoping we can find typical Renaissance examples. I'm unsure where in time to finish the page - bearing in mind it can't be book length. Long articles have never bothered me, but one does have to retain interest to the end - any ideas? Giano | talk 18:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Here try this as an alternatice example [[

"Haussmann"-style avenue and architecture

Well I think it would be wise and prudent to leave Second Empire to the Americans. It seems to have grown somewhat in the last 24 hours. In my part of the world an arts and crafts house with a tower that looks as though it belongs on Lego Land Town Hall is not Second Empire, neither is a Californian version of a Vampiric Castle. I have put in Neo-Renaissance that Second Empire is Neo-Renaissance with baroque embellishments, and that is as generous as I am prepared to be. To more important things, I want to write the real Renaissance style giving greater emphasis to the four directions that true Renaissance developed, so that the forms in which it took as Neo-Renaissance can be better explained. I've removed all reference to the Opera Garnier - A: because wetman thought it was stretching the category; and B: because it was confusing the issue. I won't have time to do too much today but hopefully over the week-end. I'll take a closer look at your images then, and we can do a North European section, or at least include some examples somewhere. Thanks for your help. Do you know how to add images properly. I want to put this one Image:Fredriksborg palace.jpg underneath Hardwick Hall, and then elaborate a little, but everytime I try, it either goes sideways or displaces the rest, even when I try to move the others upwards. I've run out of patience with it!!! Regards. Giano | talk 12:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Don't worry about the USA Images Wetman has supplied a very good one of a library in Boston - excellent!

Thanks for inserting the image - regarding the edit summary: "do we need so many?"....Yes I think we do, all will be revealed later, I think it is important when describing a building to give the unimformed reader an idea what exactly is being imitated or the source. you and I both know what a "Dutch gable", "mullioned window" or even a bloody "mansard roof" look like, many people do not. I always work like this put in as much information as possible, and then prune and edit very hard (see: Sansoucci's history - I can be ruthless) If I had known this page was going to take off, I would have written it in user-space first (I usually do that), when I do the final edits I will keep referring to the original Renaissance to attempt to explain why the Nordic Museum is so different to somewhere else etc. The problem is I keep remembering other very important examples which should be included - that's why it is growing so fast, in fact writing this I have just remembered Cliveden. Today I was driving through the English countryside, and needed some money (a common complaint) stopped in an obscure town called Leighton Buzzard to use the cash machine, and found the bank was a delapidated 19th century Italian Palazzo, so delapidated were it's window frames the NatWest bank should hold their heads in shame, and its manager commit suicide by falling on his pen. - luckily as always I had my camera, and may use it for the conclusion - sort of amazingly new innovative architecture is today so commonplace it can be neglected - what do you think of that?...Regards Giano | talk 17:21, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK self reversion of update

Hi sorry about that - I was running overtime, real life thooughly intruding and had to go right then, not even so much time as to explain - the formatting had gone skewiff for some reason and I thought better to revert than fail to fix. When I started the update I thought I would have had enough time to finish but ... :-( --A Y Arktos\^talk 19:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonny

Thanks for blocking Bonaparte's latest sockpuppet. He is still active as 212.200.52.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), a likely open proxy. He logged in as Deutsche after I had reverted his attack on User:Ronline's talk page earlier this morning. Please investigate. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see that the harrassment has continued. Since I am not sure of how to check for open proxies, I have set the block to 24 hours for now (there do seem to be some good edits from that IP as well). Goodness, you have been having to put up with a lot of nonsense haven't you? Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zorndorf & Gr.-Jägersdorf

Thanks for expanding those two battles; it's interesting reading. Olessi 16:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working Man's Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For nominating articles for DYK therby keeping the column interesting and encouraging good new articles. Also reviewing nominations by others constructively. A Y Arktos\^talk 21:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Dmitry Senyavin, 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 ✍ 12:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal:Russia

Hello, Alexander. I see that you write nice articles on Soviet-related themes. Please don't forget to announce your new articles on the subject on Portal:Russia/New article announcements, so other Russia-interested wikipedians could check them. There is also Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board for other Russia-related discussions. Happy edits, Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly will. It's just that I was not aware of the existence of this page before... ^_^ (don't forget that I'm new to Wikipedia) Grafikm_fr 14:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easter Greetings

If you celebrate Easter, Happy Easter to you. Even if you do not, Best Wishes to you and yours! Dr. Dan 21:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voistinu voskrese! (which means "Truly he is risen!" in Old Church Slavonic). --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Renaissance

Thanks for the messages. I'm having a rst from the page for a day, while I think it through. Do you want to add some more Russian architecture, and put in what you think are the best of the rest worldwide? The we can refer them to the original renaissance buildings which inspired them, etc. I have to rewrite that section. Then do the conclusion, with a couple of rundown obscure buildings (have you seem the Leighton Buzzard bank?) Regards. Giano | talk 15:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment

Just to make sure you are in the loop when othere are talking about you, please take a look and possibly comment at Talk:Russophobia and User talk:Piotrus. Balcer 18:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crimean War

Thank you for saving my edits in the Crimean war#Baltic theatre from extermination. DonaldDuck 02:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easter

I don't celebrate Easter, but thanks for the gesture! Happy Easter to you too.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 14:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whim

Insisting I must support myself on a guideline when I appeal to common sense is the very definition of wikilawyering. Not that I can see see what's wrong with the example in WP:CONTEXT, either: "To link or not to link: an example. In the article on Supply and demand, you should... probably not link to the United States because that is a very large article with no particular connection to supply and demand." Canada and Russia are very large articles with no particular connection to Andrée's fate. But since you iinsist on your whim over mine, I'll leave you to it. Feel free to make a meaningless and ugly change in a text I wrote and to which you have contributed nothing. Now go right ahead and tell me I don't "own" the article. Perhaps you own it. Bishonen | talk 15:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Responded on User_talk:Bishonen. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:28, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just as background, there are a few people left who write articles all the way from idea to Main Page, and, when an article like that does make it to the main page, it's a bit of a mixed blessing. The number of edits the article will get at that point is staggering, and watching for inappropriate changes becomes a full time job for the UTC day. Don't be too surprised if folks are irrascible when they're responding to changes, especially if you revert to those changes. As a visitor to the article, you're always going to be more low key than the person who is watching change after change after change coming through, and you can't expect the same level of politeness that you would see on other occasions. I know that all of my article that have been on the main page have been salted with massive overlinking when they were there, as visitors come along and 'help' by trying to improve the linking, in particular. My point is that I wouldn't go around thinking anyone is a troll, or even rude, if, when an article they've devoted months to researching and writing is on the main page, they're not taking a great deal of time to explain their reverts. Geogre 17:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Easter greetings

Воистину воскресе! -- Grafikm_fr 16:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your greeting! :)

Воистину воскрес! Спасибо за поздравление! KNewman 17:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Truly he is risen! I hope you're having a bright and glorious feast! TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:58, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Blok

Can you please tell me what is wrong with my editing on the Blok page? I'm finding your reversions quite frustrating since I've fixed a lot of stuff and it seems you would just prefer the previous, typo-ridden, ungrammatical version. Thanks.--Mefistofele 21:31, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've been giving trouble to yet another editor on the same page (Blok).
Ghirlandajo -- you really need to do something about your attitude and approach to resolving "problems" with other users' edits. Regardless of the number of edits you might have—and even if you were recently promoted to admin—as a relatively new editor, I can tell you that your rudeness and lack of respect for other editors is completely counter-productive to the expansion of Wikipedia (it makes new users not want to contribute). From other posts and taking a brief look at your interaction with other users on other pages, I can see that I am not voicing a unique sentiment; something's gotta change, man. --Mefistofele 21:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work!

Hey, great work on the House of Croÿ! Whilst editing William de Croÿ today I greatly wondered that there was no page on this important family, and behold: a few hours later there is! Brilliant! Thomas Antonius 22:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur completely that many of these families need work on wikipedia. I have added a list of some of the most important families during the Burgundian and Habsburg period in the Low Countries on my user page, but I am rather short in my own time as well, at the moment. In the future, however, I would like to add articles about them. Let's see what may come in the future. Thomas Antonius 13:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Croÿ

Hello there! Great work on House of Croÿ so far... Would you object to some minor edits? I see some minor things that could be tweaked a little bit, but if you'd like to go through it on your own, that's fine ;-) Charles 02:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pecheneg

Hello again! Do you have any ideea about some images of Svyatoslav;Sviatopolk or Yaroslav in battle with pechenegs? Or some images with peceneg artefacts during Kiev siege?CristianChirita 07:44, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonny Boy

Hi. Just wanted to inform you that a large number of Bonaparte's socks got blocked recently (see WP:RFCU) but he has now returned as 12.4.27.44 (talk · contribs). Can you help me out? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 08:23, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NSLE blocked 'em. Now all we need to do is revert his edits, although I have to go to sleep soon. —Khoikhoi 08:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, on image copyright.

I do not intend to be rude, I have seen the large amounts of edits you make and I appreciate your contributions but I have also read the hostile response you've given to The JPS in regard to the copyrighted images you've uploaded, and I do not want there to be any further misunderstandings. The images in question this time around Image:Zvenigorod.jpg, Image:Krom.jpg, and Image:Krutitsy.jpg can not be used on Wikipedia under fair use. Our distribution of these works is both a violation of US law and of Wikipedia policy. That an image happens to be of the subject of one of our articles does not excuse a violation of the copyright holders reserved rights. It appears that you substantally misunderstand copyright and our policy here. What I need you to understand is that the goal of this project is to be a Free content encyclopedia. If your actions put the freeness of our work at risk, then potentially make all of your effort and the effort of others a waste. Lets have a conversation about this, I want to make sure you understand before you upload any more images. Also, I've seen your threat to upload images with dishonest tagging. This is your one and only notice that if you are ever discovered doing so you will be permanently banned from editing Wikipedia. I and other users will begin auditing your uploads to check for mistakes, please cooperate in determining the correct status of these images. --Gmaxwell 15:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This edit is enough to persuade me that you are either a troll or a copyright Nazi. Please go away. My policy is not to feed trolls. I hope those who make edits like the above-mentioned will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see that you've since removed the fair use images from your userpage, but I see that you still have Image:Belskiy.jpg. If the image is indeed only used wikipedia under fair use then you shouldn't have it on your userpage. --Gmaxwell 15:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Jkelly 17:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's cool that you have guts to leave such reminders to editors who have six times more experience in WP than yourself. Nevertheless, I would like to know which of my comments you classify as "personal attacks". Where did I comment on the contributor rather than content? If you fail to demonstrate such diffs, I'll have to bring the issue of intimidation on WP:ANI. Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

А че правда не перекинуть все на commons? Я только туда материал закидываю.--Kuban Cossack

17:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Если это будет нарушение, то это не будет разрешать на commons также. --Gmaxwell 23:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked for examples of personal attacks. This is you, commenting on the contributor. Here you call User:Gmaxwell a "Nazi" and a vandal, and here you repeat the "Nazi" claim and call him a troll. If you indeed have, as you claim "six times more experience on WP" than I do, you have even more responsibility to be a model of WP:CIVIL and WP:WQT. Further, I suggest that when an uninvolved editor asks that you tone down your personal comments, the best response is to consider what they are saying, rather than treating it as an opportunity to indulge in more of the same behaviour. Jkelly 18:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so you think Gmaxwell's edit - unaccompanied by any explanation on talk - was neither trolling nor vandalism? I believe we have too different views to carry on this discussion. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think it would be productive to respond to you in a half dozen places, so I responded to your claim only in one [16]. --Gmaxwell 23:24, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg of Chernigov

I think AndriyK just got himself a sock [17]. --Kuban Cossack 16:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK again

Hello Ghirla, yes you are right again and it should be updated to avoid losing the older suggestions. I have been holding off updating this myself because I have a self-nom in there and don't want to be seen to have bias in favour of my own submissions. Why don't you give me a list of the older articles you think should be listed and I will prepare and post them later tonight? --Cactus.man ✍ 17:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. Nonetheless I would be interested to know what articles you would promote. You make many, many nominations and are extremely active in writing and finding good articles to be featured on the main page. You obviously have a "nose" for a good DYK item. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:36, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PUI advice

Please ArbCom then. If there is an issue here on image use policy or its interpretation, we need to get it resolved. -Regards Nv8200p talk 20:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Mate

Thanks for the welcome wagon. Made my first visits to Mockba and St Pete in 82. Hope to visit again next year. I'd like to spend a month in the Hermitage. Ta Russophile2 02:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page

Important: This talk page is becoming very long. Please consider archiving. TheJabberwʘck 22:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just another RFA thank you note

Dear Ghirla, I really appreciate your vote and your kind words in my RFA. It has passed with an unexpected 114/2/2 and I feel honored by this show of confidence in me. Cheers! ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About DYK

Someone updated the DYK without even letting 24 hours to pass for the old update. Is this normal? It seems that sometimes no-one updated for DYK for days, and sometimes they update it after a few hours. --Candide, or Optimism 14:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that; thanks :p I thought that every DYK update would last for 24 hours, as it is with FA. That's why I asked. Thanks for replying. --Candide, or Optimism 16:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Воистину воскресе

Спасибо! abakharev 15:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:AndriyK

Hi Ghirla,

I saw you once said you would put a RFC on this guy, except I can't find it. Did you finally created it or not?

Thanks, Grafikm_fr 17:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK. It is time to draft a new case, though. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. Because I see that he still has the same behaviour. We should really draft a new case... -- Grafikm_fr 17:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello check this out

Hello I have made a request for comment on Kurt Leyman and I need people to sign the request and also to sign on the specific page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kurt_Leyman

(Deng 03:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Sviatoslav II of Kiev

"In 1072 Sviatoslav married Oda, daughter of a certain "Count Lippold", and the sister of Burkhard, provost of Trier. Oda's grand-uncles were Pope Leo IX and Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor."

I know there is a different version of this story. Because the story comes from works of Albert of Stade, in fact it can't be defined. Albert did'nt refered the Prince's name to whom Oda married. Another story said that she married Vyacheslav of Smolensk, and her son was Boris of Chernigov (Борис Вячеславович, see here[18]). And see here([19]). I think we'd better refer it in the article. --Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 05:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are right; but please note that the version adopted is also a stale one. Genealogical monography? I think genealogical monography has already existed in English Wikipedia, see those English noblemen. And I'm not interested with genealogical monography. I will still creat lists of Russian rulers.--Douglasfrankfort (talk to me) 06:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Croÿ family, 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 ✍ 08:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My kudos on the article. I just read the article and I'm duly impressed. My personal thanks to you and other editors like you who create, modify and expand excellent articles like these. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 13:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey Ghirla,

Some anon keeps reverting my edits at List of unrecognized countries w/o explanation. I gave him/her a 3RR warning, is there anything else I should do? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 08:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! —Khoikhoi 08:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shuffled off this mortal coil

"Passed away" is usually a euphemism. It doesn't say what it means. It is idiomatic. It is not encyclopaedic in tone. It is verbose. (See also parrot sketch.) "Died" is accurate, clear, concise universal English. Incidentally it is mentioned explicitly at Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_great_article#writing. Rich Farmbrough 08:44 27 April 2006 (UTC).

Question

Hi there, Andrey! Check out my New Jerusalem Monastery article. I have a question for you. How does one translate "надвратная церковь" (my wildest guess is "a church above the gates")? I often come across this architectural term and don't know how to translate it. Please, add more info on this monastery if there is any. Pictures would be great. Do you plan to write an article on Matvei Kazakov? The guy is still in red. Cheers! KNewman 12:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added Matvei Kazakov NVO 21:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

House of C

Have you seen this [20] gives a little earlier history - if you are inclined to beleive it = personally I would be wary of home family sites, bit it's quite interesting nevertheless. Regards Giano | talk 14:40, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Lower Dnieper

It looks like our old freind is mounting up an assault on wether we retook or liberated our land. --Kuban Cossack 16:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Zhuolu - DYK

Hi, just noting that the above article was created on April 26 and was nominated for DYK by User:Deadkid_dk on that day's section, you seem to have renominated it (for the 27th) a few hours later. Cheers, Deizio 21:12, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vyachko

As per revision as of 06:34, 28 April 2006, you still insist that in 1223 the more adequate way to refer to modern Tartu is "Yuryev (Tharbata)" (Ghirlandajo rationale : "German chronicles call it Tarbata and Russian chronicles call it Yuriev for two centuries previous - and so what?"). The answer to your "so what?" is: Let's be consistent. If earliest recorded name takes preference over contemporary and current names, as you seem to suggest, then let's start for the sake of consistency, by, e.g, renaming the article "Swedish-Novgorodian Wars" into "Swedish-Holmgardian Wars" and refer to the city as "Holmgard (Novgorod)" in any articles in any way related to Scandinavians and the time in Holmgard/Novgorod before the 14th century or so. What say you? Cheers, --3 Löwi 08:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lowi, your comparison is trollish. Novgorod is what the city has been called by its inhabitants during the whole time of its existence and we have records of that from the 9th century on. What the Estonians called Tartu in the 13th century, we can't tell, as there are no 13th-century records of Estonian language. Therefore, we should use one of two historic names recorded in contemporary (though foreign) sources - either Tarbatu or Yuriev. The latter should be given preference, as it was better established in historic documents by that time and because Vyachko, a Slavic prince, used this name and not Tarbatu. Please continue this discussion on Talk:Vyachko and not here. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:30, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pytalovo

Is there a way I can thank you for your help in the past? No, of course not. So I will again ask you something - there is nothing personal involved here, except myself. I have translated the Pytalovo article in Dutch, and have run up against a problem. Someone put up the "gerb" of Abrene there. I cannot find anything on this on Russian heraldry sites. The town website (which I fear may not be very official) calls it "the historical gerb" or "the gerb of the town of Abrene". Since it is not included in the Russian and English versions on "Pytalovo" I am probably not the only one who has a problem with it. Could it be that because the town was re-named Abrene under a fascist Latvian government, which also Latvianized education, that this gerb has a bad reputation in the town or area? In any case, Pytalovskiy Rayon now has its own gerb. Should that one be used instead? I have looked with Yandex and Rambler and found nothing. Of course, my suspicions may be wrong. And then, the objection to the gerb may be offical, or not - like not trying to shock older people who still remember. But I cannot find anything ... (written with some trepidation, by the way)--User_talk:Pan_Gerwazypgp 15:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(on ellink) Thanks, but we already have that one. The point is that this is the rayon gerb, and the Latvian thing was for the town. There is one ellink page which has the name "ABRENE" in Romance letters immediately under it. Surely, that cannot have remained the official gerb even in Soviet times? The page you quote also explains part of this new gerb by reference to the historical gerb. Does "historical" mean that it was, and is, no longer used? I suspected there was something wrong with the perception of the gerb even without "Abrene" underneath. Something like the new flag of Croatia for the Serbs - who immediately associated it with the war-time Ustache. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy --pgp 16:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I understand you are busy. Thanks anyway. I suppose I will ask on the forum of that website. I have some doubts whether it is official - but someone who lives there may know whether it is still used at "town hall". Again, sorry to take so much of your time. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 15:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portraits of Russian military people

Hi. I see that you have uploaded portraits of Russian military people which I would like to link to from my Swedish articles. Would it be a problem to locate the images in Commons or could I link directly to the existing copy in Eng Wiki ? Can you advise on how to find other similar images with free licenses ? Regards -Dr Fredrik Haeffner 14:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Moscow City Hall, 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 ✍ 08:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sarcasm

your sarcasm is good only for 3 year olds Cwiki 11:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Double sarcasm

I'm the one who gets to upset people arownd here - don't steal my job. What I actually came to say was I had planned to spend a few hours on Neo-Renaissance today, but looked arownd some of the other architecture pages I had not read before, anf am getting confused. The whole architecture section here ia mess. Have you seen Beaux-Arts architecture can you spot the fifference between the building ullustrated and that fine example Empire II and Neo-Baroque, the Opera Garnier. Also check out Greek Revival, that is just Neo-classical architecture, I think the problem here is that we all call the same thngs different Frenchified or Anglicised names depending on our location - there seem to me to be a need for a big shuffle, and beleive me whoever gets to do it will become unpopular! Interested in your view. Regards Giano | talk 11:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are being very quiet. Check out [21] I'm sure you will have an opinion. I'm rying to write a light simple general page, that will push peope in the direction that they want to go, and let them see the numerous pages on the same or similar subjects that are available, while unifying some of the many pages which seem to cover the same thing such as Greek Revival and Neo-Grec. see what you think, you are the only one here who knows about some of the Russian stuff, so if there is important Russian stuff missing, it is through ignorance on my part not offense Giano | talk 12:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dolmabahçe PalaceLooks to me like so weird and wonderful form on Neoclassicicsm - template sounds like a good idea, I don't normally like them, unless they are unavoidable, in this instance I think they probably are - do you know how to make them? Giano | talk 06:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen it (I came here first) Fantastico! Giano | talk 06:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmmm, well, yes! I actaually came across those yesterday when researching for the list of styles, and decided (in my wisdom!) to ignore them. My advice is (unless you strongly disagree) is to keep very quiet indeed and hope they go away of their own accord! Giano | talk 07:44, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: According to this [22] the Dolmabahçe Palace is Baroque and Rococo (presumably 19th century style!) the larger pictire on its own site gives a better impression. Neoclassical portico, I see where they get the Rococo idea from all that moulding on the wall, but there are no broken pediments - obviously a second empire influence in there too with a little "Italianate" the way the portico is also a double loggia. To be honest, it such a hybrid, I would be tempted to call it Belle Époque as it looks like an hotel in Biaritz. Giano | talk 07:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO! Giano | talk 08:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Sorry about that. I didn't mean to shout - I forgot to put the closing apostrophes on. Regards,ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 06:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnic cleansing of Turks in Bulgaria?

Huh... someone's original research, not really noteworthy. As far as I know (and as accepted internationally), many of the Turks simply didn't want to live in a Christian country and moved out to the Ottoman Empire. Of course, some stayed, these are the modern Turks in Bulgaria. I don't think any were expelled, while speaking about a massacre (LOL!) is playing with truth and fire simultaneously. Besides, those who left did so in the years and decades after the war, not during it. The calculation of about half the Turks leaving is otherwise close to the truth and the demographic change was indeed significant. But massacres, ethnic cleansing, even expelling, no... this is silly. And twice that silly to name it "government policy of the Russian-dominated Bulgarian state". It's just the Turks again trying to make themselves look like innocent vitcims in my opinion. I support your decision of removing the paragraph, it's just ultra-POV and falsely referenced. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 11:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chateau de Blois

Hi, You reverted my breaking up of Château de Blois into sections, with the explanation "no need for sections in a stub". I wonder, how does a stub become anything but a stub if you remove a structure intended to help it grow?

So, I really, really, hate doing this, but I'm going to redo my original change. This might be the first time in a very long time I have actually edit warred. I plan on adding a fair bit of material to this article, with some new photos, and I'm going to need a structure with subheadings. I hope you understand - feel free to discuss it at Talk:Château de Blois. Stevage 21:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jokes

[23]Least funny joke I have seen for ages, half of them are not even proper mansions - delete it! It serves no purpose. The whole architecture section has to be put on a more professional footing, so we might as well start there. In fact I think I will beat you to it, and do it myself.Giano | talk 07:43, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where else you see the tomb of Peter the Great? I think it's a part of the article as information, not as a gallery.

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Russo-Swedish War, 1656-1658, 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 ✍ 15:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the "Wretched Template", the previous regular updaters seem to have vanished? I'll try to do my bit, but it'll probably not be more than once a day or so. --Cactus.man ✍ 15:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC) PS, forgot to say thanks for the recent DYK medal :-)[reply]

Znamenka

Any chance you are working on a separate article about this residence? The reason I'm asking is pretty down-to-earth, though—all I want to do is to format the dab page properly. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'k, I'll just make a red link then. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 16:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walt Disney?

I have not got clue what chateauesque is either, I think it is probably (I have seen them in English towns) medium to large (not mansions) late 19th century houses that have a few classical features and then have a mansard roof plonked on the top to resemble a chateau. Massandra is definitely a chateau, a little larger and grander than I would imagine chateauesque is supposed to be - but fine for the page. I think it must just be an American term, I'll see what I can find. Thinking logically if it is American, it will probably be a mansion so Massandra will be perfect. Personally I would delete the page!

Swallow's Nest is "fantastic" literally fantasy. Probably nearer to Neuschwanstein than Scotland I would say. I read this book [24] ages ago, and I remember it had a foto of a similar miniature castle (as a summer pavilion|Garden feature) in a 1900s garden - could it be a Russian type "folly architecture". Neuschwanstein is supposed to be a German Knight's Gothic castle so perhaps it is based on a form of German Gothic. I've a book on German castles somewhere - I'll look it out. Sorry not to be more use. Giano | talk 17:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sod! I wonder if this Arts and Crafts movement should have been in the template. Lutyen's is pretty important in British architecture - similar to Queen Anne but slightly different. Giano | talk 17:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schloss Stolzenfels here [25] in the German wiki has the small hollow turrets of Swallow's Nest (although you cannot see them in the article) and Schloss Babelsberg here [26] helps to explain again where your castle is coming from in its design. so my answer is part German and part fantasia. Giano | talk 21:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. Facts from the articles Free Economic Society and Ushkuiniks, which you recently created, have 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.

Note

Notifying you about my comment concerning your recent edit on User talk:Alex Bakharev. Balcer 16:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Livadia Palace, 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 ✍ 21:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WTF?

Seriously dude, why do you keep removing my comments? It's not really nice, and I would appreciate more if you contributed to the discussion. Talk pages are, you know, for communication between editors, building the community, etc. Seriously now, don't revert me. --dcabrilo 07:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to litter this high-traffic page with discussions which are held elsewhere. I don't think that my talk is appropriate for discussing the issue of merging Tsarskoye Selo with Pushkin (town). Let other interested editors to see the discussion on Talk:Tsarskoye Selo and voice their opinions. Also, please read WP:USER and understand that it's me who owns this page. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:45, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

History of T-R wors

I see you are a RUS. You are welcome to Ottoman Series. But 1) it is tradition to ask others ideas about making big changes, such as redirecting the whole article to another page. 2) it is designed as part of Ottoman History not Russion history. In that perspective it fullfils a goal as Europian Ottoman Wars. If you want to have a page that composed of directed links you can have one There will be no Ottoman coming to Russion page and doing what you have done. It is part of respect. 4) You are wellcome to add information to this page, but it is not your place to judge that page is useless. It seems you are a nice guy. Hope I will see you will be adding to that page.--OttomanReference 16:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same argument also applies to you. You do not own the article. It fullfils a purpose, which is beyond my existance. I'm just adding a menu to articles that builds the Ottoman History series. I think if you stop and give yourself a time to think you can see that. I again say; be constructive. thanks... --OttomanReference 16:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

...for mentioning the Ukrainian dance stubs on the Ukrainian announcement page. I really need to remind myself to put stuff out there. Also, thanks for using the Dance announcement page. I'm glad someone else found it! --tufkaa 19:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Moorish Revival, 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 ✍ 14:33, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Hey Ghirla,

I don't see any double redirects...were they fixed while I was asleep? —Khoikhoi 17:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sure. —Khoikhoi 17:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A real horror castle

Lubyanka (KGB): Maybe cleverer people then me have called that Neo-Renaissance, and they are probably correct. I would call it a severe Baroque, compare with Royal Palace of Madrid. Look at the ornament. though it is chaste, the pediments are broken over the central upper window, and again over the upper terminating points. The Baroque ethos comes from the solidity of mass and the Chiaroscuro. the Palace of Caserta uses the same Baroque tricks - do you see what I mean, Baroque is not just pretty cherubs and swirls, but densities of mass and shadow. Its all debatable but if guessing the architectural style got me out of there, I would say Neo-Baroque - ask Wetman to be the judge - do I have my freedom? Hedging my bets the upper windows of the terminating wings are segmented and do have a look of the Foreign Office in Whitehall, but then those elevated little pavilion towers (ignore the blind floor in between]] are Palladian see Wilton House. No I'm going to say chaste and severe Baroque. Giano | talk 18:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Neo-Renaissance" the broad category that seems to be needed? though I agree with Giano's analysis of the sources for details. What if one said "Denying its massiveness, it avoids an impression of heroic scale: isolated Palladian and Baroque details, such as the minute pediments over the corner bays and a central loggia, are lost in an endlessly-repeating classicizing palace facade, where three bands of cornices emphasize the horizontal lines." --Wetman 20:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm! He should have been a diplomat - perhaps he is! Of course he is quite right. I suppose it is Soviet architecture and one can se what one wants, but at the end of the day the intention was to impress power and strength (a Baroque philosophy!).

Concerning your other points Gare d'Orsay I think we shall have to concede toBeaux arts and Gare du Nord a very Palladian themed piece of Neoclassical Architecture, I don't know why, it reminds me of Easton Neston [27] which is English Baroque - but I have no justifiable reason for thinking that, the two have few if any similarities, just the segmented windows, broken pediments and fluted columns. It's just a feeling I have. Giano | talk 20:53, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a picture it proves something you were saying elsewhere today. Giano | talk 21:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

С Праздником!

--Kuban Cossack 00:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

С Днём Победы!

Поздравляю с праздником. Мира Вам, и благополучия! Kober 05:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. Facts from the articles Russian Futurism and Russo-Swedish War, 1741-1743, which you recently created, have 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 ✍ 15:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Nice article Ghirla, thanks for that. El Lissitzky's poster is absolutely fantastic, now I have more reading to do :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 19:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zhukov

Hello

Could you take some time and look at the Talk:Georgy Zhukov and perhaps add your opinion to the mix (Deng 18:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Military of the Grand Duchy of Finland

Hello, perhaps you could add the military ranks in proper Russian/cyrillic & romanized versiont in the infobox, thanks, Scoo 19:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The Medici Rail Terminal

Image:PetersburgSt.jpg IMO: it is a mixture of various periods of Renaissance. The first floor is 15th century Renaissance, almost trying to hint at the former Gothic style, although that design with the central loggia would have been on a piano nobile not the ground. See if you can find an image of Palazzo Rucellai by Alberti in Firenze - he uses the same windows and pilasters though his pilaster are flat.

The upper floor of of a later 16th century Renaissance inspiration. The parapet is far later, the pillars should not have been taken that far up, but terminated directly below, and a shallow hipped roof with an overhang should have been plonked on the top. That form of parapet did not appear until the late 1590s. Now for the tower - Well it is in the spirit of the design - if Alberti had had to design railway stations he probably would not have designed one like that, but the tower is not as funny as it seems Martino Longhi added a (slightly) similar tower (a campanile) to the Michaelangelo's Palazzo Senatorio in Rome in the very early 17th century. Ironically some one has added a clock to that one two. I expect some people will think I am being very fanciful there though and declare the tower Second Empire or Beaux arts. I like my theory better. If you took the lettering off the parapet and painted the building a proper ochre, or transformed the whole to rusticated stone work, no one would give it a second glance. Giano | talk 09:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use your immagination a little! Giano | talk 09:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[28] Oh dear! you keep going against the Russian guides you'll see more of the Lubianka than you feel is necessary! If the guides say it is Byzantine, then you need a proper ref (my opinion is own research) to say otherwise - you know that! More interestingly (to me) what refs do the Russian guides have for saying Byzantine. This, in my opinion, is Neo-Byzantine [29] - I see the shape of the windows are vaguely similar - but I stll say Renaissance, but don't forget I have an Italian brain - perhaps you should consult the American brain for a second opinion, before your fellow Russians spot your edits. More interestingly to me why are all the stations the same - do you only have one design in your Notherly world for stations? Giano | talk 10:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose during the 19th century Byzantine rulers had better things to do than build palaces or those that did chose the European styles. If you look at Dolmabahçe Palace as we said the other day it is a hotchpotch of European styles, but the inside has some clear Neo-Byzantine interiors.

The problem with our differences is that you have stronger Byzantine influences in Russian architecture than many places elsewhere. So you are looking for it. The very conception of the Kremlin as a series of churches and palaces within one walled enclosure is in itself derived from the "Great Palace" at Constantinople. So therefore it is easier to see the Byzantine based features as Byzantine - rather than the form they took after they had progresses through the Renaissance.

Of course those double arched windows within an arched embrasure progressed from Byzantine to the Renaissance so one has to judge them Byzantine or Renaissance within the context of their setting. To me there is no doubt at all that the Byzantine based windows of the railway station are in an overall Italian Renaissance setting - Incidentally, you can find them also at the Palazzo Strozzi and the Palazzo Medici-Riccardi (both mid to late 15th century).

"The Grand Palace" is often described as "Russo-Byzantine" to me the "Byzantine" seems to come from an almost "rococo" form of Byzantine decoration of a classical facade rather than an overall design - The Byzantine element seems to be almost a superfluous affectation - does that make sense? I think you could equally call the style Neo-Russo-Rococo. Basically Moscow has the same problems as the rest of the world with its 19th century architecture being a mixture of several styles. I would even go far as to say that much of the Russian Palace architecture never recovered from the Russian Rococo that Rastrelli created at Tsarskoe Selo for Catherine II. - You won't agree with that - Yes, I know there are lots of large houses nothing like that.

Venetian Gothic is very like Image:Nationaldesign.jpg and has a very Byzantine foundation see Ca' d'Oro. Giano | talk 14:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I was thinking about poor old Anna Kerenina yesterday, well at least she had an elegant building to die in! If she had lived in London with all those gloomy great Gothic stations she would probably have thrown herself under a train much earlier! What do you think of my categiry idea on "talk 19th cent" - it would be a big job, but there is no rush to complete it, we could take our time - Regards Giano | talk 07:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS:PS: I was thinking further about our conversation about the Grand Palace. IMO it is a sort of Russo-Byzantine-Rococo, and really is no more Byzantine architecture than this is Chinese architecture. However, these are my thoughts, own research whatever. Far greater authorities than me would not agree. Giano | talk 07:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kaliningrad Oblast - External Links by Anon

Ghirla,

you told an anonymous contributor to stop adding irrelevant external links, but did you see what happened immediately afterwards? I quote: [[30]]

So, of eight external links we now have one Russian link, two German or Prussian links (which are, after all, about something happening now in the place) and five Lithuanian ones. The last one is pure demagoguery and reminds me of the de facto/de jure argument over Pytalovo. The four other ones should go to an article about Lithauania Minor, and do not belong there.

For some reason or other, two of these five links (including the silly one, of course) were also added to the Mayakovskoye article: [[31]] User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 14:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see you want me to have a go at the article on Mayakovskoe. Looking at the other versions, I notice that the German one was recently changed by an admin (clearing the two "colourful" passages). The Dutch version still does not mention Fisch's version of a set-up. FYI: he suggested that the German army, although it had a good defensive position, lured in the Red Army, and then had them attacked by snipers. (By the way: I looked at a website on the Red Army graves in Mayakovskoe and noticed, many soldiers were killed in October 1944) After the battle, Nemmersdorf was no man's land for at least one day, when SS men may have gone in and "adjusted" the picture when and where the Red Army revenge on the local population was not stark enough for the Wochenschau, the film of the week's war events shown in German cinemas at the time. Fisch was a local, being born not far from Nemmersdorf, and visited the place one day after the Wochenschau made its pictures, seeing something completely different. As for the Esperanto one - it is the only one which gives "663 killed, but not proven". But I do not know enough Esperanto to change that. I have already put something up at talk on Mayakovskoe. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 16:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would I be welcome at that portal writing in English? I went through a lot of these German extreme-rightwing websites (I am a Mazurian by descent by the way, so I can read German easily - writing it is a problem) and I found out some interesting things:

1) believe it or not, some years ago there was a program on German TV (ZDF channel) claiming it was all a fabrication by Goebbels. Unfortunately, you cannot expect these sites to mention all the reasons why ZDF claimed that. One thing that was proven was that neither Goebbels nor the Bund der vertriebene after the war ever tried to identify the people on the pictures - giving them a NAME. And they found two witnesses (one an old lady who lived through the event!) who said they had not seen anything horroble happening - and that they were sure there had been no rapes. Not very spectacular this: both facts (no identification attempt, no rape) had already been in the Fisch book. Knowing German TV channels, they do not usually go for rumour and scandal so I guess there must have been more material. But only right-wing Germans seem to be willing to write about this incident.

2) I also found that when the Soviet force in the village was being hit - a convoy of German refugees passed. Well, not only German refugees, but also French POWs - surprise, surprise. Would it be presumptious to now claim that the high end of the victim total was caused by counting in refugees killed in crossfire? Hm, a nice similarity to the Vinkt Massacre - I decided to link from there to Mayakovskoye. Thanks for your interest, by the way. User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy --pgp 21:29, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International glory

See [32]. Respect. Vald.

Autonomous University of Santo Domingo vs National University of San Marcos

Hello, Ghirlandajo. I see that you've reverted my edit at List of oldest universities in continuous operation with the edit summary: "wrong: Autonomous University of Santo Domingo. Now I would like to ask if the Dominican Republic is in North America or South America. South America#Geography says "The Caribbean territories are grouped with North America." This means Autonomous University of Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic is in North America and cannot be the oldest university of South America. Shall I revert the article to my version, indicating National University of San Marcos in Peru as the oldest university of South America ? -- PFHLai 01:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring my version at List of oldest universities in continuous operation. Take care. -- PFHLai 06:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you

Explain why you are deleting questions and refuse to answer ? Wikipedia is collaboration project so please take time to engage in discussion of your actions. Right now you deleted a huge information about the Slavophile movement attitude to one of the largest groups in Imperial Russia. That information is sourced in many books and scholary papers, and is subject of Slavophiles writing. Why do you want it to be deleted ? --Molobo 17:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo, you know very well that my policy is not to feed trolls. Please go away from here. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image source reminder

I think one of the issues we can both safely agree on is that we dislike copyright paranoia. Therefore I'd just like to remind you to add sources to images (i just added one to Image:Tserkovinwarsaw.jpg) - or you know that the LazyBot or his friends are going to delete it... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping

Good point. When I can't decide I use the parent category Renaissance revival. I'm noy getting on too fast with the categorisibg as I can't resist reading the article and then adding a bit, which rather slows things down. I see there is a fight going on at Tudorbethan over tha name, apparently it is not recognised in Australia where it is know an Mock Tudor so I'll stop adding to that category untill it's sorted out. Mock Tudor in England means the tiny little modern houses built today all identical with some black timbering on their white painted concrete walls. Plastic windows with the imitation latticed panes let into the double glazing - nice! I suppose they could change the name to Tudor revival - I'll suggest it probably later. Keep going! Giano | talk 11:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Karakhan

True, Karakhan was one of the key second tier players in the 1920s and early 1930s. One of these days :) Ahasuerus 14:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

Hello! I'm a Persian Wikipedian and I wanna build a robot, but I like to build a one in English Wikipedia. So Can you help to make a bot step by step??? Thanks a lot! --MehranVB 16:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Images

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Lupo I had enough of people messing with our images. Help out --Kuban Cossack 12:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK!!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article The Victory Day, 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.

and another one! (nomination anyway)

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Second Battle of Smolensk, which you recently nominated, 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.

Thanks for your contributions! Great finds! ++Lar: t/c 20:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please check this article

Battle_of_Smolensk_(1943) :)) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 22:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for "good article". You're welcome to make it "pass" or "fail" :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK!!!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Treaty of Yazhelbitsy, which you recently nominated, 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.

Good nom! Thanks, as always, for your efforts! ++Lar: t/c 15:20, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Crowns

I find your edit to this template pretty odd. Please explain why there should be one link to Denmark (which has been a monarchy for 1400 years) vs. two for Prussia, four to France and even four to Romania which was a monarchy for a very short time. If you think Russian material is missing, by all means add it, but the same standard should apply for *all* countries. Besides, one of the two Danish examples - the crown of Christan IV - is a very unique Renaissance masterpiece, so eventhough it was only used for a short time, it deserves to be mentioned in its own right. I've never heard of similar examples preserved from that period, but by all means correct me if you have. In any case, the same standard must apply for all countries. Everything else is POV. Valentinian ^(talk) 18:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to your comment

Molobo, please stop revert warring and discuss your problems on talk! I tried it several times but you simply delete every message from Polish editors. --Molobo 18:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ananiashvili

Hello. I am not sure why you have problems with my edits. I am not Georgian myself, I am of Russian (and Ukrainian) ethnicity, although I live in Latvia. But I am Russian patriot and definitely not russophobic as you seem to believe, nor am I a nationalist (probably this is obvious). I do, however, try to make entries factually accurate and in accordance to Wikipedia principles (factual accuracy, NPOV and so on). I have explained well enough why the version I propose for Nina Ananiashvili is more accurate and you haven't responded to my points at all but you continue to push your own version. If you have some valid arguements, please say them as for now it seems that the reason you keep reverting is your personal opinion about me. Yet again, as I have asked in past, if you have some suggestions to me, say them. But if you expect from others that they would explain their edits (and I do that), please do not reasonlessly revert. Thanks in advance and I hope we will be able to collaborate better in improving Wikipedia in future. Burann 07:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saviour Church in the Forest

Hi there, Andrey! In the Moscow Kremlin template, there's a reference to the Saviour Church in the Forest. Is it the same as Собор Спаса Преображения на Бору? If yes, then the translation is kinda inaccurate. I believe it is called на Бору after the Borovitsky Hill where it used to be located. If it's the same church, then wouldn't it be more correct to call it the Saviuor Church of Transfiguration on the Hill? What do you think? Thanx! KNewman 12:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. I hope this won't provoke any naming wars :). Thanks! KNewman 13:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK redux

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Mongol invasions of Georgia, which you recently nominated, 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.

Good nom! Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 22:00, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

intersting page I had not seen it before. I'm away from home for a while so will not be editing very much for a few days. So the great categorising is on a hold for a few days. Giano | talk 07:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK and current events

Hi Ghirlandajo. Is there a reason why DYK cannot overlap with current events. I mean, we're talking about a 24th anniversary, so to speak, it's not an article about an unstable event. I guess I haven't had that much experience with DYK, but I've seen a suggestion that some political article about Singapore be displayed to coincide with the day of Singapore's election. I don't understand the reasoning. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 08:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, let's talk about it on Wikipedia talk:Did you know. I personally have no problem with doing things on certain anniversaries of things if there is a good reason. ++Lar: t/c 10:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mayakovskoye

It should be much better now, already. I could not find much more on the ZDF programme, but I did find another and newer book. I re-wrote the article to be consistent with what I know to have been written by Fisch and this Ueberschaer. I posted a message on the talk page of the Dutch version, saying that it needs editing (it is too short and has only a few words about war propaganda).

The German version is now protected. Some "nationalistic" guy introduced the old material again. It IS crazy how googling for this place turns up the most horrible versions first. It seems like these guys are quoting each other all the time.

The discussion here [[33]] told me about the other book and showed how some of these guys think. Well, you need to understand German, of course. If they talk about "Fisch the Russian language teacher" or "Stalin's Annihilation War" - you know who you are dealing with.

When you have time, tell me what you think about the version now.

so sorry - forgot to sign yesterday ...User_talk:Pan_Gerwazy--pgp 11:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with a picture

Hi, you uploaded Image:Aleviz.jpg about a year ago. Since then things have changed: you have to provide a source (or it will be deleted in 7 days), you have to choose a more specific tag, and you have to write fair use rationale. It would be awesome if you could go over some older pictures you have uploaded and check if everything is fine there. I suggest using gallery on toolserver even though there are plenty of problems with en wp and the toolserver. Cheers, Renata 02:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case if there are problems with the original image, I can reuploded the image http://o-moskve.narod.ru/images/p18_2.jpg from http://o-moskve.narod.ru/p18.html. It is from almost the same point and I believe it is of better quality. The fairuse seems to be reasonable (at least for the Vysokopetrovsky monastery) abakharev 04:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The thing really is that even though fair use is reasonable, the picture decription page still needs to have a fair use rationale explaining why it is a reasonable fair use for every article it is used in. So in this cae the pic is used in 3 articles, there need to be 3 rationales. For images uploaded after May something, 2006 lacking rationale is a speedy deletion criteria. That's about rationales. {{fairuse}} is depreciated and should not be used. I guess you'll have to stick with {{Non-free fair use in}}. Also, you have to provide the source (i.e. where you got the images from) or it will be deleted on May 26. And I would suggest checking other images for the same: sources, descriptions, tags, rationales, etc. When I myself revisited my old uploads, I found so much crap I couldn't believe. Renata 21:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Thank You!

Thanks Ghirlandajo,

I am honored by your support in my recent successful request for adminship. As an administrator, I am your servant, ready to help however I can. My talk page is always open; should you need anything, or should you see me making a mistake -- probably a common occurrence -- please do let me know. I will depend on the good sense of the community to keep me from making a complete fool of myself! :) In gratitude, Xoloz 16:12, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Sophia Cathedral, which you recently nominated, 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 ✍ 17:13, 18 May 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Vysokopetrovsky monastery

Hi, Andrey! Is it the one on Petrovka, 28, next to the Moskovsky Ugolovny Rozysk (I'll look it up or call spravochnaya, anyway)? I will take a few pictures, my pleasure, but I'm leaving for Turkey this coming Sunday and will be absent for a week (wikation, so to speak). So as soon as I get back, I'll get down to it. I also plan to take a few pictures of different landmarks in Moscow, so if you have anything in mind, let me know. Take care! KNewman 06:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool map

Thanks for the map Ghirlandajo. I also added it to the Finnish Wikipedia. -- Jniemenmaa 06:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading the map of the Saint Petersburg Governorate - Image:Stpetegub.jpg - from the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary. This is an important primary source. I am however unable to read the small print. Would it be possible to create an image of even greater resolution? (if necessary in two parts) -- Petri Krohn 09:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK redux, part ?

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article MacHeths, which you recently nominated, 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.

Thanks for your find and contribution! Did any of these guys wear Tartan trousers (inside joke) ?? ++Lar: t/c 12:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Ropet

Did a Google on the name and did NOT find any references..

Could you add some sources to the article? ShakespeareFan00 15:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sergei Diaghilev

Tenisheva was not Mamontov's wife
I put in the phrase about receiving funds from Mamontov. My source said he was married to a "Princess Brassova". Can you clarify if Mamontov was married to any princess? Thanks! --tufkaa 03:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to [34] Savva Mamontov was married Ekaterina Georgievna Sapozhnikova. Sheremetevskaja-Mamonotova-Vulfert-Brasova-Romanova [35] was briefly married to Sergey Savvovich Mamontov and so she was Savva's daughter-in-law. Vulfert became a princess after her controversial marriage to Grand Duke Mikhail Alexandrovich (the younger brother of Nicholas II), the marriage some claim not only change the fate of her husband but also probably the fate of the Empire. At the time of Mamontov she was only a lawyer's daughter. abakharev 10:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sukh's RFA - Thanks!

Thank you for your vote on my RfA. Unfortunately there was no consensus reached at 43 support, 18 oppose and 8 neutral. I've just found out that there is a feature in "my preferences" that forces me to use edit summaries. I've now got it enabled :) Thanks again. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russo-Turkish war

I would have commented on the one half way up this page but was afraid you wouldn't have noticed it. I find it hypocritical that you have had the page protected, and yet refuse to reply to any of my most recent talk page comments. I also find it funny that you have to make up lies such as 'genocide talk' in order to bolster your case regarding the protection. The admins say use the talk page to resolve the dispute currently in place, however if you are unwilling to utilise the process in place then we obviously have a problem. I have acted in good faith and found evidence commending McCarthy's book - putting this on the talk page. Indeed, i have also edited other sections of the article without fuss, and thus surely you can see that it is not my intention to 'vandalise' the article. The fact that you cannot simply shows to me that you are unable to look at this topic with a critical mind. Perhaps when reading, analysing and (god forbid) writing historical accounts, you should take off that Russian hat you are proudly wearing, for objectivity sake! Thankyou.Suicup 12:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen...

... this? --Telex 17:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the sock puppet. I believe it is Bonny. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Twofer!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Royal monastery of Santa Maria de Guadalupe, 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.

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Yakov Kulnev, 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.

Rockage! very nice... Thanks for your efforts! ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Paolo Veronese - You forgot the customary and desirable prefix to your subjective opinion: "IMHO superfluous" and to seek consensus in the discussion page!

Lorenzo Lotto - You have skipped the advice and custom of the label you yourself inserted that says: Please discuss this issue on the talk page, and/or replace this tag with a more specific message. You have NOT waited for consensus!

Jclerman 20:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Smolensk (1943)

Battle of Smolensk (1943) was nominated for FAC today. You're welcome to support it or to adress your criticisms... Thanks! :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Flickr

Of the licenses listed on that page the following are ok to use on Wikipedia:

Attribution License: This equals the {{cc-by-2.0}} tag (note that there are several versions of the CC licenses, it is possible some of theyr images use {{cc-by-1.0}} for example, see what version is used by hoovering (or clickign) on the "some rights reserved" link from the individual images on Flickr).

Attribution-ShareAlike License: This equals the {{cc-by-sa-2.0}} tag (again they may or may not use some older versions too)

In addition there is Attribution-NoDerivs License wich I'm a bit unsure of, it is a non-free license that is not compatable with GFDL (no modification allowed), and images with this license is speedily deleted from Commons, but we do have a (seemingly usable) tag for it here: {{cc-by-nd-2.0}} (ditto the version stuff above), so I guess it's ok-ish for now (though as with all unfree licenses these should not be used if free(er) images are available). I would recomend not using them at all though.

All the varions NonCommercial combinations are not acceptable, we do have tags for some of them, like {{cc-by-nc-2.0}}, but they simply redirect to a speedy deletion tag so it's a bit of a waste of time to use those :P

Happy uploading, and do remember to actualy attribute the photographer (link to his/her Flickr profile + the image source I guess). Oh, and remember to upload all free licensed images to Commons so they can be used by all projects. --Sherool (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back soon

Thanks for the messages, I am away for a few days more. The internet connections are very badly here, and it is not possible to edit properly, often I press save and send, and the computer freezes and all is lost, and that is just doing proper paid work! Giano | talk 21:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cecilienhof I thought at first it had mixed with the Tudor some of the half timbered North German farm house architecture, but the image here [36] seems to confirm all the limited information I can find that it is in fact Tudor in it's inspiration, so have categorised accordingly. You are right to concentrate on other pages and eras too, this is a big project if we do it to the exclusion of everything else we will become tired of it before it is finished. Regards Giano | talk 08:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DYK Featured pic!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Kroměříž Bishop's Palace, 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.

Thanks for your efforts! Featured pic! ++Lar: t/c 05:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers

Hi, Ghirlandajo. There is a survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI. Maybe you are interested in.--Panairjdde 18:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Откаты

Товарисч! из-за твоих откатов статья Victory Day (Eastern Europe) висела и без упоминания о вкладе СССР, и без предупреждения о POV. Нехорошо-с. Не убирай этот самый POV, по крайней мере. --Yms 13:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Ropsha, 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.

Merge

Hi, I thought you might know which name to merge these article under Vozrozhdeniye Island and Vozrozhdeniya Island, thanks. --Peta 03:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise it would be such a mess, I will ask Ezhiki as you suggest.--Peta 06:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Превед, участнег!

Что ты мне там в Welcome понаписал? Я в основном и-вики проставляю для английского, русский продвигаю ;)--Paukrus 04:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page too long

Please fix the problem. It's difficult to insert messages in this page. The first thig one gets is a Wikipedia warning message, then a long wait for the display. Jclerman 20:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Paolo Veronese - You forgot the customary and desirable prefix to your subjective opinion: "IMHO superfluous" and to seek consensus in the discussion page!

Lorenzo Lotto - You have skipped the advice and custom of the label you yourself inserted that says: Please discuss this issue on the talk page, and/or replace this tag with a more specific message. You have NOT waited for consensus!

Jclerman 20:08, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italianate

Oh Dear! [37] Normally I dislike orphanbot intensley! Giano | talk 08:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You!

Thank You! /Fiss

Ok!

Thank you again! I was also wondering, because i'm writing about Arbat square, do you know where I can get a picture of Arbat Square?? /Fiss