User talk:Irpen/archived closed issues

Makarov.

Hi, Irpen! Thanks much for creating the article on Admiral Makarov. I was going to do it for, well, almost a year now, but never got to it. Hopefully we'll develop it into something more than a stub it currently is. Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 21:03, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Issues on transliteration from Cyrillic into Latin.

One of the remarks I wanted to make is in regards to the transliteration of "Великий князь". As you undoubtedly know, there are millions of ways to transliterate any given Russian word. What you may not be aware of, is that we are trying to make sure that all Russian words used in Wikipedia conform to the same transliteration standard, which is described in this article. I am not saying this is the "final final" version everybody must stick to (and indeed, there is a discussion going on on its talk page trying to work out some details), nor I am saying that this is the only correct version in the whole world. It is, however, only logical to at least try using one transliteration system across all of Wikipedia to maintain consistency.

As per the articles guidelines, "великий князь" would be transliterated as "veliky knyaz" (see also knyaz).

Let me know if you have questions, and I am looking forward to working with you in future!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 21:03, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your compliments. I don't remember much more about Admiral Makarov than what I wrote in the stub. I agree with the need of consistency in transliteration. I think, however, that when some Russian term is already established in English, the established transliteration should take precedence of the letter by letter rule. My impression (not confirmed though a thorough search though) is that Kniaz iz a more common English usage of the Russian word Князь. However, the google counts for kniaz and knyaz are close enough, so my impression is rather subjective. Also, the article you refered me to gives two choices for transliteration of Великий as both Velikiy or Veliky. The former term seems better to me, but again this is rather subjective. What do you think? I would be happy to abide with a consensus decision in the future. Regards, Irpen 21:31, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can't force you use one convention over another, especially in cases which are so borderline, although consistency is something I am really trying to maintain (some would even say "at all costs" , although I tend to disagree:)). As far as google goes, it is fairly accurate at identifying "most common usage", and for cases like this one, I myself prefer the variant that conforms to the transliteration standards already in use in Wikipedia (which in this case is "knyaz").

Anyway, you can always voice your opinion at the Talk:Transliteration of Russian into English page to see what kind of responses you'll get, although you'll probably have to read through the whole discussion thread first (which, for one thing, is not short) to not miss anything. This is especially true in regards to using "-iy" or "-y" for "-ий". For some reason, "-y" for "-ый" was easily accepted by almost everyone, but there are still some lingering doubts about using "-y" for "-ий" (I, as you might have guessed, prefer "-y" for just the same old reason—consistency).

Take care!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 21:47, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ezhiki, I did a little searching myself on this issue. I found that I was wrong and the usage of knyaz prevails over kniaz in English media. I used LexisNexis search of all major English language media over last 24 months. So, I will use knyaz from now on and will correct kniaz for knyaz on pages I will be editing (only if I will have other reasons to edit a page, won't do it only to change i for y). I still think that -iy should be used rather than -y in velikiy becuase it is better to reflect the difference between phonetic pronunciation of the ending in, say, krasny and velikiy. Thanks for bringing this matter to my attention. Irpen 18:44, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Irpen! Thanks for taking time to check on this. I vaguely remember that someone did a similar check in the past (I don't remember the details, though), and that's how we started to use "ya", "yo", "yu" over "ia", "io", "iu" in the first place. Anyway, I appreciate your effort.

As for your user talk page history, alas, not even admins can alter that (I assume that's because it would have been all too easy for rogue admins to abuse this process, and it would be a great temptation to skew the history to one's favor). Whatever shows up in the history, stays there. Most of the good-natured Wikipedians take pride in their user pages being vandalized—it usually means that one either is an active vandal-fighter, or someone who sticks to NPOV in very heated debates.

Thanks again for your time and comments. Feel free to drop me a message/wikimail any time you want to discuss anything.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 19:25, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure! I think some way should exist to remove at least the vulgar, foul language or pornographic graffiti from the history (I don't mean to remove messages from short-tempered wikifolks who are not always polite in expressing their disagreement with edits). Well, let it stay for now :). Personally, I don't find such images, even when rather disgusting, to be disturbing. Cheers, Irpen 19:55, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Arsenal Kyiv

Hi Irpen. I dropped by to tell you that I disagree with one of your edits fiercely. FC Arsenal Kyiv is a contemporary club of independent Ukraine. Not to mention that it is free to name itself however they decide. Thus, you've gone too far in your Kiev edits. Don't cross the line of fighting Ukrainian language. So far, I've been tolerating and sometimes supporting your edits regarding you a cooperative discussing Wikifellow. It would be unpleasant changing my opinion on you. Best wishes, AlexPU

Replied at User_talk:AlexPU#Arsenal. Irpen 22:42, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Russia

I don't know how the text doublicated. I had some "wikipedia is busy" message and reloaded. thanks for informing me and for reverting. I put the link again. Ben (talk) 15:44, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Grand Archduke

Well, I don't know much enough on this subject to make any kind of decision either! I will, however, try to do some research on this when/if I have time. Sorry for not being of much help for now.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:36, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Stubs

Hi Irpen - I note that you've added a couple of new stub categories. While I think they will probably be useful, can I suggest that if you intend to add any more you check out Wikipedia: WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria first? Quite a thorough debating process goes on before the creation of stub categories, to ensure that they fit in with current criteria. I suspect also that most stub sorters and editors wouldn't be able to tell which Russian history items were more correctly expressed as East Slavic history or vice versa (and stubs categories are primarily for the benefit of editors). what's more, the templates aren't correctly formed (they shouldn't remain in Category:Historical stubs if they are also in one of its subcategories). Grutness|^hello? 02:42, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The proposal to create these stubs was up for comments at Wikipedia talk:Russian wikipedians' notice board talk page for about a week. There was one response in support and none objecting. This forum is attended by many editors who frequently post in these topics. The reasons for a separate East-Slavic-history and Russian-history templates are given there too. East-Slavic-history-stub is for events that relate to the history of several East Slavic nations and will help to avoid controversies and reverts on whether it should be in, say, Russian or Ukrainian category when in fact it belongs to both and there seems to be a consensus that many stub templates per article is a bad style. I only created the stubs after giving time to editors to object and, sorry, I did not know about Wikipedia: WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria page. Editors who would create new articles in the topics most likely will be able to tell which of the two categories are more appropriate. I am sorry, if I formed them incorrectly. I tried to follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Stub_categories. After creating the stubs I listed them at Wikipedia:Stub_categories and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Stub_types as per instructions. Sorry, if I made any mistakes. Irpen 03:24, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like you went through procedures well, and as I said, the stub categories are almost certainly worthwhile. In future, though, it would be good if you also check with the stub sorters, since they are the ones who will be assigning most articles to those categories and it would be good if they knew what was going on! :) By the way, given your description of the two new categories, should Category: Russian history stubs be a subcategory of Category:East Slavic history stubs? Grutness|^hello? 03:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure, should there be next time, I would also post a note at stub sorting page. As for your question about subcategory, I am not sure what would be best. I would be weakly in favor of not having one as a subcategory of the other but I would check with other editors for their opinion on that. Thanks, Irpen 04:13, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I've added a comment about your new stubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Criteria#Newly-discovered_stub_categories - feel free to add to or correct any of my comments! Grutness|^hello?

Re:Undid some of your changes

You wrote: Sorry, I had to undo some of your changes because some articles you placed into East-Slavic-History-stub category should not be there, I think. BTW, what would you say about WWI and WWII history stubs?

Fair enough - I called them as I saw them, but you clearly know more about the subject than I do. Feel free to do the same again with any others I get wrong. As for WWI and II stubs, they may be a good idea - there seem to be quite a lot of them. Personally I'd prefer to wait until the hostory category is purged of a lot of the bio-stubs that shouldn't be in there, see what is left after that. They'd be worth suggesting on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Criteria, though. Grutness|^hello? 02:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am sure that there will be enough WWI and WWII related stubs after any purge of hist-stub category. Many articles there would perfectly fit into the WW category... Anyway, it's your call, guys, to decide. I just wanted to bring this up for consideration. Irpen 07:26, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)

Probably better to do that on the Stub sorting/Criteria page than on my user talk page, though! Personally, I think a WWII-stub is a great idea. Grutness|^hello?

WWI and WWII stubs (continued)

You wrote: Sure, this can wait if you think it'd better to. As for mil-war-stub, I was thinking that there was a difference between articles that would best fit into mil-stub and those best tagged with mil-war-stub. But maybe it's better to stick with mil-stub. Anyway, I will wait if necessary, and once WW stubs are created, I will help in moving there some articles from other categories.

Hopefully I'll have completed the current pass of hist-stub by about Wednesday or Thursday - should have more of an idea what is needed by then. I have a couple of other things listed on the stub sorting page that I want to make a start on, but there's no reason not to deal with the WW stubs at about the same time. In any case we should probably leave the suggestions up on WP:WSS for about seven days before doing anything with it anyway. But I don't see anyone objecting to WWII-stub and WWI-stub as a good starting point, especially if there are items in mil-stub that would be better there. And any help in moving things over will be much appreciated! Grutness|^hello? 06:39, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi again Irpen - I've just created {{WWII-stub}}, and with any luck I'll add {{WWI-stub}} later today. Grutness|^hello? 00:04, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

East Slavic history

It may have been my fault of not explaining this properly. East Slavs are only Russians, Belorussians and Ukrainians. Poles and Lithuanians are not East Slavs. Poland and Lithuania related articles may get the east-slavic-history-stub note only when the article is primarily about the events related to the three East-Slavic nations territories of the time when Poland and Lithuania dominated them.

Ah sorry - misunderstood. I'll try to remember in future! Grutness|^hello? 00:14, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

bad faith?

Why are you accusing me of bad faith? I am perfectly willing to discuss whatever you like, wherever you like, so long as you are polite. And I havn't commited any sort of copyright vio! I found that accusation quite disturbing. Sam Spade 23:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:Sam Spade/ - archive/Mai 2005 2#bad faith?

Irpen - is too loud

Irpen you are too high in the sky - You are not the cleverest man on Earth (unsigned by anon user)

Indeed, I am not. And I hope you will do some really good edits or improve my past edits, so that reading your articles will make me more clever. Irpen 14:53, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Lviv

Oh come on, I don't mind at all! As long as we keep civil discussion it's all right with me. Halibutt 21:46, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

WikiPortal/Russia

Thank you for the kind words. I do admit that WikiPortals are new to me, and I hope this works out. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:01, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I just think that if I keep on updating it and make it very responsive to the users, it will work out great. Plus, you can discuss any changes you want to be done at the portal talk page. Though, I wish to ask you to do something for me. I ask for you to help administer the portal with me. I will be moving in a few weeks, so I wish for someone to watch over it while I am gone. If you wish to do that, just let me know. Thanks in advance. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:01, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I will do what I can but I will be loaded up at work during the next weeks. So, I will only have a limited amount of time. However, within my available time, I will try. I will definetely be able to revert vandalism and if I am off the WP for a day or two, I am sure it's already on enough people's watchlists so that vandalism won't stay long. So, thanks again and I will try, Cheers, Irpen 05:10, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. I will try to pop in every so often, to make let folks know that I am ok. Plus, if you want to change the news, featured article/pictures, did you know, go right ahead. Anyone can change those too. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Rus' (people)

Offhand, I don't think your suggested merge of Rus' (people) is a good idea, though I might be wrong; please state your case rather than just adding the "merge" tag, and please see my comment at Talk:Rus' (people)#Merge?. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:23, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel. I responded at Talk:Rus' (people)#Merge?. -Irpen 01:36, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Kijów in Kiev article

Witkacy wrote: "The city was part of the Kijów Voivodship, Poland for 200 years, so what is your problem?--Witkacy 18:12, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)"

Replied at Talk:Kiev#Kijów_in_Kiev_article -Irpen 18:59, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Delete the unnecessary Russian name and none of my homies will bother you no more.Space Cadet 03:30, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Stop the exadge! As if mentioning Kijów brought an actual "havoc" to anything! Shyaa...riiight! Logically if Danzig belongs in the Gdansk article, then Kijów belongs in Kiev! Unless you agree with the Britannica convention: current English name throughout, native name bolded in the first sentence, nothing else, unless in the "history" section. In the above case, however, help in getting rid of German names from Gdansk, Szczecin and Wroclaw articles. Your support of logic and common sense will be appreciated. Sincerely, Space Cadet 04:06, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Irpen, I'm not on any campaign per se, except of course the "campaign for logic, consistency and justice for all". Your "sobriety" remark was very rude. Your consistent ignoring of my point, only a little annoying. Tell me what you think about the way Britannica handles those issues. Space Cadet 04:40, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The advise above was a quote from the WP guidelines WP:Point directly applicable here, and of course I have no reason to think that you were literally not sober. It was part of the phrase: "Think through your edits for a while..." Read the whole thing again if you please.

I am not ignoring your point? I am trying to convince you to express it clearly at the talk:Kiev page. I have no opinion on Britannica's policy. I would like to stick to the issue at hand which is: (1) should the Kiev article have a RU name in the first line, and (2) should it have the PL name there, or is the RU name alone a sufficient reason for a PL name, or whether the German/Polish naming dispute somehow affects how the Kiev article should look like. If you have anything to say about those issues, please use the talk:Kiev page. Several people, including user:Witkacy, wrote there. You choose to ignore the talk page and simply revert. The justification you give, your quote: "if Danzig belongs in the Gdansk article, then Kijów belongs in Kiev!" and "Delete the unnecessary Russian name and none of my homies will bother you" clearly shows that this is a WP:Point issue. If making a point re the Russian name and an unrelated Gdansk issues is only part of your reasons, please state the rest of at the talk page in response to what's already said there. I am only calling on you reverting your editing yourself if you are motivated solely by WP:Point-like reasons. I have no problem to discuss the issue itself. I hope you will agree to stop this revert war. If you please help improving the Polish section of Kiev history I would really appreciate that. -Irpen 06:30, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

I guess I wasn't sober, yesterday.Space Cadet 09:52, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks to all for stopping this reversion cycle. Since WP:Point is a guideline and not a policy, I can see it might be acceptable under extreme circumstances. When pushed to an extreme stress in an unrelated DE-PL name dispute, several editors chose the Kiev article to make a point. Understandably, I was unhappy about it (I desperately want this to become a better article than it is) but I understand the "consistency and justice for all" logic. Since the intent of the effort was transparently given, I never saw this as foul play and I was simply requesting a cleanup. I was already unhappy about myself reverting the article more than once in a single day (and this was NOT vandalism which I revert comfortably). Approaching or not the 3RR limit I simply didn't want to continue this myself. Therefore I requested a self-reversion from the other side, but another user just went ahead and reverted even sooner. In any case, if we can get together and improve the city article I would be eager to give to it whatever time I have. Cheers, -Irpen 02:15, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

I think we should first fix the voting (survey) policy itself, otherwise, any new vote will suffer the same fate as Gdansk/Vote - i.e. resolve little. See Template_talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice#Constructive_proposal for my proposal and arguments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:29, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Did you know?

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

Transnistria

I see nothing disputed in this page. --Vasile 04:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) I am not able to see what are the the statements and ideas really DISPUTED in the article. It's just a pretention of POV. --Vasile 13:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You definetely know nothing about the subject as you pretend. You just want make this article to disappear, disturbing and harassing anyone wants to edit this article. You don't respect the wikipedia rules and you should report yourself to the wikipedia staff. --Vasile 18:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Transnistria/archive_1#Response_from_the_"Challenger_of_neutrality". --Irpen

Take your Stalinist propaganda elsewhere

Stop the propaganda. It ain't working! Obviously there are tons of people that disagree with you. The smartest way would have been to provide some proof along with your complaints but you did not do that.

So I will politely ask you to either adress the subject of Transnistria in a mature manner or stop herassing the discussion page. Duca

Replied at Talk:Transnistria/archive_1#Response. --Irpen

Survey guidelines fixing

So that the Gdansk/Vote horror never repeats itself :) Please see the proposal at my userspace, it is an updated version of Template_talk:Gdansk-Vote-Notice#Constructive_proposal. After I hear (or not) and incorporate comments from you and several other users I know are interested in fixing this, I will officialy move this to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) and I would like you to be one of the co-signatures of the proposal. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:10, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for the comments, I tried to incorporate them into the final version. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Fixing_giant_loopholes_in_Wikipedia:Survey_guidelines. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:35, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: my page

Thanks for the help! - Kazak 23:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Normanist POV-pusher

Hi, Irpen! I just thought you might be interested to comment on what's going with the article on Igor of Kiev. You may want to checkUser_talk:Dbachmann as well. --Ghirlandajo 19:30, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ukrainian Oblast's Infobox

Hello! I think we need the new inobox for Ukrainian Oblasts. I inserted flag and CoA of Zhytomyr Oblast, but without an infobox it seems...

If you want - create this infobox, please- then I will try to find more flags and CoAs.

Secundo: Could you check English names for the raions in Zhytomyr Oblast. Cheers! Vuvar1 18:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Transnistria

Hi! First let me say that I'm not going to pretend to know anything about the subject of this article, so I will not get involved in discussions on the content of the article. That said, when I saw the request for protection I felt that the parties involved here might benefit from me, as an outsider, monitoring the debate and intervening if necessary. My take on the situation at the moment is that there appears to be useful (if not always civil) discussion going on on the talk page for this article, and that the edit war on the article itself is not out of control. So I have chosen to take a low-key approach—making sure that editors are aware of, and stick to the the three revert rule, but not (yet) procecting the article. Protection at this point might cause a further hardening of positions rather than fostering compromise, however, if within the next day or so it looks like this strategy is not working I will protect the article (if no one else has done so before me). JeremyA 5 July 2005 04:37 (UTC)

I agree with you, the situation seems to have changed during the last 12 hours or so. The discussion at the talk is no doubt useful and civility can and should be handled by RfC rather than protection if gets out of control. I requested the admin action only due to persistent removal of the POV tag. If it is kept intact, the process may be resolved in a regular way. I will get back with my request of protection only if the practice of the tag removal returns to the article. Thanks for your participation. --Irpen July 5, 2005 04:49 (UTC)

Re re Transnistria

Your only contribution in "dispute" is restoring tags. Please stop these obstructing manoeuvres, read more wiki-regulations and try something new. --Vasile 11:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Slavic name of Constantinople

It is hard for me to contibute anything useful to this discussion between editors who know much more on the topic than I do. However, what's wrong with Slavic name of Constantinople (Tsargrad) mentioned in this particular article. No one is talking about inserting it to every article. However, if there is a context to mention it in WP, there is nothing closer to it than this article. I don't understand why it was completely removed. Having it mentioned as a second name (with Constantinople as the first one) would still be OK, I think. Completely removing it from the middle of the article seems to me unwarranted. Any objections to restore it? -Irpen 03:33, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Well, using the Slavic name would imply that the attackers used that name for Constantinople, which would be misleading. We know which language these Rus spoke because, after these attacks, in 950, the Byzantine Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus wrote that the Rus spoke Old Norse in De Administrando Imperio. You can read a translation here. For instance, he gave the names of the Dniepr cataracts in both Rus and in Slavic. The Rus names:

• Essoupi (Old Norse vesuppi, "do not sleep")
• Oulvorsi (Old Norse holmfors, "island rapid")
• Gelandri (Old Norse gjallandi, "yelling, loudly ringing")
• Aeifor (Old Norse eiforr, "ever fierce")
• Varouforos (Old Norse varufors, "cliff rapid" or barufors, "wave rapid")
• Leanti (Old Norse leandi, "seething", or hlaejandi, "laughing")
• Stroukoun (Old Norse strukum, "rapid current").

Since we consequently know what language the Rus spoke in 950 and these attacks were before that date, the Slavic name for Constantinople would be misleading. It would be more appropriate to state that it was called Miklagard by the Rus. However, I do think that Tzargrad is relevant as a line in the article on Constantinople.Wiglaf 28 June 2005 05:42 (UTC)

Anons

When reverting anons, like you did in Crimea, please look into their contributions. From my experience a 69% of vandals are not satisfied with a single page. mikka (t) 29 June 2005 22:05 (UTC)

Why do you choose to associate anons with vandals? 81.213.0.98 30 June 2005 15:35 (UTC)

There is a very good correlation but you are right: non all vandals are anons and not all anons are vandals. Particularly, I didn't see your edits as vandalism. I reverted them because they seemed to me like pushing of a particular out-of-mainstream POV into several articles. When I revert vandalism, I usually simply say in the edit summary "rv vandal". Reverting your edit, I elaborated clearly the reasons either at the edit summary or at the talk pages. If you disagree, please make your point at article's talk pages. Also, there is nothing that prevents you from persisting with your versions in the articles themselves. But still, pls use talk pages. Most wikipedians, myself included, are open to discussions. -Irpen June 30, 2005 17:45 (UTC)

anon user spreading Polish names randomly

Hmmm, except for this edit, all his other contributions seem quite strange to me. Not that they were nonsensical, but they're simply badly worded and use the Polish names not in the historical context (as it is accepted) but in modern context (which hardly makes any sense). I see no reason not to revert - or at least reword his entries. Halibutt July 1, 2005 10:31 (UTC)

That was my impression too. Thanks! Will take care of it. -Irpen July 1, 2005 15:39 (UTC)

(Old) Ruthenia

(moved to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Old Ruthenia. mikka (t) 19:11, 19 July 2005 (UTC))

Ukrainian Copyright

I was wondering if I would have no problems using photos from the website of the Ukrainian President and Ministry of Defense for my article on Hero of Ukraine? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 20:55, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I will let you know if I can find anything out for sure, but I bet it's pretty safe under fairuse anyway. Don't you think? --Irpen 21:04, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I was more thinking of Public Domain. I want to get the article Featured, but people are now getting upset over the use of Fair Use images being used on these type articles. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:12, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I just answered your question at Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Ukraine/Ukraine-related_Wikipedia_notice_board#Ukrainian_copyright_law.27s_very_important_excemption. Thanks for raising the issue. I am sure it would be good to know for others too. Cheers, -Irpen 00:53, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Your quite welcome. Also, please see my response at Talk:Hero of Ukraine. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I moved the images to the Commons. I also know you asked about if I got many Wiki-national awards: I got two. I got a Barnstar of National Merit for Belarus and for Russia. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 03:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

inhabitans were massacred

I think I read this in Jasienica, with colorful descriptions of buildings full of severed heads awaiting Mazepa and such. I can find the book and check it if you want. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

You probably read about the massacre of Baturyn. This is already describied in its article. If I am mistaken, feel free to restore of course. --Irpen 23:33, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Medvedchuk

What exactly did he and Kuchma do to "devaluate" the Hero of Ukraine titles? Zscout370 (Sound Off) 07:53, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Mainly, by giving the titles to non-worthy (by public perception) people as a payoff for their favors. I will try to find something specific and will let you know. -Irpen 08:30, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

List of heroes of Ukraine

Thanks, I am trying to make a fork article/list with everyone who was presented with the title, regardless of they got the Gold Star or State order. I also noticed you presented someone on here with the Hero of Ukraine medal. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I used it as a Barnstar. Would that qualify for the place in the List of heroes of Ukraine? :). Cheers, --Irpen 01:17, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I wish. Also, I am not sure if I told you, but I received only two Wiki-national awards: one for Russia and Belarus. I am not sure how many names we can add to the list, but I want to do some more searching. But, I still need to fix some sections in the article before I send this to WP:FAC. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I added your information into the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:18, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Another topic, I think I figured out what some of the Law passed in 2002 by Kuchma [1] is saying (I should add uk-1 to my babel template). The last three things talk about the design of the decorations. The miniature medal, comparing the other decorations I worked on, is most likely the wearer's copy I mentioned about. And the decorations have not changed at all in design or composition. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:53, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Even though I do not have much time to work on the article right now, I will happily translate whatever you need. The simple translation from ru/ua languages for another user (not to be placed directly into the article) that I do not have polish don't take much time at all. Just ask and send links. --Irpen 05:38, July 26, 2005 (UTC) P.S. I think we are not yet close to the stage to submit the article for featured candidates, but we'll get there. Thanks again for your enthusiazm to RU/UA topics. Cheers,--Irpen 05:38, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Trust me, we should be fine. Hero of Belarus made it that far, and it is FAC. Pretty much, I just need this site [2] translated. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 08:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, your quite welcome and check your inbox. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:01, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"Wisła" Action

Hi Irpen, I thought you might be interested to know that I've just started an article about "Wisła" Action. It's not much yet, and I plan to considerably develop it in near future. However, if you are willing to contribute or simply watch progress of this article, you're very welcome. --SylwiaS 12:16, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Unfortunately my knowledge about this is next to nothing but I will follow the development. I also posted an anouncement at Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Ukraine/New article announcements. Thanks~ --Irpen 20:36, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Great! I couldn't find a proper Ukrainian board. If you came upon any official statements of your government about the action, it would be good to add them to the article. --SylwiaS 00:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Did just that. --Irpen 07:48, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Medal Drawing

I got the drawing of the medal that you wanted. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:53, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I will get to translating the page you requested asap. Regards, --Irpen 01:09, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Your quite welcome and enjoy the drawing. Thanks for translating the page, I believe the article is ready for FAC. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, take all of the time you need on the article, we pretty much got everything that is needed. Thanks again. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Black Book

Thanks for your efforts, but as I said, User:Witkacy is a troll. This edit should quell any doubts about that. Tomer ^TALK 12:18, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Please dont move any discussions in my own name space (it would be nice if you ask me befor) thx.--Witkacy 22:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Witkacy, I have no problem with your blanking the talk in your namespace and I have no intention to interfere with this any further. However, the talk page was an integral part of the Black Book and I thought the talk, with its history that includes the comments from users who chose to respond to the Polonophobia accusations, should follow the project page. Again, it is entirely up to you whether you want to allow the responces from the alleged anti-Polonists as well as comments from other users in your userspace. You may blank them on sight, but the history of the talk should be with the black book itself. That was my motive and I am sorry you didn't agree and became unhappy about the page move I did. --Irpen 05:13, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Tnx

Tnx for the translation! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 10:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Needs NPOV for Mintimer Shaymiev

Большую часть текста я взял с официального сайта, поэтому возможно что и не везде НТЗ. С удовольствием прийму участие в обсуждении данного вопроса. --Untifler 16:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Untifler! Спасибо за сообщение. Я к сожалению мало чем могу помочь с материалом для этой статьи. Но даже при моей недостаточной квалификации в этом вопросе, мне показалось, что есть достаточно оснований для НТЗ флага. Наверное Вы со мной согласитесь, что трудно ожидать нейтральной биографии президента на официальном президентском сайте. Впрочем, я понимаю, что даже человеку, следящему за политикой Татарстана, понадобилось бы выделить немало времени, чтобы написать статью о президенте нейтрально и энциклопедично с нуля, и при ограниченном времени до этого могут и не дойти пока руки. На мой взгляд, лучше иметь даже предвзятую, но какую-никакую статью в ВП, чем не иметь ничего. Но естественно, случайный читатель, вероятно осведомленный о традициях в политике бСССР еще менее меня, должен быть предупрежден, что я и сделал.

У меня есть еще одно опасение. Эта статья во многом напрямую взята с президентского сайта. Я не уверен, что это разрешено с точки зрения авторского права. Российский закон подходит к авторскому праву на текст, опубликованоого государственными учреждениями, более избирательно чем американский закон (В штатах считается общественным практически всё, что публикуется государственными организациями). Посмотрите статью 8 росийского закона об авторском праве на wikisource wikisource:Закон об авторском праве и смежных правах#Статья 8. Произведения, не являющиеся объектами авторского права. В любом случае, пожалуйста не воспринимайте мою позицию как критику. Это просто мои предложения. Я слишком мало разбираюсь в предмете, чтобы самому активно учавствовать в этой статье. С уважением, --Irpen 04:43, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Вроде тут нет автогрских прав: сообщения о событиях и фактах, имеющие информационный характер. (А чем ещё является биография?). Если что, то пускай судятся :) --Untifler 12:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Hero of Ukraine

Hi. Have you considered voting for it? Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hero of Ukraine. Sashazlv 03:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Orden druzhby narodov.png

Hey Irpen. To let you know, I have replaced this image with a jpg image at Image:Order_Friendship_of_Peoples.jpg. Because of this, I have put your image up for deletion at WP:IFD. FYI, we should upload photographs as .jpg files instead of png files. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks! --Irpen 00:40, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Your welcome. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:41, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Ukrainian portal

Thank you, I didn't know this portal ! :) --Bogatyr 16:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome! Keep an eye on the boards. Other users announced your articles there already :). Cheers, --Irpen 17:13, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Many Thanks

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 18:22, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You are weclome. It's interesting that my vote actually mattered this time. It was only so because of a campaign waged for certain reasons. Otherwise, it would have been unimportant. Good luck, --Irpen 18:50, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

UGCC & Husar

Thanks for the comments. I implemented your suggestions on the Lubomyr Cardinal Husar page. Let me know what you think of the changed text. Pmadrid 23:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I will reply later at his talk page. Thanks! --Irpen 23:50, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Belarus portal

I had to fix up the template/portal due to it changing name spaces and due to lack of activity. I will not do the same for the Russian portal, unless it is requested. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:54, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zach! Sorry, I don't quite get what you mean. Is it regarding the move from Wikipedia:Wikiportal/Name to "Portal:Name". I thought they were all moved already. 99% of activity at RU/UA portals occures at "new article announcement" boards. And most of the remaining 1% is at the other boards. Almost nothing else is updated. Anyway, whatever you did were for better so far :).

Мы мирные люди...
(но наш бронепоезд
стоит на запасном пути)
--Irpen 05:07, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I found out about the creation of the Portal: namespace last night, so I had to move it there (I moved it myself instead of a script doing it for me). I was sent a message that I needed to clean the page up to make it more reader-friendly. So, I did that. Plus, I have to agree, not much activity takes place at the portals (sadly). Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

RU/UA portals were moved by scripts, I think. All subpages were moved too, so everything is fine. As for reader-friendlyness, I agree that it's just not too many people doing anything at all. The new articles are well announced and sometimes there is some communication on another board, but that's about it. Unupdated news make a pity impression. The rest could also be improved. Unfortunately, I am almost alone at UA-portal with other participants showing up less and less. RU, portal, to the contrary, is very active. Just check its new article's board. Maybe it's good, for what it's worth, to ask at the portal's talk. If you do, I will make sure it is noticed. I am glad you came over this silly fights with prudes. I am also glad to see that you seem no too upset by their sockpuppet allies. Read the verse above one more time :) (бронепоезд is and armored train, BTW) --Irpen 05:18, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I just needed a short Wikibreak and school was a very, very easy escape to deal with. Plus, I just got out of VFD and just focused on Belarusian topics. Based on what you told me, I will not change the portals unless all of the members agree to it. The only reason I was able to get away with the Belarusian portal design is that it is a one man show (me). As for the news, I always got them from Wikinews, and Wikinews is not really great when dealing with most nations. Also, I read the statement in Russian, it said that you are a peaceful people. :) I feel better, since I have not tried to act as an admin unless it was in a clear case and I got out of edit wars. It would be very hard for me to leave the project completely, since I fill in a few gaps very, very few even wish to cover. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it goes further than that we're just peaceful :). It says that "we are peaceful people but our armored train is parked at the reserve track" :) Have a good one! --Irpen 05:43, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Certainly will and thanks for your continued support, friend. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 05:48, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Reverts

Ghirlandajo's massive deletions can not be considered to be anything but vandalism. There had long been a request for the inclusion of material from Rus' (people) and when I added relevant information under the paragraph "earliest evidence" he just mass removed everything. That is not an acceptable attitude to editing an article, and simple vandalism.

I do not take pleasure by arguing with Russians about their earliest history, and FYI, I am married to a Russian woman, and I have a Russian history professor as a mother-in-law. Unfortunately, my strong Russian connections, and my interest in medieval Scandinavian history makes it important for me that this part of Russo-Scandinavian history is treated fairly.--Wiglaf 23:28, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Wiglaf, I hope you didn't mean that I am among the ones who accuses you in "taking pleasure in arguing with Russians". To the point, whether Ghirlandajo's edits are vandalism or not, I suggest you take another look at Wikipedia:Dealing_with_vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not. I am glad to hear about your positive attitude towards the topic. As a matter of fact, I never said anything to the contrary about you anyway. The issue at hand is that however disagreable you find Ghirlandajo's edit, it is incorrect to invoke "vandalism" to may your claim sound more convinsing. Regards, --Irpen 23:34, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see that mass deletions are exempted from being considered vandalism. I have to go to bed now, and will resume the discussion tomorrow. Regards,--Wiglaf 23:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Scimitar's RfA

Thanks for supporting my request for administrator powers, which has been successful. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me on my talk page. Thanks again! Scimitar ^parley 17:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Belarus/Belorussia

I'm really not sure if it makes sense to continue this chat on the article's talk page, therefore I'm responding here. I'm not a Belarusia myself, but from what I've heard they were complaining that "Belorussia" was coined by tsarist ochrana, and then further exploited by Soviet propagandists, primarilty to make an impression in the West, that "BeloRussia" is just some kind of "Russia", so this was clearly attached to Russian ideology of imperialism. They also accused Moscovites of stealing the word "Rus" from Kievan Rus (or actually from Ukraine this time). I don't know how much truth there is to it, but particularly the Belarusians that I knew were quite grave about this. You'd probably know better about the Ukraine. Are you Russian, by the way ? I meant no offence. --Lysy ^(talk) 22:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the alleged implication of the name, please take a look at Etymology of Rus and derivatives, Great Russia, Little Russia and White Russia articles (the Great and the Little were written by myself, initially). As you can see from there, this is much older than the Soviet propagandist or even Russian Imperialist inventions. That "steeling" thing is a new popular fallacy in certain circles. --Irpen 05:06, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

To comment on the above issue, there are some who do take offense to Belorussia and it's spellings, due to the fact the Byelorussia was the Soviet name for Belarus (hence trying to rekindle the Soviet era) and Belorussia was used by Tsarist Russia to refer to the Belarusians. You can find it at White Russia. Also, to Irpen, thanks for voting on My Belarusy. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, there are some who take offense on things. In Ukraine, for example, there are fringe circles who still call things that are Russian as "Muscovite" and refuse to apply the Rus-rooted word on principle. I only said that this attitude isn't typical. Also, Lysy, please check your mailbox. --Irpen 06:27, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ukrainians' picture

I don't mind you changed it. If Khrushchev's ethnical background is not clear, be it so. I think, Korolev is a person prominent enough to replace him.Voyevoda 17:35, 5 October 2005 (CET)

Stalingrad

Hello, I am wondering if you could help me with a problem I have encountered. A certain "Kurt Leyman" in the Stalingrad artcile keeps changing the Red Army casualties into the millions. The number given by William Craig (and the numbers I use) in his well-respected "Enemy at the Gates" is 850000 Axis military, 750000 Soviet military, and 40000 Soviet civilain casualties, while Leymann never offers any sources for his numbers. In addition, he never comments on his edits and never responds on his user talk page (there have been many other complaints against him). Also, Kurt Leymann has been deleting the passage about the losses of the German sattelites for no apparent reason - thus I am forced to correct him far too often. Is there any way to stop him from doing this? Kazak 01:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Try a WP:RFC. Zach (Sound Off) 01:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC can be used if the situation gets out of hand but this unsourced intrusion may not require it. Just revert and let me know if you are approaching a 3RR limit. So that I will revert him when you can't. I will keep an eye but can't promise to me quick on my own. I have my hands full with several disputes right now. In any case I will try to help and don't hesitate to drop me a note. --Irpen 02:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Recent changes to Russia

I'm not sure if you saw this edit from yesterday; since there was some vandalism afterwards it is possible that it got lost in the shuffle. Some, but not all, of it has been addressed. It looks rather POV to me... Olessi 18:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! It's crasy that no one noticed. --Irpen 19:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Please don't treat the comment

As personal attack. I only wanted AndriyK to know that I find diversity of opinions of value to keep articles neutral and rich in information otherwise unknown to other users.My comment was in now way connected to you. --Molobo 17:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

edit comments

Your stupid homeboy called me a "demented spaceman", but I don't see you reprimanding him! Another thing: did my "rm nonsensical chauvinistc claims" comment really mislead you? When I removed a loose "r"? Thought you were smarter than that. Space Cadet 20:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes it mislead me because if you whould have said that you just corrected the typo I would not have bothered to go and check your edit since you are an established Wikipedian and I have too many articles at my watchlist to check each change in each of them. I certainly have to check the article when it was edited with such a summary. Neither I approve the "demented spaceman" remark of course. --Irpen 20:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I still don't see you reprimand your (distant) "cousin", though. What up? Different standards for own blood, different for "praklyatiy vrag"? Space Cadet 21:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It's enough to check your own contributions for today to see that they are limited to calling others "you morons" and the like. You also twice styled me "unmotivated maniac", whatever this is supposed to stand for. Have you ever checked Wikipedia:Civility? You may as well go to a nearest pub if your prime motive in wikiediting is to indulge in extravagant verbal abuse. --Ghirlandajo 21:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I did talk to him about this in the past and it is not my business to tell adult people what to do more than once, unless I am dealing with activity that hurts the articles themsleves, like vandalism and POV issues. However, I would not have gone to your talk page just to reprimand you for inflamatory summaries in the first place. For me, having to waste my time checking the edits when you only corrected the typo was a more significant issue. I never go to check edits marked (m - typo) when I know the editor as a reasonable person. --Irpen 21:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine! So now that you know I'm also a reasonable person, don't go and check my edits marked "rm nonsensical, chauvinist claims". Space Cadet 21:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

RfC -> RfAr?

I believe you would be interested in checking the latest entry on Molobo's talk. Dab clearly states that RfC is an important prerequisite for RfAr. Can you check it for me? Thanks, Ghirlandajo 01:45, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

{{unreferenced}} Chernihiv

Chernihiv article has only external links. If external links are in fact references, they should be labeled them as such, as they are not the same thing. I have been following the (Wikipedia:Cite_sources#External_links.2FFurther_reading which states clearly that ==External links== or ==Further reading== section is placed after the references section, and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader, but which have not been used as sources for the article. Thus I concluded that if article has only elinks or further reading, it has no references, and this template should be added. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

One of the most common accusations to Wikipedia in general is the lack of sources and references, and we need to fix that. One of the goals of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check is to make people aware of that. Besides, {{unreferenced}} is much smaller then the large and ambigous {{cleanup}}, and I never heard people objecting to it. Please provide references for those articles, then feel free to remove the template - I am using it with accordance to our policies.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I have taken precautions :) First, I started with tagging articles several days ago with a few trial tags, and then added a few more every day. Second, note that there is close to a thousand articles tagged this way (see Category:Articles lacking sources), and I believe I have tagged less then 50 articles total, so it is not like it is my personal crusade. Only today I had found out about opposition to this template. True, I should have read the small print earlier (so I wouldn't have to spend over 1h today going over my contribs, removing this template when I added it to a stub, and moving it to the bottom in all other instances :/). Nonetheless I believe that when this template is moved to the bottom of this article, there should be no objections to its use. And just FYI, I don't have time to tag all unreferenced articles, but I wanted to show as many editors as possible how to properly reference articles. As this was done with accordance to our policy, I sincerly hope you don't think I was making a POINT.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 21:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but put the template at the bottom, see my recent contribs (that's the consensus about the use of this template).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent Kaliningrad Oblast edits

Hello! There have been a number of recent extensive edits to the Kaliningrad Oblast article. The additions look to be in good faith, but I am not terribly familiar with the great amount of Lithuanian history presented now. I also am not sure if that article is the proper place for that content. You might be interested in taking a look at it. Olessi 21:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up! I posted a short request at the article's talk page to start some meaningfull improvement. We'll see how it will go from that. Regards, --Irpen 21:45, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Зеркало недели

I'm concerned that you've added references to a weekly magazine articles to Polish-Soviet War article. While I have nothing against this particular weekly (and I admin I do not know it), I doubt if a popular magazine features research articles that qualify for encyclopedic references in a historical article. What do you think ? --Lysy ^(talk) 21:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

This is the most reputable Ukrainian weekly. It has a history section written very solidly with no crackpot stuff and it has a full tri-lingual archive available online, especially valuable for online WP. Check the Zerkalo Nedeli article in WP I wrote. Since "WP is not the source" you can also check RU/UA/EN articles from the more recent time to see the level of this publication. --Irpen 21:41, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks from Dietwald

Irpen, thanks for the nice welcome message:) I will try to contribute more to the topics, and I hope we can get along. You will notice every once in a while that I am a staunch Russophile, and do not hesitate to point out the errors of my ways when I talk about THE Ukraine...;)

--Dietwald 13:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Yuriy Yekhanurov

Hi, can you help me with translating his biography in Talk:Yuriy_Yekhanurov? There is some popular demand for that. Sashazlv 03:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that. --Irpen 03:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Holodomor letter

Hi, I had a very difficult week and could not answer the e-mail earlier.

I think what you say makes sense.

I also recall my late grandfather telling me that his mother instructed him and his sisters to stay at home and beware of strangers. Those strangers were hungry and dying peasants (and their children) who flooded Kherson from neighboring communities. The grandfather was about 10-11 at that time. He told me the story some time before the collapse of SU (in fact, he died in 1991): without witnesses and I wasn't supposed to share it.

I don't know exactly where the grandfather's family originated from. I heard that his mother fled with children from either Donetsk or Luhansk regions, where they had a farm (khutor). In order to avoid persecution. No details about exact location and time are available. In the process, they modified their last name and, apparently, the mother concealed the details from the children.

Strangely enough, I haven't heard the story from the other grandfather's family. His parents lived in a village between Nikolayev and Kherson. One of the reasons may be that they were very reluctant to share the memories.

Best, Sashazlv 21:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Funny Misunderstanding

"Rm nonsensical chauvinistic claims" is my standard comment for fixing typos, missing punctuation or spelling errors. I just like the sound of it. This time I corrected "past" to "passed". The "three hundred years" comment I deleted by mistake. Sorry to have startled you. Kasmicheskiy Pyeshyekhod aka Space Cadet 17:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

None taken, thanks man. Could you please take a look Talk:Kiev#Summary_of_older_discussions_over_names_in_the_articles, I would be interested in your opinion. Thanks, --Irpen 18:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I would probably like to see the Polish name on Lwów, Kamieniec Podolski, Stanisławów and a few other places. I can live without Kijów, Połtawa and Charków. And I am strongly against the use of anything but the current English name in the middle of an article. Exception from the above would of course be cities that had their name changed, like Königsberg, Vowgograd etc. What does Britannica say on Kijów? What's your stand on the Gdańsk/Danzig controversy and how do you feel about the fact that Britannica has an article "Free City of Gdańsk" instead of "Free City of Danzig"? Aha, sorry about the "Vstavay strana..." bit. I thought you guys were going to laugh, not get upset. Truly yours, Space Cadet 19:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Space, this discussion is only about the other names to be mentioned in the second line and nothing else. The rest we can decide separately. What do you say then? --Irpen 19:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll say I'll stick to the way Britannica does it! Space Cadet 21:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Zemsky Sobor

No Russian wiki article (interlink)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There is indeed no separate article in ru-wiki. There is a chapter here at ru:Политический строй допетровской Руси article. --Irpen 03:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

user:Molobo

User:Molobo's unrestrained chauvinism constrained me to make some harsh editing on Russophobia, but I'm afraid it's the only language our Polish friends understand. Trusting your expertise in wikilaws, may I ask your advice as to whether his/her endless and pointless reverts on Belovezhskaya Pushcha (I don't know why the Polish name is preferred here) should be classified as a 3RR violation? --Ghirlandajo 15:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope I tried to create new versions better fitting the desription then the quite strange "East Slavic" rulers.I tried Soviet leaders and then leaders of Ukraine,Belarus,Russia, both of which seem to fit more with the proper terminoly in politics.Thus at the same time avoiding 3RR. If a Polish and Czech president meet should we say that leaders of West Slavs meet ? That would be very, very bizarre.

--Molobo 16:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Huh, I see that you can speak English on talk pages. As your contributions indicate, you prefer Polish when speaking to your cronies, which doesn't meet the Wikipedia Guidelines, I think. Anyway, we are not kids and we all know that it has been a favourite Polish strategem for centuries - to drive wedges between East Slavic nations, which have been speaking the same language up to the 16th century at least, and then to say that Belarus and Ukraine are closer to Poland, because it was dominating and oppressing them for a century or so. The Poles and Czechs have had different destinies, both politically and culturally, for more than a millenium. Your comparison is not very apposite, to say the least. --Ghirlandajo 16:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, we are not kids and we all know that it has been a favourite Polish strategem for centuries - to drive wedges between East Slavic nations, which have been speaking the same language up to the 16th century at least. Ekhem ? What are you saying that I am part of some conspiracy ? The West Slavs have had different destinies And your constant classfification of various diverse nations such as Poles or Czechs as some Slavs(which are just language group really) with alledged unfied goals and policies.) Sorry but this is hilerious. --Molobo 17:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL. That's sweet :) Guys, seroiusly, stop personal attacks, especially on poor Irpen's page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, there has been a discussion recently about 3RR on whether repeated removal of the same info from the article 4 times within 24 hours qualifies as 3RR vilation if it is combined by some other changes that seem to technically put the editor under the 3RR. The outcome seemed to have been that this is a 3RR violation and the user may be blocked for it. I don't want to list you for blocking since you might not have known about it, but I want to advise you that this is a blockable violation for the future. I will say more at the article's talk pages. Also, please consider using English for talk pages and save other languages for email communication. Russian and Ukrainian editors seem to abide by this rule, btw. --Irpen 17:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

copyright question

I found a Ukrainian beer with a picture of Semen Paliy on its logo. What would be a copyright status of this picture and is it possible to use it in the article ? Thank in advance for any info. Fisenko 18:47, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I think it is {{PD-UA-exempt}} under clause (d): "...symbols and signs of enterprises, institutions and organizations;".

We also have a {{Logo}} template but its usage is more restricted in temrs of in which articles the images could be used and to which restrictions apply. HTH, --Irpen 18:58, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Re your e-mail

In principle, I agree. Editors must use their resources efficiently. Changing name ordering for its own sake is a waste of scarce time.

However, such a policy may be hard (if at all possible) to enforce. There are too few people who work on Ukrainian articles. And such people may be more productive if they spend time elsewhere rather than check whether other users voluntarily follow the policy.

So, don't worry too much about it. Reasonable people will follow the policy. And there's nothing we can do about unreasonable users. Sashazlv 15:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

This would not be a policy, strictly speaking. Rather a kind of ethics code, which I hope others would join. I will drop a note at the portal once I formulate it and post. Maybe you don't remember a Kijow/Kiev wars (preceeded by even hotter Kiev/Kyiv) wars, but there is some discussion still at talk there. But if even Kamianets-Podilskyi's recent edits consisted of 4-5 changing, adding and rearranging names, that spell a global East European sickness. One thing is Varshava in Warsaw or Kijow in Kiev. But K.-P. was the last straw. I will see whether others will agree. This won't be enforceable, because it is not a WP policy anyway. But there are so many excellent editors in Ru- and PL-portals, that getting their help in UA-articles would bring many improvements. Cheers, --Irpen 16:11, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Take it easy. A few hours ago they renamed Yuliya Tymoshenko to Yulia Tymoshenko. I just added a footnote that there is an alternative spelling of the first name.

Regarding the wars. I don't have time to participate in such discussions. Just add a footnote, and everyone would be happy. Sashazlv 05:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Hero of the Russian Federation

Do you think we could make this Featured, with some work? Zach (Sound Off) 04:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it might be possible but I am not sure it would be easy to get all the material together. Maybe it's worthy to ask at the Portal. I could try if you would like me to. --Irpen 04:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

That is fine and finding the material could be easy. I did some searching before, and I knew that some awardings were done in a shady/illegal fashion. The Russians also have some numbers up of how many people got the title. Though, I will check the presidental archives for photos. Zach (Sound Off) 04:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I began to work on it now, how is everything I have done so far? I also wish to know about how many awards (approx) were awarded for deeds performed in the Chechnya conflict. Zach (Sound Off) 07:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I also found this article: http://2005.novayagazeta.ru/nomer/2005/01n/n01n-s08.shtml. I know that there have been some problems with the title being awarded, so we could highlight this. Zach (Sound Off) 07:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not editing for some days. I will look into it. Thanks! --Irpen 05:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It's alright, I started on it and moved the list of heroes to [3]. Zach (Sound Off) 06:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Phobia or incompetence?

Dear editor, before going into any quick accusation, I suggest you take a broader look at my contributions and discussions at talk pages. If you do not tone this down, it would make more difficult for us to work together on the articles of mutual interest. If you continue your attacks, there can harldy be any discussion. I hope you reconsider your remark and retract it before I will have time to try to work out the articles you changed. --Irpen 19:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Irpen, I invite you to answer some questions about L'viv on Talk:Lviv --Gutsul

Dear anon, I will get to your questions at talk:Lviv. It was my intention anyway. May I ask you to sign in? If you are indeed a uk:User:Gutsul, may I suggest you register as en:User:Gutsul as this username is still available? Otherwise, I can't be sure who is leaving me messages since anyone can paste any signature link.

Also, I would feel much more comfortable talking to you if you retract your disgusting remark above with or without an apology (the latter is entirely up to you). Please be sure to check my user page and contributions. If after that you still view my work as "Українофобія" and "поганити статті про україську мову, культуру, історію ..." it will sadden me a little but I won't loose my sleep over it.

Also, I don't mind to communicate in Ukrainian but not on my public talk page since this is also for the others to see the discussions. Feel free to email me in Ukrainian using "E-mail this user" link. I will respond with an email address and we can discuss all you want. I sincerely hope we will end up working together in good faith in the future and I certainly welcome more editors in Ukrainian topics. You may also want to check my message at user talk:AndriyK. ---Irpen 03:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, i don't view your work as "Українофобія" and you can delete this paragraph afterwards. So, please, excuse my if i hurt your feelings. I have written "Українофобія?" which means that i was not sure about your goals. I analyzed your contributions and have found some things which can be classified as anti-ukrainian propaganda (for instance: "Ukrainian language is underdeveloped"). If you write in English wikipedia about Ukraine you should use not only russian (ex USSR) sources but also ukrainian and english one. I advise you to read Encyclopedia of Ukraine, works of ukrainian historian Mykhailo Hrushevsky. History of Ukraine is very difficult and has a lot of "gray zones". You should understand that english-talking users to 95% have no knowledge about Ukraine and can't check your information. English wikipedia is already arena of russian-ukrainian information war and i don't like it.

Good luck! --Gutsul 09:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Gutsul, this phrase in UA-L article was not originally written by me as you can find if you check the article's history. I objected to it's wholesale deletion, true, because it brings in some information (about lack of encouragement), perhaps not in the best way. If it was rephrased, I wouldn't mind that. In fact, I ended up rephrasing this myself.

You may be surprised to find that my edits were called sometimes on WP as "Ukrainization of the articles" and "russophobic", which would not have been the case if I was writing from Russian and ex-Soviet POV. In fact, I've seen this all on WP and this broad spectrum of self-contradictory accusations proves that I am neither. Your remark was indeed very unpleasant because I was trying to present Ukraine the best I could and got this in response from a Ukrainian. I do use the online Encyclopedia of Ukraine (see in Baturyn for example), Hrushevsky, Polonska-Vasilenko, Kostomarov (whose article I started myself BTW) and others.

English Wikipedia is not an area of RU-UA wars for quite some months and I do like it. Occasional excesses are quickly and politely corrected since there were no strong nationalists from either side for a while. I will not delete your remark. As a matter of principle I never delete anything from my talk. Let it stay. I am now fine with it once you retracted it. I hope we will get more contributors to Ukrainian topics here. Please join in if you have time from ua-wiki. Всього найкращого! --Irpen 09:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Russophobia

Could you look on the page ? Right now it makes even Partitions of Poland seem a reaction to Russophobia :) Not to mention it doesn't seem to source any of the various serious claims. It also lists Serbs, Orthodox religion etc.Both of which fit into other articles (leaving aside if they are true or not). --Molobo 16:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If you don't like some phrase or the other, you should remove it step by step, consulting other users at the talk page, and not blank half the page at one stroke. Also, this was your umpteenth blanking for today. Have you ever heard about 3RR? --Ghirlandajo 17:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I will look at the article soon. I would have anyway. Thanks. --Irpen 17:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Attack hosting

Irpen, yes. I undertood you well. I left AlexPU a comment which I hope he'll read as an objective and calm one. Will he take it to RfC? I don't think so, esp. if he's guilty of similar behaviour.

However, the remarks are another thing, and I am really sick of it. I believe that people can talk about articles without leaving offending remarks, and I've read enough of them already (not only the ones made by Ghirlandajo). I know that people are sometimes frustrated by other users, but they should think twice before pushing the post button. I don't know if or how Ghirlandajo will react, but I'm just not going to read things like that anymore without saying a word. Also, if you don't mind, I'd like to write you something in an email. --SylwiaS 04:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course you are welcome to send me an email. I also agree that negative remarks should be avoided. However, a consious hosting of an attack page is a different matter that causes even more trouble. That's why I wanted it addressed asap. --Irpen 04:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, such pages make no good. Email sent. --SylwiaS 05:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Ukrainians - controversy

I invite to join a very heated discusion on the Talk: List of Ukrainians regarding whether the list may continue as it is or must be purged of all, or almost all, non-ethnic Ukrainians. It will be nice a have another sane voice in the debate.--Pecher 10:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Iopq's talk page

I'm wondering why you deleted the edits by Jkelly and others about Wc3forum.tk. You said they were strange, but they were legitimate complaints about an article he wrote which later got deleted. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I second that question. I'm suspicious that the user also vandalized my user page after logging out. See the contribution page for the vandal here. All of the contributions are to ether my user page or that of Jkelly; the only significant thing we have in common is Iopq and his vandalism. The removal of the relevant talk page discussion seems slightly arbitrary. Tom Lillis 02:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been in touch with that user several times over several articles and I had an impression that User:Iopq is a reasonable editor with an interest to contribute. I was surprized to see the harsh words and I thought of them, as possibly, unjustified. I wanted to check and followed the link to the article over which the argument was only to find out that the article was deleted. As such, I had no way of checking what this was all about and, since I have reasons to assume good faith from the user from my past experiences, I deleted what seemed to me a strange intrusion to his talk page. If I was mistaken, I would like to apologize. As I wrote in my edit, I don't mind the restoration of what I deleted. --Irpen 02:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Iopq

Hi. I mentioned you (peripherally) in my summary at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Iopq. It is currently uncertified. In the case that a second user certifies it, you may wish to add any appropriate feedback as an "Outside view". Thanks. Jkelly 03:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure what's wanted from me and I don't understand the conflict since the article is deleted. I expressed everything I had to say about this earlier. Everyone knows how to restore deleted passages, I said explicitely what I deleted, in which edit I've done it to make it even easier if warranted. Unless I see what so horrific was in the article, I would like to stay out of this for the rest of the conflict. I am already unhappy of getting myself involved. --Irpen 15:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Allegations

Saying allegations isn't the same as saying "a report from Jane's" a credible and well respected source of information.So I do think the changes do have an influence on the quality of the article.By adding Jane's we improve the value of information. --Molobo 20:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not object to adding Jane. I will do this myself, if you want. I object to your rephrasing. Jane isn't a bible. If a respected source mentions this, the allegations are encyclopedic. Otherwise, we would not have mentioned it in the article at all. --Irpen 20:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not mess up the talk pages

Why did you delete my comment on Talk:Patriarch Filaret (Mykhailo Denysenko)? Please restore it.--AndriyK 15:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It was a glitch. I restored it at once I saw it[4]. Check for youself and always double check before making accusations. --Irpen 16:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious

Where do you stand on the conflict on Snake Island? How do you feel about Southern Basarabia and Northern Bukovina? Do you think it was unfair for Soviet to take the land away from Romania, or was it fair? --Anittas 06:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the case of each of these three territories is different and has to be discussed separately. However, in any case I don't think that the concept of "fairness" is applicable to any borders, be it 21st, 20th or 19th century. Borders are best not to be redrawn because there is too much collatoral damage in attempts to achieve "fairness" in borders. To put it simply, attempts to redraw borders usually result in wars and bloodshed and as such, I oppose any such attempts. Another question in redrawing borders is where to stop. Why not return Connecticut to Mohegans and Ontario to the Iroquois. In any case, we should put our views aside when editing the articles, try to stick to the facts and debates the justice of the borders at the usenet groups and newspaper's OpEd pages. --Irpen 07:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

We're not editing any articles now and I don't think you can criticize me for being biased on the Bukovina article. Also, the situation on these Iroquis and Mohegans that you mention is a bit different. They don't have their own state. I agree that history is not "fair", but I still wanted your opinion; but it's cool. --Anittas 07:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Exquisite icons

My main problem with describing the Theotokos of Vladimir as one of the most exquisite icons created is that it sounds like an opinion on the part of the article's author -- something we generally steer clear of. Could we source it, do you think? It's certainly exquisite, so it should be no problem finding someone of note and reputation who says so. Philip Arthur 06:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. I will look/ask around. Thanks and please don't take our disagreement over an article name personally. As I said there, I consider all religious topics with outmost respect. As I said at talk:Theotokos of Vladimir, I just think that "Theotocos of ..." is not the best way to name the article. The word can certainly be introduced in the very first sentence and redirect from it will not be deleted. Anyway, we'll see how and when the consensus emerges. --Irpen 06:33, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio.

Thanks for spotting that...must have reverted in between when I viewed the page and when I protected it :) Ral315 W_S 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Kiev Metro (and others)

Ok I want to create a massive web portal on all metro systems of the USSR and I am writing to you because of your position and experience, and I think you can give this project the impulse it needs to take off. Я тебя лично приглашаю на форум метролюбителей и надеюсь тебя там увидеть. Kuban kazak 15:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Language of the Metro I already talked with AndriyK, and we agreed that for the time being, in Kiev let us keep the Russian names, (anyway it is never too late to revert them to Ukranian), what we can do in the meantime is to start filling up the articles of the stations themselves. Unfortunately I cannot be here 24/7 so its really up to people like you to help me out. Having mentioned the language, I can remember that even though the names when they were announced in Russian, they were Ukranised versions, like Zhovtnevaya, Ploshchad Zhovtnevoi Revolutsii, Chervonoarmeiskaya...quite unique if you ask me. In terms of progress report on the megaportal, I have already nearly finished the Saint Petersburg Metro entry. However what we really need are photos.Kuban kazak 12:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Kievan Rus

Hello Irpen, thank you for helping settle the conflict over the use of the History template. Your energy, calm and persuasiveness played extremely important role and helped, beyond words. Thanks! Now that I was thinking over what has happened there, let me throw a suggestion: how about we change the title of the template from "History of Russia" to "History of Russia series"? And same for the template History of Ukraine which you created? Or maybe "this article is part of the series History of ..."? I think this can help (newcomers especially) better understand the role and significance of these templates just from looking at it. I checked Wikipedia:Series_templates and Wikipedia:List of article series; the templates differ in format and in their contents, but I really like the looks and the intelligence of, for example, the template:History of Greece in Byzantine Empire. Also, the "in series" templates in History of Australia, History of Poland look great - to name just a few. I'd post this suggestion at the noticeboards and see what people have to say. What do you think? Cheers! - Introvert ^talk 09:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the complements. I will try to get to it soon, but in the meanwhile anyone is free to modify the templates as per above suggestions. Cheers, --Irpen 07:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Re: 3RR

As you observed, I'm exceptionally firm with those people who think it's okay to revert war. That means, unfortunately that the bystanders sometimes get hurt - Ghirlandajo also violated the policy, instead of asking for administrator intervention. As I'm aware of his good faith, I blocked him for only half the time. I'm sure he can accept it amiably. Rob Church ^Talk 17:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I repsectfully disagree with your decision but I will be happy to remember to contact you in the future regarding the editors who repeatedly undo other people's edits but avoid 3RR by adding/removing brackets or changing the active to passive voice in the grammar. I've seen much of that. I will be probalby contacting you several times about that. --Irpen 17:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I've reviewed the situation for a third time, and have thus unblocked Ghirlandajo. And now I apply your friend's logic to the situation with the other 3RR violation you reported, in which case I am unwilling to intervene. Rob Church ^Talk 17:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Irpen - could you explain the situation to me more fully? I'm not sure I understand what the discussion is about. john k 00:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I've taken another look, and have decided that yes; these are petty technicalities. Because I wasn't the one directly dealing with the violation, I won't block, but I have left a note on the user's talk page which effectively warns him not to revert-war again. If this happens, please let me know, and I will consider blocking. Rob Church ^Talk 01:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Outright fools?

Irpen, sorry to abuse your page for mentoring an alien from outta space. On a more positive side, I found a quotation I had been talking about. It is in the Britannica entry on Tsar Alexis: "His main fault was weakness; throughout most of his reign, matters of state were handled by favourites, some of whom were incompetent or outright fools". What a pity they didn't name a single one. --Ghirlandajo 21:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting one. I was also checking Britannica today to check on the terminology because there are several ongoing disputes on talk pages. We can trust EB for sure as far as the terminology is conserned and it uses "Russo-Polish war" instead of PMW, Treaty of Polyanov instead of Polanów and Belovezhskaya forest as well as Belovezhskaya accords contrary to whatever is used now at wiki. I raised the issues already at talk pages. You are weclome to comment. --Irpen 21:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

As I explained before, Britannica - like Wikipedia - is written by partial editors and they don't have a single policy as to the name usage. Articles by various contributors often contradict each other. --Ghirlandajo 21:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I neder said that EB is infallable. What I meant was that, unlike Wikipedia, EB is peer reviewed by academics and we can be sure that what it writes is within the mainstream. Of course this doesn't guarantee a complete neutrality and infallability. --Irpen 22:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Your comments to your edits

Please have a look at Michael's announcement Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements#Announcements and take it into account when making comments to your edits.

We were discussed the first paragraph of Ukrainian language at my talk page. I explained you my view. Why do you type "rv unexplained reversion,..." in your comment? [5] Is it nice to misinform your colleagues? Please be fair next time.--AndriyK 09:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You did not explain your view. You just stated it. OTOH, the oddity of this stuff in the intro is explained at talk. You are welcome to comment there if you have anything to say. --Irpen 17:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I did explain my view. Please read my answers carefully.--AndriyK 17:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. BTW, "revert bully"[6] is not appropriate in the comment either. You should respect your colleagues.--AndriyK 09:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverterting while completely ignoring what's said at talk is bullying. On the other hand, I am glad that you are now starting to make "respect your colleagues calls". I hope those will be followed by a more respectful and considerate behavior. --Irpen

Kiev Metro line translits

Originally I wrote the line articles with Russian translits, however another user AndriyK (who you might have come across before, who has a tendency of not actually writing any articles but changing their translits), has decided (even though I asked him to wait with tranlits) to move the line articles to ukranian tranlits. As I know commenced to creating templates the issues with two spellings became an absoloute bugger, I tried to revert to Russian translit but wiki wont let me, so I had to change the spelling. Can someone unlock my original translit and change it (no space before after dash).

• Svyatoshinsko-Brovarskaya Line
• Kurenevsko-Krasnoarmeiskaya Line
• Syretsko-Pecherskaya Line Kuban kazak 20:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Links to the disambiguation pages

Please note that links to disambiguation pages from the articles are discauraged. I is very inconvenient for the reader, if s/he gets a list of terms instead of the appropriate article. It is often not clear wich of several terms should be chosen. Why do you mess up the links I have recently corrected?--AndriyK 16:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Why do you consider Trubizh River to be anachronistic name?

Was the river renamed very recently? If no, please revert your changes in the article Pereiaslav-Khmelnytskyi.--AndriyK 15:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not ignore my message. Trubezh is another river. Why do you link the article to the wrong place?--AndriyK 15:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

On KYIV/KIEV again

I was not sure where to write. Let's try here. Thank you for comments and links. Here is my answer and reasoning: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ukrainian_subdivisions#On_WP_naming_conventions I assume, community here closed this topic already, but let's see what you think on my reasoning. I did only minor changes in the [Dnipro]. Better would be to change name of course... :) but lets discuss first.--Bryndza 22:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Dnipro is completely different issue because it is an international river and its English name (Dnieper) is differebt from all the thee names of the countries it flows through. More at your talk. --Irpen 02:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Media credibility

Hryhorenko, however, entered the world news long time ago and, justly or not, he is called Grigorenko by the world media. You can conduct a google test and see the difference in usage. Our job, at encyclopedia, is not to "promote" the "correct" usage but to reflect the prevailing usage and the prevailing usage is determined by the English language media.

Irpen, hi. This is your post from one of the discussion. I just use it to support next questions: do you check all Ukrainian names in the news before posting them on WP? Why press has such high credibility in your eyes? This "red" line - "usage of the name in media" and "not to dissapoint Anglophones by correct pelling" goes through all your posts. I ask again (my questions on Naming Conventions are still unaswered), why these two factors must determine everything (like in this case - wrong spelling of poor guy Hryhorenko must stay because there are more mistakes in the press than correct spellings. Why do we have redirects then in WP?). And how do you see evolution of proper names if you support wrong ones yourself?

P.S. I stopped writing anything to English WP, I just read talks. So far my impression - even Poles on Polish WP are much more tolerant in articles on "hot" for them Ukrainian topics than people here.--Bryndza 02:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Bryndza, thanks for your Q. Sorry, I didn't get to answering it today. I will respond at your talk shortly. Regards, --Irpen 09:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, Irpen, you can discuss on my page if you like. Or wherever you see more convenient, just keep an eye on the talk somehow. We are fighting with Kazak now on Talk:Kuban Cossacks. Please see and read the paragraph that he is triyng to push. Do you agree with it? About templates - I have no problems to take care of all Kyiv metro system templates and tables. But you know my conditions. And as I understand, you agree, that names should be in Ukrainian. I would like to work with Kazak in the articles. Templates - me. Text - him.--Bryndza 05:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC) If you like - remove this post.

Kiev Metro Map / Copyright

Hi Irpen,

Can you put in some words about this? [[7]] - someone said that there is nothing in the laws that state that this image is under fair use. As far as I can tell under Ukrainian copyright laws, it falls under fair use because of one of the articles. Can you assign a proper copyright tag to this? mno 20:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Next time I would like to read letter from Kiev Metro law department which will support your claims. Not just your assumptions. --EugeneZelenko 15:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

History of Belarus - help needed!

Ghirlandajo is out of control. Mediation and input from more Eastern Europeans editors is needed before he managse to portray this as some kind of Polish-Russian war. Your input would be appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

An answer to your message in my talk page

Hello. I just thought such move could have solved the dispute which was then in place, I did not thought that someone could object the new name I have proposed as it was self descriptive and probably the only way to describe exactly *those* territories (and it seems that two other users as well moved or tried to move the same article in few last weeks without discussing). I did not create artificial history, but deleted spaces in redirects (at first I, due to copying and pasting the redirect, incidently wrote "Redirect New name" with space instead of "RedirectNew name"). Now I noticed that my solution was not approved by the other people, therefore I will disucuss and think of other proposals which, I hope, will work better; I like to solve neutrality disputes in Wikipedia. Kaiser 747 09:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for a warm wellcome

Hi and thanks for a warm wellcome on my talk page. Ukrained 17:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Image deletions

I restored the image Image:Lipovan monument.jpg from a mirror site and rv the edit to Lipovans. I deleted the image because the uploader had not made a contribution in a few months and I figured the odds of them showing up and sourcing the image were small. The speedy delete process for no source images does not require posting on the articles talk page. That would be too time consuming and we would never get rid of the backlog of no source images. Although, I might consider doing that on some of the nicer images like this one -Nv8200p talk 20:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Lipovan monument.jpg has been listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Lipovan monument.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

You've got 7 days to find a source and tag properly. -Nv8200p talk 20:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Did I upload the original image? --Irpen 20:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how to recover the original upload record but I'm pretty sure you did not upload that image, as your current User Contributions would have alerted me that you are an active user and I would have posted an Image Deletion Warning on your talk page. However, you said on my talk page that you "could have written a reasonable fairuse justification or even figure out that it is a free license anyway" so I put the deletion warning on your page to let you know I still intend to delete the image if the tagging is not corrected soon -Nv8200p talk 20:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hero City

Images are back. Please source and tag or they will have to be deleted. -Nv8200p talk 05:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no requirement in the ifd process to leave a warning on the article's talk page (just the uploaders) for image deletions. You might start a discussion on a process change. . . -Nv8200p talk 15:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I never said there was a requirement. The point is do we want to damage Wikipedia article's more than we absolutely have to. I was trying to suggest for you a way that would ensure that images that can be kept are kept. I wrote it to you rather than at the policy page because we had an onoging conversation on the issue and you happened to delete the images in the articles on my watchlist. As for the requirement I will try to set some time to raise this ath the village pump but in any case, I don't see why my request is difficult or unreasonable. It certainly makes sense if we want to avoid deleting the keepable images. --Irpen 18:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I will keep your suggestion in mind, but use it at my disgression -Thanks Nv8200p talk 20:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

DenisRS edits to Ukraine

Hi. Take a look at here. Wishes, Ukrained 12:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Vseslav of Polotsk

Hi. Take a look at the article's naming issue and its recent moves. Your comment is welcome. --Ghirlandajo 09:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, silly and strange activity. I commented at talk. Thanks for alerting it. --Irpen 20:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

M&M

Just thought you might be interested to follow the links:

• [8]
• [9] --Ghirla | talk 10:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

List of Ukrainians

Hi. I agreed with your criteria for inclusion of Ukrainians in List of Ukrainians. There is an edit war going on with me and User:Pecher over the inclusion of ethnic Poles (and a few others) born in the territory of Ukraine but having no cultural or linguistic connection with Ukraine. Can you please support me in my exclusion of these people from the list, as they are in no way Ukrainian. I wish for this edit war to end. Thanks. Antidote

user:Izehar's talk

You do realise that my talk page is not the place for you to bicker on - you have your own talk pages for that. Izehar 19:59, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

What do you mean "bicker"? You chose to get involved in the dispute and made a mistake, I do beleive an honest mistake, as to what really happend. If you were not interested in my explanation of what was happening, I am sorry, and I will not write to you on this anymore. --Irpen 20:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that sparing the 3RR blocks was not a mistake - the amount of tormenting Ghirla has had on his talk page is proof of that. I understand that he is very unpopular over at the Romanian and Polish fronts, but that immature behavior is unacceptable - I wonder who all those anons really are. David seems to think that 3RR blocks were more appropriate in this case - my latest advice to him was to turn a blind eye. Anyway, Ghirla and Anittas will be back tomorrow, so the revert war will resume. Izehar 21:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Commercialization of Wikipedia

Hi,

I never thought this would even be considered. Please, have a look at http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9075-1962714,00.html.

I object to the very idea in strongest terms. I agreed to write articles for free under an implicit condition that noone would be allowed to make money on my contributions. Otherwise, I should be entitled to a share in profits and profit distribution in this particular case is technically not feasible.

If Mr. Wales had this idea from the very beginning, I would have to reluctantly conclude that Wikipedia project is a fraud.

I will destroy my contributions as soon as they post the first add and suggest that you do the same.

Sincerely, Sashazlv 08:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it is too early to worry. The idea certainly won't fly in current wikicommunity. If this happends, that would alter the body of people significantly in a way that would make Wikipedia loose any value. So, I would contribute for now without thinking about such remote possibility. Also, for me, writing for Wikiepdia is a great learning experience. It prompts me to look for and read much more info than I would have and helps me improve my English. I hope you will stay too, at least for now. Please do and З Новим Роком! Щасти! --Irpen 08:23, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Too early -- maybe, but you never know. Placing an ad is not a technically challenging task. Since he controls the charitable organization that owns the hardware - who are we to prevent him from turning the thing into a money-making device? In any event, I would not want to participate in a commercial project for free. And I am just pissed off by the very fact he even considers a change in the rules of the game. Sashazlv 08:37, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Check User talk:Zscout370. They started threatening me. Here comes the disillusionment. So fast. Sashazlv 08:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I am strongly for placing the ads on wikipedia. I would prefer to see some modest avertisements (kinda sponsored links on Google) than the current fundraizer. I have already donated $100 that could spent elsewhere. I franky find annoying to have to pay to work on usable project and prefer somebody else to fund wikipedia activities. Wikipedia needs a lot of hardware, more paid developers (than two fulltimers as now) and, probably, some prize money for sysadmins and editors. Jimbo Wales made a good project, usefull for the entire humankind and deserve to have some money either (at least on par with the creators of junk dotcoms) abakharev 12:42, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Anybody knows if there is any Wikipedia namespace page discussing the pros and cons as add, as well as the current developments? When I saw this article I did a quick search but couldn't find anything concrete.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

You may want to check out Wikipedia:Wikiproject no ads; people keep singing up against the ads there, and there's a discussion on its talk page, which kind of helped me personally not to set off to total panic just yet :) - but it's still rather worrisome, must I admit. - Introvert ^talk 00:48, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Sasha, actually people are already making money from our contributuions. Many sites mirror Wikipedia articles (which they are allowed to do because of GFDL whether you and I consider this ethical or not) and put up adds next to them. Check, for isntance, http://www.answers.com/main/reference.jsp

In any case, the idea of the adds appearing in the Wikipedia itself is too a remote one to worry about it. I hope you will not stop contributing because of these too early worries. I always regret when good contributions leave, ususally because of being bullied by the trolls, POV pushers or clueless admins who make uninformed or bad-faith decisions to use their powers. This would be a whole new reason and I urge you not to take this threat seriously until it becomes one. Cheer up, buddy, and again Happy New Year! Don't forget to tune in to the TV from home over the internet :). --Irpen 19:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Request for comment

It may not be up your alley, but very few people have came through RfC I posted about History of the World, and there is a slow but pointless revert war there (see Talk:History_of_the_World#Graph_straw_poll), so I am now down to asking fellow Wikipedians to take a look if you have time and will.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:07, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Military history of the Soviet Union

Thanks for the note. I don't remember having written the content myself, but it's possible. The sentence removed by CJK refers to the work of some Western Cold War scholars who argue that the U.S. had tacitly (looking back I see that the sentence needs a note that the pressure was tacit, not explicit) used its nuclear monopoly to attempt to threaten and intimidate Stalin. The most notable work on that subject has dealt with the U.S. decision to use atomic weapons against Japan. First, there was British physicist P.S.M. Blackett as early as 1948, who wrote in Fear, War, and the Bomb that the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was "not so much the last military act of the second World War as the first major operation of the cold diplomatic war with Russia." Later, Gar Alperovitz wrote a scholarly account of the Blackett thesis in his Atomic Diplomacy (1965). Now, regarding the military history of the Soviet Union article, I wouldn't favor the removal of the sentence myself, but I don't think it's worth the fight with CJK to restore it. The sentence isn't really important for the development of the rest of the article; and it does lend itself to the possibility of steering editors off the topic of the article to a discussion of the historiography of the Cold War. Further, I see that CJK does have a point in removing the sentence, in that it may likely generate misunderstandings, especially among U.S. readers. At any rate, thanks for letting me know about the edit. 172 07:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the current wording is that it suggests that the Soviets were aggressively threatened by Truman with nukes, which I believe is untrue. In fact, it would be more accurate the other way around.

172 suggests that the "threat" was created by dropping the nukes on Japan, but that is merely an opinion which is impossible to prove, and therfore does not belong as a fact. CJK 21:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Galizien (1st Ukrainian)

Please, have a look at the article. I added there some information from Polish sources, but probably you can have more to say. Also, I translated some Ukrainian names from Polish into English. Maybe they have other equivalents.--SylwiaS | talk 19:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

open proxies

Hi Irpen, to check whether an IP is an open proxy, you must configure your PC to use that IP as a proxy. If it works and you can edit through it, then it is an open proxy; if it displays an error message, then it isn't an open proxy. My advice to you though, do not revert their contributions; Mikkalai and Ghirlandajo did that and they both got blocked for violating the three-revert rule. If you find an IP is an open proxy, bear in mind that it's probably a sockpuppet and report it to WP:AN or tell an administrator so that they can block it. Izehar 14:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

205.191.194.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is an open proxy and has been indefinitely blocked (it was already blocked by Mikkalai, check its block log). I was not able to prove anything about the other IP. Izehar 21:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is an open proxy, and User:Kelly Martin, who has CheckUser Access told me that if I can edit through an IP, then it is an open proxy and should be indefinitely blocked. Are we sure it's Bonaparte though. It could be anyone impersonating him. Izehar 21:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't find evidence of 80.191.132.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) being an open proxy. I also am reluctant to block it (blocking policy considerations - potential admin abuse). Anyhow, Bonny seems to change socks every time. Izehar 22:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there's nothing I can do. I may suspect it's Bonaparte, but I cannot block after one abusive edit summary - especially considering the "productive" edits made. I would block it, if I could prove it's an open proxy, but I can't. I'll try again and we'll see. I see very little point in blocking individual proxies - he comes back with a different one every time. Izehar 23:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Irpen, guess what - this IP is an open proxy. I'm User:Izehar by the way. I'll be back and block in a sec. 80.191.132.3 23:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

80.191.132.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked indefinitely as an open proxy. Izehar 23:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, --Irpen 23:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry, I deleted your message at Talk:Khreschatyk by mistake.--AndriyK 18:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't make a secret of restoring Duca's challenge. Anyone can see that I restored it by just checking the history. I don't agree with his style or the things he says but you had no right to erase his challange. Constantzeanu 00:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

He replaced my entry with his. This was inapropriate and was reverted. Once you posted it properly, I didn't erase it. I welcome any checkuser, including on myself. To be called AndriyK's sockpuppet was rather bemusing. --Irpen 00:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Medvedchuk

Irpen, would you please rephrase that very phrase in Viktor Medvedchuk in an NPOV way? My English feels bad today... Thanks, Ukrained 21:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This fellow is not too much of interest to me and I had no intention to edit this article since there are articles that I am more interested for which I still can't find time. I brought up an obvious excess in phrasing. No matter how we feel about Kuchma's cronies, we have to write about them encyclopedically. See Adolf Hitler for an encyclopedic article about one of the most evil characters of the century. I would prefer if someone interested in Medvedchuk edits his article rather than myself. But my lack of sufficient interest in this persona to write about him does not disquilify me from voicing my concern about the appropriateness of his article. If you insist, I will edit the article myself later, when I have time. Otherwise, you are welcome to modify it yourself. --Irpen 22:12, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My deep apologies, Irpen. Of course I meant nobody but Medvedchuk by Narczyss. Anyway, thanks for answering. Best wishes, Ukrained 22:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Offsite voters

LOL --Ghirla | talk 15:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, please do other editors a favour and archive this page. It takes quite some time to upload. Thanks, Ghirla | talk 15:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikiportal:Ukraine

I like it! One question: you mentioned boards on my talk page... where are they? mno

Just look at several windows at the portal. In one window at the right-hand side you will see "new article announcement board" and "Ukraine-related Wikipedia notice board". Also, use Portal's own talk page to discuss portal itself. Add all these to your watchlist. Feel free to update any window and, especially, current news. Finally, don't be afraid to screw up. Anything can be easily reverted by you or anyone else. Regards, --Irpen July 7, 2005 05:33 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Wikiportal/Ukraine re double edit. Sashazlv 7 July 2005 06:46 (UTC).

Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine

I also very well understand what is behind your editings and would like to remind you that Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. Any wrong information should be removed from the articles and, be sure, it will be removed. This my positive contribution to the Wikipedia. It improves the quality of the resource, because wrong information is much worse than lack of information. If you are not agree and would like put the information back, please folow the Wikipedia_official_policy and cite a cite credible sources. Switch yourself to a constructive work, it will help you to find mutural understanding with most of Wikipedians, including myself.--AndriyK 07:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more... Halibutt 09:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You both must really have guts to say this. I mean that's funny who's talking about propaganda machine. --Irpen 14:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it simply seems that providing no sources when asked to is nothing uncommon in your modus operandi. Or am I wrong? (BTW, no offence intended, just a friendly note). Halibutt 22:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, you may turn this into an ethics dispute if you want. I would only welcome you or this fellow to start an RfC against me to expose your unsourced POV pushing and my attempt to resist that to which you respond with personal attacks. As for your "no offence", I take everything you said at the face value and I am capable to figure out your intentions from what you say rather than from what you claim you are saying. --Irpen 22:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I merely pointed to the fact that, apparently, I'm not the only person to ask you for sources - as politely as I could - and not the onbly person you ignored, contrary to the good ol' Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Cite sources rules. If you take it as an offence - I can't do much about it, can I. Halibutt 01:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, how many times do I have to say that this is not about sources. This is about the liberty you take to interprete them and derive conclusions you favor that are just not there. And never have I "ignored". If you refuse to see the answers repeated so many times, I can't do much about it, can I? We can only wait for others to agree or disagree whether the answers to your and my conserns are adequate. Those "others" didn't show up for a while. Still no reason to beleive that the dispute was somehow solved by itself. As for your claimed "politeness" the article's talk page speaks for that. But as for "offence", if I were so easily offended, I would not be able to be at Wikipedia. We all have seen worse than that. It is not for thin-skinned to edit history articles. You should see AndriyK's language he used and even that didn't make me loose my sleep. --Irpen 02:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Ru Pravda

Dear Irpen! Sorry if I chose the wrong words for expressing my frustration with AndriyK's behavior. I didn't mean to hurt anybody's feelings. It's just that I've seen a lot of stuff done to a few of my articles that deal with Ukraine's people or geography in one way or another, so I decided to stay away from such topics. I appreciate your hard work in the Russian Portal! Keep it up and see you there. KNewman 05:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

If it wasn't done by AndriyK lately, it was probably done by people who aren't on WP for months. Were there any recent incidents? I would love to see more Russian editors helping at UA-portal. In fact I called for that repeatedly as well as to Polish boards. With a few exceptions we never had serious conflicts. If you can, please do contribute to Ukrainian articles. --Irpen 06:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Ukraine related topics

Irpen, I would try to support you, although my knowledge of Ukrainian history is mostly limited to Soviet schoolbooks, and discourse is mostly the imperialistic one. I like your edits better, thou I am not sure if it is the right way to weed out all the Polish names from the cities that were Polish. Would it hurt that much if we would add the third (Polish) name in the first string if they want it so badly? abakharev 09:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

No it would not always hurt. It will help in some and would hurt in some other cases. I will explain later, have to go now. Thanks --Irpen 09:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your explanations, OK, lets go into the edit war abakharev 11:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear maffiosi, I don't think the edit war is a lasting solution. Perhaps it's time to discuss Andriy's disruptive policies at the Administrators' notice board? During his stint in the Wiki, he didn't contribute anything valuable but spelling reverts and personal attacks on other editors. May we ask to ban him? --Ghirlandajo 14:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

We may ask to ban him but, as I told him at his talk page, I was trying to avoid it as much as I could. He violated 3RR multiple times and I showed it to him warning that he may get banned but I never actually proceeded in listing him for banning. Besides, after 24-48 hour ban he will be back even more aggravated and will continue his crusade with even more rigor. He may also find ways to circumvent 3RR or simply stay just under it and this pain will go on.

On the other hand, IMO he've done enough for the full-blown arbitration, which may result in a longer ban. If anyone would want to compile an arbitration case, I will comment on it. But as of yet, I would not start it myself. Several people are trying to talk to him and I hope he would listen. But if nothing changes, he will en up banned for sure. --Irpen 04:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I think your position is fine. Just one question, is it absolutely, positively provent that OUN authorized the Lvov pogrom and it was not a spontaneus action? If its not 100% proven, we might add some NPOV hedging, like most of the scolars believe..., etc., not just blankly link the pogrom to OUN. abakharev 06:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there are differences of opinions on this. The article provides references that support both versions and both should be mentioned. I explained that some of the sources brought up by this user are controversial but this is no reason to totally dismiss them. What I oppose is that the user simply blanks from the article a sourced version he doesn't like. --Irpen 01:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on maidanua.org

Hi, I've read that discussion with some interest. Your characterization as "User Irpen is a very cunning, ingenious, and stubborn troll." ("Користувач Irpen - дуже хитрий, винахідливий і наполегливий троль.") was especially amusing. What can I say - ці западенці зовсім з глузду з'їхали. Maybe, not all of them, but a significant proportion for sure. Sashazlv 01:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Now you are in danger too :). But seriously, it just hurts. Really, I mean you probably saw what was going on in en-Wiki and had no time to interfere. I took it upon myself to deal with this and I am getting all the heat now. :(. And now this slander. I tried all I can to talk to user AndriyK. I was accused in Ukrayinophobia by someone else who retracted it and we are even having a decent correspondance now. But I just don't want to leave something to which I gave so much time. Just check my recent edit history to get a clue. Well, anyway, if I stay I might need help. If you have time, just try to talk to these new people if you can't participate in editing for the lack of time. I tried and I am getting this. Michael tried too. He was not cursed (perhaps because he has an orange ribbon on his page :)). Still, he was just ignored. I don't know. If this goes on, we need to engage new editors in productive editing or repell this attack. Or leave ourselves. But this is the last thing I want to do... --Irpen 02:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand it was very offensive. But you shouldn't worry too much - there are always crazy people out there.

And how do we know he is not paid for what he does? It may be a form of an information war strategy. Similar to specifically hired participants in popular forums, like pravda.com.ua or inosmi.ru. They often pick an active user and start dumping sh-t on him. You would be quite a natural choice.

I posted a note to him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AndriyK#Discussion_at_maidanua.org. Let's wait and see if he has anything sensible to say. Sashazlv 02:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, he is now trying to defend his position at any cost.

By the way, AndriyK has posted a few other user "descriptions" at [10]. However, they are not as picturesque as yours. I am wondering how far he would go with that. Maybe, I am just envious he hasn't yet written a characterization of myself (hello, AndriyK!). Sashazlv 14:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

You are right, I defend my position. And it is my right to do so. What you mean saying "at any cost"?--AndriyK 15:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

What about slandering other users? Is it your right as well? Also, since you keep putting tags on contributors to Ukrainian articles, where am I on your system? Sashazlv 16:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not slander any users. I tell the truth. Everybody can check it.

I have not seen you (yet (?)) inserting lies about Ukraine and Ukrainian people in Wikipedia articles, or distorting Ukrainian names, or participating in edit wars like a criminal teenager gang. Therefore you are not in the list. Your personal negative attitude to me is irrelevant.--AndriyK 17:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, o, gracious truth-seeker for not classifying me as "a criminal teenager gang" member! If tagging someone as "a very cunning, ingenious, and stubborn troll..." ("дуже хитрий, винахідливий і наполегливий троль...") is not slander on your value system, I can only be horrified by your distinction between truth and lie. Sashazlv 20:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not a slander but the matter of fact. I explained why I think so. There were two examples there. You can check the history and convince yourself, if you would like. If you want just to express you negative attitude to me, I do not care. I've known this from your previous messages. It's nothing new. Have a nice day/evening/night. --AndriyK 20:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I double checked your statements. My analysis that follows is rather long, but sufficiently detailed.

First, Ukrainian language. In the header, you kept re-inserting one specific sentence about descendency from Slavic tribes. To some extent, this is true, but which specific tribes - is a matter of debate. I may not agree with the paragraph that Irpen restored. But he clearly identified that it is a traditional point of view. In contrast, your version looks as if it were ultimate truth. As a matter of fact, I don't like the current version of the header. It overemphasizes history.

Regarding limited vocabulary. In the first place, it was a contribution of User:Man vyi, not of Irpen. You blanked out almost a whole paragraph without any explanation. At this point, you should know that relatively few people contribute to Ukrainian articles. And we cannot afford the luxury of scaring off potential contributors by mere blanking at will. On these grounds, I support Irpen's reversion, even though I may dislike the exact wording. As far as the content is concerned, I would rather agree with Man_vyi's statement than not. For instance, in my particular field, Ukrainian terminology is practically absent, i.e., the situation is even worse than just saying that the vocabulary is "limited".

Second, Lviv. What you tell at the maidanua forum is only half-true. Irpen was in one step reverting your changes like "When the Nazis broke the non-aggression pact..." -> "When turned on their Soviet ally...", which led to nonsense in terms of grammar and sentence structure. Just read the whole paragraph in your version:

The Soviet and Nazi forces divided Poland between themselves and a forged plebiscite absorbed the Soviet half of Poland, including Lwow, into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Depolonisation tactics began immediately, with huge numbers of Poles deported eastwards into the Soviet Union. When turned on their Soviet ally and invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, the NKVD spent a week executing prisoners held in the Brygidki and Zamarstynów prisons. Many thousand were killed.

Who turned on whom??? The NKVD on Soviet Union??? Huge number of Poles on Soviet Union???

As far as collaborators are concerned, we should refer to SS Halychyna division. Besides, it should be made explicit that in Nazi classification, Halychany were not classified as Ukrainians, and district Galicia was not administratively part of other occupied Ukrainian territory.

Conclusion. At best, what you tell is half-true. The changes that Irpen made don't justify your calling him a "troll". In this sense, you are slandering. Often, partial truth is worse than a lie.

I caught you cheating this time. So, you are on my watch list from now on. Sashazlv 23:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This is you, who's cheating, to say the least. You can find my answer here. Sorry, don't have time to translate it.--AndriyK 09:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

user's IP

You wrote: "Compare IP of this account with user:Geminifromukraine" at Talk:Mikhail of Chernihiv. How I can check user's IP? mikka (t) 17:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Probably you can't check it. Only developers can. I figured that this is a sockpuppet by reading the Ukrainian forum where the edit war over copyvio in Kotlyarevsky was discussed. When the developer will see it is the same IP we will have proof. --Irpen 18:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm againt sockpuppets, but IP does not prove anything. Many networks with thousands of users have one external IP. If you tried to judge me by my IP's you'd find many sockpuppets. And anyone wanting to hide his IP can do this easily via loads of anonymous proxies, VPN etc. Ilya K 19:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, user Pani, from Maidan said in plain Ukrainian that she reverted Kotlyarevsky under two different names. Since she didn't know what she was doing, I did not make fuss about this. Now, that we are getting new registrants coming over just to vote at Oleg of Chernigov, I am less sure of what to do. --Irpen 20:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank Halibutt :)

The map is his, I just added it. It is still a beta - we need more places, more arrows and smaller fragment of the map (no need for the west and south). I am glad you like it, though. Do you think we can FAC it now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I will thank Halibutt too in the due course. He took too personally our disagreement re V/Wolodarka and started to call me names. I, first, will wait until I am sure he is not holding a grudge anymore (and I still disagree with the outcome of the discussion).

Here, though, the issue is that a propagandist painting was less appropriate for a lead pic than the neutral map. We can try FAC~ing it. It needs more Russian input but, perhaps, Peer review/FAC will do the trick with bringing the issue to a wider attention. Cheers, --Irpen 21:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "Russian Orthodox Encyclopaedia"

Please stop pushing Russian Orthodox POV to the articles. Please pay attention that canonicity

• is viewed somewhat differently by Orthodox and Catholic Churches;
• is not recognized by Protestant Churches;
• is not recognized by most of people in the wold that are not Cristian at all.

Please read WP:NPOV carefully.

NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view.

Please pay attention that pushing Orthodox POV is against the WP policies.--AndriyK 20:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

These are all valid points but please show at the respective article's talk pages how this rant of yours relates to specifically to them. --Irpen 04:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I've explained you at Talk:St Volodymyr's Cathedral that if you decided to present the POV of Russian Orthodox Church, the POV of Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchy shoud be equally well presented, along with all other POVs. I proposed to discuss the canonicity issue in the article on UOC-KP. But if you decided on the contrary then please present all POVs in every article where you decided to mention "canonicuty" issue.--AndriyK 08:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What POV of UOC-KP is missing at St Volodymyr's? Argue that at its talk so that others see your point. Do you mean the POV on canonicity. The discussion of this is a broader issue and belongs to broader articles. St Volodymyr's however, briefly mentions the issue based on two facts:

1. KP is considered uncanonical by the Orthodox communion
2. KP claims the lineage to Mogila's church

We indeed have these issues discussed and explained at different articles. St. Volodymyr's just mentions the undisputable conclusions. Explain at the article's talk clearly what would you like changed. --Irpen 08:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If you consider "canonicity" be improtant enough to be mentioned in the article about St. Volodymyr's Cathedral, this is your own POV (or Russian Orthodox POV). But other readers/editors may find other information about UOC-KP be even more important. Finally you end up with the whole article about OUC-KP coppied to St. Volodymyr's Cathedral.

Please decide whether you give all the details abou UOC-KP representing all possible POVs in every article where OUC-KP is mentioned, or you stick at my proposal to give all the detaiuls only in the UOC-KP article, without giving details at every mentioning of UOC-KP in other articles.

Whatevere you decide, please make sure that your decision conforms the Wikipedia NPOV policy. Using Wikipedia for propaganda of Russian Orthodoxy (as well as any other religion) is inadmissible!--AndriyK 09:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

We have not turned Wiki into a propaganda machine of ROC. Now let us consider an endlish user comes and reads the article about the building has no interest in gaining more insight into religion but sees the UOC-KP's POV, then goes into the seizure article, which is presented differentely...How do you think he will react to such confusion? NO way all articles must be preented in NPOV manner, regardless of anything, I will not allow you to skew this article. If you want to start your version of Wiki, fine with me. user:Kuban kazak

In fact, you have! Presenting only one POV in several articles, without mentioning other POVs is nothing else as propaganda. Your edits are against WP:NPOV.--AndriyK 13:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add here that, as I said multiple times, I am not a supporter of dumping everything possible into every possible article. From orthodox POV the KP is not, just "uncanonical" but a "schismatic organization lead by the leader that was excommunicated and deprived of all the priveleges", including to preach, and, certainly, to ordain. I don't think it should be in the article.

But the fact that one of the most major Kievan churches is controlled by the church whose status as an Orthodox church (not as some abstract religious organization but specifically as a church of Eastern Orthodoxy) is ambiguos (you can't deny that it is at least ambiguous), this fact needs to be said in the cathedral article.

What's ambiguous about its status? Lack of recognition by the world-wide orthodoxy caused by the lack of authority in its leader and uncanonical arbitraty assumption of full autocephaly that did not go through a proper procedure. Personally, I would like to see Ukrainian Orthodoxy united in a single organization, a fully autocephalous church, with a proper not only secular, but also relgious standing. I am sure it is going to happen eventually but it will never happen under Filaret, I am sure of that. My personal opinion is, however, unrelated. But the status of KP is relevant. As for the rest, please use the article's talk for this discussion. I am reading it there too but this would allow more people to participate. --Irpen 22:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Early review

I'll have a look at O.R. and the geographic naming, probably by tomorrow night.

In the mean time, I'll ask you to lend me your eyes. Please have a quick look at T-34. I know it's not your cup of tea, but I've done too much writing there to look at the whole thing objectively. Just let me know if the article answers the basic questions early on. Is there too much detail in some parts that should be spun off to other articles? I'd like to start polishing it up for FA, but I need to formulate a general plan first. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2005-11-7 17:36 Z

Thanks! And I will look and will try to make it my cup of tea :). --Irpen 17:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't misinform other users by the comments to your edits

I would like to poin out once more that your comments misinform the Wikipedia users. There is actibe discussion going on at Talk:St Volodymyr's Cathedral. Consensus is not reached yet. Why do you lie saying "restoring consenus" replaced the article by your extremely biased, Russian Orthodox POV version? If you agree abot something with Ghirlandajo, Kuban Kazak or alike, this is not a consensus yet. Pay attention to other user's opinion. Or you just like the edit war?--AndriyK 16:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't like edit wars. There seems to be a consensus at talk judging by number of people, who view lack of canonicity of UOC-KP relevant. --Irpen 16:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Stop lying! Everybody can check that your also removed the information about dubious canonicity of Moscow Patriarhate in Ukraine. This information was proposed by another user, not by me. At least one more user was supporting us. Where did you see the consensus? You just lie barefaced and shameless.--AndriyK 12:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Your accusations are bold but pointless. The information is false since the Ecumenical Patriarch never really questioned the canonicity of UOC. What that Bishop said is about the territory of MP, which is not the same thing, and the Bishop giving an interview to a newspaper is not the official position of the church. This is discussed at the article's talk. I just tried for I don't know what time to engage you into constructive work, but I now give up again. As for the edit you've shown, the article's history and talk speak for themselves. --Irpen 20:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

This is your opinion, but at least three users disagree with you. Where was the consensus? Or just admit that you were lying.--AndriyK 18:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I know little about the specifics of Ukrainian religious history, so I will not involve myself in this ongoing debate. However, I urge you, AndriyK, to please show more restraint and do not accuse other contributors of lying, especially respected posters such as Irpen. Assume good faith. It is possible that Irpen is wrong- I do not know enough about the relevant articles to know one way or the other. However, repeatedly and emotionally calling another contributor a liar does not seem like a good way to gain support for your case. Olessi 19:27, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Should I tolerate lies?--AndriyK 19:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I think by now you made your point clear.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

You should chill out and listen to what Wikipedians with experience told you about things, in general, and about me, in particular. You should also have listened to what IlyaK and Gutsul told you at uk-wiki. You should also have listened to what Anatol (Yakudza), Nemesis (N8Sl8er) and others said at Maidan. You should have noted that Ukrainian (or interested in Ukraine) Wikipedians you contacted at their talk pages to try recruit them for your crusade crusade (Berkut, Halibutt, perhaps others too, I didn't follow) and those who you might have tried off Wikipedia did not join.

It could be that I am indeed not anti-Ukrainian. It could be that there is no anti-Ukrainian consipracy at wiki. It could be that Ghirlandajo (whom you called "відвертий і агресивний російський шовініст. Спеціалізується на перекручуванні українських географічних та інших назв на російський манер"), with whom I disageed many times and discussed differences at many talk pages, is a valuable contributor perceptive to communication who contributed a wealth of info about the Ukrainian people, history and culture. It could be that myself, MichaelZ, Sashazlv and all these others were the few who actually tried to present the mainstream Ukrainian POV here and it is your and your namesake's POV's are harming Ukraine at Wikipedia

But the best you could do, is start writing. You just added info to Boyko. Please keep up with contributing as several users offered you to help. --Irpen 19:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not keep messing up what I contributed, this'll make our work more productive. Do not you have othe job as following me everywhere and messing up my contributions?

Please do not blank factural information

Please do not remove factural information and references from the article Boyko. Please pay attention that any information ypou add should be confirmed by creadible sources. Original research or your privat opinion is not appropriate for the Wikipedia articles.--AndriyK 09:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I only removed dubious information and explained everything at talk. Please respond there, if you disagree. --Irpen 05:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Your personal taste is not the reason to classify the information as dubious. You have to provide creadible sources confirming it. You did not do it, did you?--AndriyK 11:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediation concerning St Volodymyr's Cathedral

I propose to ask for official mediation to resolve the dispute concerning St Volodymyr's Cathedral article. Whould you agree?--AndriyK 18:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. --Irpen 18:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I've got an e-mail from the mediator. Please check your mailsbox so that we can start the dispute resolution.--AndriyK 15:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read more literature before you edit articles

Dear Irpen, please devote more of your time to reading books on Ukrainian history, if you would like to make a really usefull contributions to the corresponding articles. Try, for the beginning, to learn the most basic things, for instance the difference between Cossack Hetmanate and Zaporozhian Host.

Wuld you like to correct your edits to the article Polkovnyk yourself? It would be the most preferble way, if you read the literature and correct the mistakes you made.--AndriyK 18:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I know the difference between the two. If I made any mistakes, you are welcome to correct them. --Irpen 18:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Still, it would be more productive if you would edit only the articles you are competent in, so thet other people would not spend time for correcting your mistakes.--AndriyK 18:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Please explain my mistakes at the relevant talk as I am trying to do when I disagree with your edits. --Irpen 18:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Mysterious. I've looked at that page, and can't tell what you mean, Andriy. Please just say what you mean.—Michael Z. 2005-11-12 22:13 Z

Re:Pulkownik

No, I was just putting a feeler in case sb does create an article with this title. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Polish military ranks

Please stop from merging Polish military ranks into article about Russian military ranks. --Molobo 12:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please study the history before leaving such messages. I did not merge any of this. --Irpen 17:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes it was in responce to your post about your intent to do so.--Molobo 21:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC) This is under discussion and I offered Polish editors to have a say on this. Where did I say anything about my intent? In any case say whatever you have to say on the issue at the article's talk where the discussion is ongoing. --Irpen 22:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt

I think you would be interested in voting here. Besides, Halibutt have been accused of anti-Russian bias - I wonder how you would reply to this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? Where exactly did I mention "anti-Russian bias" of any sort? The topic, I believe, was overall nationalism, which is hardly the same thing (and probably too strong and vague of a term). "Accuse" also seems to be too mighty of a word. I can see how my replies could have been interpreted as an accusation, but they were in fact only an answer to the question I was asked in response to my RfA comment(which, in turn, is nothing more but my personal opinion, albeit one that prevented me from casting a support vote).—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If you doubt the nationalistic tendencies of Halibutt, check his yesterday's contributions on Talk:Russophobia, where he denied that there was polonization of Ruthenian areas in the PLC and that the Orthodox subjects were prevented from taking important offices of state. The same word was applied to this user by mikka, me, and other editors. His favourite stance is that the Poles have been innocent lambs continually massacred by all of their neighbours. You won't find a dark spot in his vision of Polish history: partitioning Czechoslovakia with Hitler was OK, but merging Galicia with the rest of Ukraine was an unforgivable crime. This is POV, pure and simple. Also, Piotrus, please answer why you abuse your adminship for reiteratedly unblocking odious Molobo, who frantically renames Konigsberg into Krolewiec, endlessly reverts Smolensk War, etc, etc.? --Ghirlandajo 22:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd have thought you would have an opinion on this? Aren't you going to vote?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am going to vote "support" but I think RfA was not a good idea at this stage. Not because what kind of Admin he is goind to be but because it is just too torturous. Please see user talk:Ezhiki for my response to what you said. --Irpen 16:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. WikiThanks.

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Ezhiki and Praga

Thanks for your comment left at Ezhiki's page, it helped us clear some things a tad. I would only like to comment on the Massacre of Praga. The previous title of that article was not a sign of my nationalism or anything, it's simply an exact translation of how it is called in Polish historiography (compare [11] with [12] and note that both articles in the latter refer to the Czech capital, and that the term "Bitwa pod Pragą [13] also refers to a battle at the Bohemian city). It is simply that the actual battle is much less notable than the ensuing massacre, which was its exact outcome. While I don't say it's right or wrong, it's simply how it is. Hence that's quite natural that the Polish wiki article is at Rzeź Pragi and not elsewhere - and that was the most natural title for me to post that article under. Halibutt 00:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I would not have minded that if it was a narrow article about massacre spinned off from the Battle. This, however, was a battle article under the inflamatory name. I will vote support for your adminship because, personally, I think that every committed WP, however opinionated, should be an admin if there are no ethics questions. Loosing temper isn't unethical per se. We are all human. I am sure that if your nomination succeeds you will not unblock trolls, block or threaten opponents, lock articles inappropriately, move them over redirects uniletarally, etc.

On the side note, I think the idea to go through the nomination at this time was a bad one. --Irpen 04:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and almost forgot. Why then you created the entry Battle of Warsaw (1794) as a redirect to Massacre of Praga? I would have moved it to the former rather than to the Battle of Praga, but could not since an entry was occupied and I was too lazy for an WP:RM. You are welcome to arrange such a move, I will only support it. --Irpen 05:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Bah! That's quite simple :) Some time ago I created a page on Battle of Warsaw and listed there all armed conflicts that took part in or near the city of Warsaw, including those that are never called battles in Polish or English (just like the Massacre or like the Warsaw Uprising, for instance). It was not a malicious occupation of a valid name, it was simply a list of conflicts and I saw no need to create separate disambiguations for Battles of Warsaw, Uprisings of Warsaw, Insurrections of Warsaw and so on. I simply listed all conflicts in one place, that's all. Halibutt 06:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Canonical status UOC-KP in differents article, example Ukrainians

In wikipedia un-caninical status UOC-KP is mentionned more than 10 articles, but for the rest internet beside 70 sites. (see Google searching for in Talk:St_Volodymyr's_Cathedral#Yakudza:) Necessary this POV in article Ukrainians? In the personal letter You wrote that do not suppose this necessary. However You continue edit Wars, not considering arguments on Talk:St_Volodymyr's_Cathedral --Yakudza 19:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Check in how many articles the Soviet Union being totalitarian or authoritarian is mentioned. That's because it is relevant. --Irpen 19:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

more 15 000 sites Really it is relevant --Yakudza 19:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This is because the UOC-KP is a more obscure topic that the USSR. Its lack of canonical standing as an Orthodox Church is no less relevant that SU being a totalitarian state. The discussion is above. Mediators were invited. I would welcome more neutral parties to express their opinions --Irpen 19:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You suppose the crimes of stalinizm equivalent status Church? --Yakudza 19:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't twist my words. These are events of different scale. All I mean is that crimes of Stalinism are as much relevant to the Soviet History as the lack of standing of UOC-KP as an Orthodox church to the UOC-KP. --Irpen 19:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

However, I suppose that it is not necessary to mention the totalitarian nature USSR in each article. More so in article about Soviet architecture. --Yakudza 23:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not the article about the architecture, this is the article about the church. If you want to expand a Ukrainian Baroque article with more info about different churches, there indeed would be no need to go into discussion of who owns what and who is (un)canonical. However, if we are writing about a particular Orthodox cathedral, the fact that the organization operating is not recognized as representing the Eastern Orthodoxy is relevant. --Irpen 23:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

--Irpen 23:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration

An arbitration request involving you has been filed.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Where can comment this insinuations other editors? --Yakudza 21:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure. Maybe you can't if you are not a part of an arbitration, but perhaps there is a procedure for that somewhere. I've never been involved with arbitration because I was always able to discuss things with most people. So, I am not an expert to ask. --Irpen 21:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

---

Naklep?(copy from User_talk:Yakudza) Yakudza, you wrote at Maidan:

"Мушу вибачитись перед АК я дещо помилявся відносно Ірпіня. Ось його чергова дія: не маючи аргументів, щоб довести свою правоту вони звернулись з наклепом в арбітраж вікіпедії."

That is "I have to appologize to AndriyK that I was somewhat mitsaken referring to Irpen. Here is his current action: having no arguments to prove them right, they submitted a slander to Wikipedia's arbitration".

Could you please elaborate on this statement of yours or appologize for it because this is a real "naklep". Please note the broad spectrum of users who co-signed. I didn't write for them, btw. I am not sure you can respond to the ArbCom, but I would be interested to see your response here. Feel free to write in Russian or Ukrainian if you have to. I hope this slipped out of your mouth by an accident. So far, you've been a mostly civil and respecful guy. Regards, --Irpen 00:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, если не возражаете размещу ответ здесь, не знаю правильно ли это, если посчитаете это неуместным, можете свободно его вытереть сейчас или через несколько дней, я скопирую его на свою страницу. --Yakudza 22:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Я написал, что это поклеп, так как полагаю, что выдвинутые обвинения несправедливы, односторонне представлены и сильно передернуты. Не знаю, может быть уместно было употребить иное слово. Я действительно раньше считал , писал об этом на форуме Майдана, и сейчас продолжаю считать, что поведение AnriyK в то время, когда он пришел на вики было довольно необдуманным, его обвинения в ваш адрес довольно обидными и во многом несправедливыми. Даже несмотря на то, что такая реакция была спровоцирована Вашим поведением, и в частности привлечением к войне редактирования таких людей как User:Ghirlandajo. Это довольно своеобразный редактор. При большом количестве редактирований, он довольно нетерпим к чужому мнению, регулярно оскорбляет других (см. список, меня он назвал бандеровцем), попытки прояснить ситуацию на его странице называет "персональными атаками" и вытирает записи. Делая откаты он практически никогда не обсуждает это в дискуссиях. При этом в его правках огромное количество POV. Справедливости следует сказать, что он действительно сделал много полезного в "украинской" части вики, написал и дополнил много нейтральных "украинских" статей, противодействовал польскому POV в "украинских" страницах, но все вышеперечисленное, совершенно нивелирует полезный вклад.

Поясню почему считаю обвинения, поданные в арбитраж, сильно передернутыми:

1. Относительно этой глупой войны переименований Chernigov в Chernihiv и наоборот я считаю, что в каждой войне есть две стороны. Ее вели в основном AnriyK с одной стороны и вы с User:Ghirlandajo с другой, при редком подключении других участников, в т.ч. изредка и меня. Только вы как более опытные редакторы действовали сообща и не попадались на три отката. И безотносительно от того, кто ее начал и кто прав или виноват, остановится должны были обе стороны. Тем более, что обсуждение политики активно ведется на соответствующей странице и вы, и AndriyK принимаете в нем довольно активное участие.
2. Относительно голосования за переименование Chernihiv в Chernigov. Полагаю, что в обращении Андрея за помощью к Майдану не было ничего предосудительно. После его обращения на Википедию пришли несколько новых редакторов, некоторая часть из которых не только проголосовала, а и начала работать, часть на английской вики часть на украинской. Насколько я знаю, привлечение новых редакторов это часть политики Википедии, чем больше редакторов тем выше качество статей. Единственной ошибкой Андрея (если не считать того, что не стоило затевать переименовывание предварительно не обсудив) было то, что он не четко разъяснил суть - то что главное не проголосовать, а обосновать свою позицию, тем более что Википедия, несмотря на ее видимую открытость, довольно герметичное сообщество со своими причудами. Но тем не менее большинство из вновь прибывших с этим и так разобрались и дали зачастую довольно полезные комментарии, которые показали что все не так однозначно, как это представляют противники переименования.
3. Я не понимаю к чему вся суета с подсчетом голосов? Ну не засчитают нескольких голосов, что это изменит? Было примером 22 на 17, станет 17 на 15. Сути то это не изменит. Все равно запрос был неудовлетворен, т.к. не было согласия. А что разве 17 к 15 это согласие? Просто попытка исключительно силовым путем надавить на арбитраж, вместо того, чтобы искать согласие.
4. Из перечисленных в запросе "марионеток", по крайней мере двое (Ashapochka, Adv) не пришли с Майдана, а являются довольно продуктивными редакторами украинской вики, и время от времени участвуют в английской, а некоторые проголосовавшие возможно просто пока еще присматриваются, и вероятно подключатся позже.
5. И наконец главное, я понимаю, что написанное Андреем на Майдане экспрессивное, необдуманное обвинение совершенно рассердило Вас, и совершенно не призываю к примирению. Однако считаю, что ваш с AndriyK конфликт не должен мешать нормальной работе. AndriyK, если не считать войны переименований, принес за последний месяц довольно много полезного. Многие статьи при его активном участии были почищены от POV, его предложения на страницах обсуждений довольно конструктивны и разумны. Однако, вероятно из-за вашего персонального конфликта практически все привнесенное им Вами встречается в штыки, аргументы не воспринимаются, а эта история со статьей Polkovnyk просто смешна (извините ошибся, это не Ваша инициатива обьединить статьи Polkovnyk и Polkovnik ). О перипетиях вокруг статьи о Владимирском соборе я написал на своей странице. Если месяц назад я в своем посте на форуме Майдана писал, что несмотря на то, что при Вашем скорее пассивном, чем активном участии "украинские" статьи довольно плохи, но все же положительный вклад существенно превышает, и без него статьи были бы намного хуже, то за последний месяц, по моему мнению, Ваш вклад был довольно деструктивным. История с Владимирским собором является одним из примеров. Во все предшествующие годы вокруг него не было столько войн как в 2005 на Википедии. Удивительное дело, но оказалось намного проще найти пути к согласию с поляками в таком довольно болезненном вопросе как Волынская трагедия или в статье о погромах во Львове, чем этих совершенно незначительных событиях. Я полагаю, что Вам и AndriyK нужно немного остыть и прекратить засыпать страницы друг друга взаимными обвинениями. Его репутацию это уже сильнее не испортит. --Yakudza 22:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

dovbush/chernihiv

In modern contexts and indirect historical contexts I see no harm in leaving Chernihiv an reference to city. mikka (t) 22:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I entirely agree. In modern context not only there is "no harm" but the modern name should be used in all cases. It's just that the most glorious part of the city's history is not modern. I repeatedly offered AndriyK and Andrew Alexander to write a section on the modern city and use Chernihiv there all they want. However, they found it easier to mess what myself and Ghirlandajo wrote. --Irpen 05:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Belarussian History

Have a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Belarus#Russian_occupation, and tell me do you see this as History of Belarus or more like the history of Poland and the Polish Partitions, lets modify it I have an excellent source on 19th century history in Belarus, it is slightly religiously orientiated but good nevertheless. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/arhiv/050513111111 Kuban kazak 23:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

AndriyK arbitration

Thanks for the note. The case looks like a huge headache. You have my sympathy! I'll keep an eye on AndriyK when he shows up on my watchlist. For now I may not be able to offer too much help, as I have my hands full with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. I'm a bit worried that the crusade on behalf of the list is going to establish a precedent undermining consensus against "original research." BTW, your input on the AfD will be much appreciated, of course. Best regards, 172 09:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK has been accepted. Please place evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK/Proposed decision. Fred Bauder 02:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Russian architecture

I thought you'd like to know, the page was unprotected (without an ensuing revert spree). I dawdled a bit much, but I've now submitted a revision to the page for everyone's consideration. Please see my comments at talk:Russian architecture. Regards, Michael Z. 2005-12-1 05:50 Z

RfC on Ghirlandajo

Just when I was about to respond I noticed that you removed the comment. Anyway, as I already mentioned somewhere I'm not so convinced the RfC could do anything as I definitely wouldn't like the "good Ghirlandajo" to be blocked just because the "bad Ghirlandajo" is who he is. On the other hand I simply felt that something has to be done and I lost hope in all attempts at mediation. Now I shall wait and see what happens. Finally, take note that I'm not questioning Ghirlandajo's POV as he is 100% entitled to it, just like anyone else. What I am questioning is his behaviour, which is a completely different thing. Halibutt 15:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, thanks for your comments at my talk page. I know that there are risks, as there is always a risk of doing something wrong. As I said during my RfA - the only person not to commit mistakes is the one never to do anything. Having said that, I'm not sure if further antagonization, as you put it, is possible at all. After all I heard I saw no other option but to ask for help. I simply lost all hope in Ghirlandajo and certainly would not like his behaviour to continue. As the attempts at changing his offensive behaviour failed, I simply have no ideas as to what more could I do.

And this RfC is basically it: I'm asking the community what could be done about it. Got any idea? Halibutt 02:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, I believe you're missing the point of the RfC, which BTW is stated in the header. It's not about merithorical conflicts over a number of articles. It's about incivility, offensive language and so on. I agree that I might be as hard to convince as many others, but this is not the topic here. It's not about lack of Ghirlandajo's will to convince anyone or to provide sources. It's about his lack of respect for the others.

As to possible good sides of the RfC - I already said I don't know and that's precisely why I asked for the community advise. Certainly it won't be better without any steps taken. What would be the alternative? Letting G. call everyone names and pretend nothing happens? Who would benefot from such situation? IMO definitely not the ones offended by Ghirlandajo and not Wikipedia. Perhaps G. himself, though I'm not sure either. Halibutt 03:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Then I'm missing your point now, I'm afraid. You actually are suggesting that we should stick to matters of the Polish community here and do not get our noses out? Would starting an open war against Molobo make Ghirlandajo less prone to incivility? Perhaps in an ideal world you mention it would be so, but I seriously doubt it. These two should be treated on a case by case basis, eventhough Ghirlandajo recently suggested that he's Molobos parent at my talk page (really!)

I really don't see the same ethnic/national division lines you refer to. For me the Polish community is just a bunch of people interested in articles on Poland-related matters. It includes Poles, Russians, Americans, Jews... Together we work on all kinds of articles, but on talk pages we rarely form a monolith. If it were the Ukrainians to start the RfC against AndriyK I believe they so not because he was Ukrainian as well, but because his behaviour was touching Ukrainian-related articles. As to the ill-fated black book - I've explained 100+ times what was it intended for and it was to deal with anti-Polish remarks, so I guess it is quite clear why the ones to be frequently offended wanted to keep it.

Which however does not change the fact that Ghirlandajo's behaviour is not acceptable and that - sad but true - the "Russian community" (whatever it is) did not try so far to make him change his ways. And someone really should - why not the entire wiki community through an RfC? Halibutt 07:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, now I get your point (hopefully), though I still dissagree. My main objection is that we are supposed to work as a community. Not some Polish club versus Russian club or whatever, despite what Ghirlandajo tries to present. I understand that you had some problems with some of the Polish contributors (I'm guessing Molobo, Witkacy, Space Cadet or such..?), and I surely understand that their ways might be disturbing. However, if they break the laws of the wiki, it is the duty of all of the community to set their paths straight. Note that I never held Mikka responsible for the actions of Ghirlandajo nor did I held the fact that he did not try to cool him down against him as it would be absurd. Apart from the country of origin the two have simply close to nothing in common and I see no way Mikka should be obliged to do the job of the entire community. Same applies to me and the problematic users who happen to be Polish. At times their actions are as they are and at times I tend to leave some comments on their talk pages so as to cool them down, as it's always easier to get in touch with own countrymen (as was the recent case of Molobo, for instance, or the not-so-recent dissagreement I had with Witkacy). We are different people and it is not my job to correct the behaviour of other contributors. It is our job. Get the difference?

Having said that, I still believe that asking the community for ideas (not condemnation of Ghirlandajo, just ideas on how could this problem be solved) is the best way I could handle that. There is a serious problem which disturbs several wikipedians and it needs to be solved, not hidden under the carpet. Alternatively I could ask for Ghirlandajo's block - and I believe it would be supported, especially after some of the most outraging remarks of his. However, the guy does a great deal of great job as well and I still believe that there is some way he could improve. Banning him at this point would mean that wikipedia would loose a problem user, but also a great contributor. However, so far I see no possibility of ever having a disagreement with him about the content of the articles as he is simply too offensive to start a discussion with him. Imagine what would you do in my shoes? How could one discuss with someone, who simply cannot explain his edits and instead continues to offend all the people involved, assume their bad will and so on?

As to Battle of Volodarka - note that the main disagreement was between what you found to be doubtful and what was written in the sources. Sure, both were Polish and you found one of them of little credibility, though still they were sources, while you had none. After umpteenth revert I indeed lost my nerves, for which I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure you understand that there was some reason behind that. So, I believe my situation is quite different from that of Ghirlandajo, who offends even people whom he never met in his life, just because they seem to be Polish to him. BTW, as to the battle - I even started a tedious work of translating an entire chapter of Wyszczelski for you before I noticed that you withdrew. I'm still open to suggestions and discussion there, though not until you find some sources to discuss with. Get my point? We already discovered that our noses tell us different things and there's no way we could convince one another there. However, what could make me (or others, for that matter) change my (or ours) mind(s) would be hard facts and sources. And take note that in most cases I'm willing to accept even the compromises I like the least (as was the case of Danzig, Domeyko, Warsaw Uprising, and lots of other articles). If I have a problem with reaching a compromise, it's usually a case where I present my sources and the opposing side presents none, not where I call people stupid, their edits malicious and their intentions bad.

Finally, what would my withdrawal of the RfC change? Ghirlandajo has explicitly said that he does not want to be cooperative and that he shall not change his offensive and disruptive behaviour. So, should I simply wipe the spit of my face and go on, until he offends me again and again? Sadly, I'm not that good of a Christian. And when will this stop then? I believe it's still not too late to change something peacefully, without asking the community to block Ghirlandajo, which is the other alternative here. Call me an idealist, but I still believe that a way could be found to make him continue his valuable edits and back down on disruptive behaviour. Halibutt 02:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stopp messing up the request for arbitration page

There are arbitration committee mambers who will read this page and they will rearange it or will request it to be done by other users if they find it necessary. Alternatively, you may propose Andrew Alexander to rearange his comments. You behave like you privatized this page.--AndriyK 18:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a prescribed format described at the top of the page. If Andrew Alexander has no desire to abide by it, someone has to do it for him. You are welcome to correct me when I don't abide to the arbcom format. --Irpen 18:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Did the Arbitration Commitee autorized you to rearange the page acording to the prescribed format?--AndriyK 18:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet again, I suggest you read the instructions. It is your arbitration and knowing the procedure may help you defend yourself and convinse the ArbCom to come up with a not so harsh sentence. --Irpen 18:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Irpen, for tidying up the section for me. Now with all this so unwanted added commotion, I see that I should have cleared this interfering comment earlier.

User:AndriyK: what discussion would ever be needed over such a simple matter? It's clearly against the guidelines, nothing there to discuss. Just acknowledge your or your buddy's mistakes gracefully, just make a correction, that's all it takes. Add one quick paragraph to the moved comment, preceding it with something like "User:Introvert in her statement claims such-and-such... In response, I have to say this-and-that..." - how hard is it to do? I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, was thinking that Andrew Alexander made his awkward motion out of being, understandably, anxious and showed himself not in the very best way already, and I just didn't want to cause extra negative attention from the ArbCom to this insertion. And now what does your reaction suggest? this interfering may have been intentionally rude after all?? - Introvert ^talk 01:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Irpen I put it all onto your talk page... wanted to keep it all in one place. Kind regards - Introvert ^talk 02:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Your problem with Bukowina

Definitely, you are not at best writing about Bukowina and city of Cernauti, as you dislike the region. Please refrain on reverting without reading or thinking on others contribution. --Vasile 14:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Your accusations that I dislike something are just silly and baseless. I will edit articles with reading and thinking as I see fit and in accordance with Wiki-ethics and Wiki-policies. --Irpen 18:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Besides, your contribution mainly consisted of deleting big chunks of information, almost of the whole chapters. This is on the borderline of vandalism and would have been reverted by someone else, if not by me, anyway. Please use article's talk to discuss the edits to the article, so that the discussion is seen by all interested parties. --Irpen 18:42, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Mikka

Hi Irpen. Thanks for contacting me. Firstly, I think you're making a bit of conspiracy of the whole case here. I don't know what you're trying to get at - either that I was the person who did the reverting and then logged in to block Mikka, or I was tipped off by one of the trolls as part of a conspiracy to block Mikka, I really don't know. But I assure you that nothing of the kind took place. The way I got to WP:ANI was by looking at Bonaparte and Anittas' contributions - which I often do, to check for any problems - and I got to WP:ANI/3RR's entry on Ghirlandajo and Anittas. And there, at the bottom of the page, was the entry on Mikka. And indeed, there was a 3RR breach.

As to the legality of blocking him under 3RR - Mikka had no right to block the "trolls". It was an edit war, and both Mikka and the "trolls" were equal players. That you personally think the article version that the "trolls" were reverting to is "disgusting" (the disgusting Antiromanianism article) is your personal opinion. I appreciate that you tried to NPOV it. However, Mikka should not have reverted that many times, since he knew about the 3RR. As to Ghirlandajo's block, if Ghirla was simply reverting the deletion of a disputed tag, he should not have been blocked. Finally, I'd like to tell all of you that this case has been blown out of proportion. Everyone is suspecting things, getting offended, etc. It shouldn't be that way, really. 3RR bans are for 24 hours, they're not a big deal and as I've always said, they're not a judgement call. I don't see why I should apologise to him. I'm someone who believes very much in checks and balances and despises abuses of power, as you can see at my talk page and my Wikipedia:Ombudsman proposal. So, I thought about the case before I blocked him. I don't see why I should apologise for fairly enforcing a Wikipedia policy. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 08:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact that I was dealing with Mikka - who so far has acted neutrally - did make me review the case before blocking. However, just because the users were IPs didn't mean that they didn't have the right to edit pages and participate in revert wars, and according to the hard facts, none of the IPs broke the 3RR. I wasn't in a position to determine that [whether the IPs broke 3RR], at least. Mikka, however, had been launching quite harsh attacks on these "trolls" in the past few days, and I believe that a lot of his blocking activity has been quite unjustified. That is why, when I blocked Mikka, I told him very nicely that this was not a judgement call and that if he felt he was being hard done by, he could contact me through e-mail. He didn't do that; instead, he went and starting posting things like "fuck you all" on his talk page. While I regret the fact that he's leaving, I don't feel guilty in any way, since I applied what the 3RR is designed for - preventing edit wars.

As to the Romanian Wikipedia notice board, it isn't as digusting as you potray it. Anittas and Bonaparte only wrote messages that explained the situation, their only mistake being that they did use very undiplomatic language. However, it would've been like saying at the Russian noticeboard "look, Romanian contributors are adding POV info to the Red Army article" or something like that. I agree that the language used there was inflammatory, however, it wasn't something that they deserved to be blocked for or anything like that, particularly because Anittas wrote that in response to the dispute at Khotyn, in which Ghirlandajo acted quite rudely and undiplomatically. In response to their new year message on that board (1, I did tell them that it was necessary not to involve themselves in these types of disputes. And my message at the noticeboard's talk page supported any translation, in fact, I said I would do the translating.

Finally, I will, as I have always done, watch over the edits of other Romanian contributors. There are many times where I signalled POV tendencies - see Talk:Székelys of Bukovina. I will talk to David Levy about Ghirlandajo's block. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 10:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As for your not feeling guilty I said it all at your talk. You can't possibly compensate Mikka's departure by keeping bonapartes at bay, but by your doing it, at least, you will do something useful unlike blocking the most respectable editor in E. European topics whose only fault here was not being decisive enough dealing with vandals who edited through anonymous open proxies. --Irpen 16:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Knocking on wood

So very happy! Let's hope it'll all be all right now. And thanks for your support - Introvert  ^? @ 21:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC).

Khreschatyk for DYK and FA

Hi. I'm going to suggest Khreschatyk for both the DYK and the FA (although never did). Please help editing and promoting with whatever you can do and as soon as you can. Thanks, Ukrained 22:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC).

Irpen, what does it mean? I'd like to have your explanations on what, how and why did you change in Khreschatyk suggestion for DYK. Particularly, would you please point me to the place where I can see the final text of DYK announce, and the history of its changing? Unfortunately, I couldn't find it myself (I'm just a rookie). Wishes, Ukrained 10:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't get your q. If this is about myself deleting pieces from my own talk, this is against my custom very much. I just, as I explained in the edit summary, didn't want to be reminded how the adminship nomination of one of the most decent wikipedians was derailed by trolls. Looks like I accidentally deleted the message from DYK-keeping admin. I will restore it of course. If I remember corretly I moved DYK submission to a different date and reformulated it to reflect an expanded article. You can check the history at the DYK's talk. The final submission was not by me but by Michael. If I remember right, you corrected later of Michael's. Anyway, i hope you don't assume any bad faith on my behalf. --Irpen 17:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was about DYK nomination. First, an admin reprimanded your move and noticed that it could prevent the nomination. And then you delete that reprimand. Second, I couldn't find the history of the nomination and featuring on DYK. Was it due to my lack of WP knowledge, or software failure, I don' know. That's why I asked for explanations. As you can see, it was easy to assume a bad faith in that situation.

Well, I guess the issue is already resolved. But please keep both the admin notice and this mine on your talk. Best wishes, Ukrained 12:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ukrained. Frankly, I appreciate your work here. An extra pair of hands and an extra pair of eyes is always helpful to us, especially in a state when there are so few editors concerned about Ukraine and a good quarter of those who join bring net-negative contribution by starting the naming wars, accusing opponents in all sorts of sins and otherwise wasting time of those who are prepared to contribute to articles, but have instead to do the damage control of the actions of those fellows. I do not consider you to be one of them. We managed to agree on things and civilly disagree on others. That's fine of course. However, I noticed that you tend to react too harshly to disagreements, assume bad faith of opponents and react uncivilly. Not once I told you that this is very counterproductive. Wikipedia's talk pages are not usenet newsgroups where the idea is to geth the message through in the most voicefull form smearing the opponents if necessary. We discuss the articles and try to find how to improve them. I suggest that you always keep that in mind. Some well known trolls must be dealt with reprimands, warning and through administrative actions but until you have strong reasons to beleive that your opponent is one of them, you should remember to assume good faith and act accordingly. I am saying all this here not to get pleasure of lecturing you but to avoid future article disagreements getting ugly. Your tone of mine and several talk pages is unhelpful.

Now, to the DYK submission. What I did with it may be found here. This was preceded by Michael's reformatting of the original submission. As you can see, after Michael's expansion (that took place on Jan. 9) the proposed DYK entry had so little in common with the original entry, that it was practically a new suggestion. As such, in my edit I moved it without altering to the new date (Jan 9), the date of Michael's reformatting it. The DYK-keeper admin then contacted me to point out that the entries are sorted not by the date of submissions but by the date of the article's creation. This is done for his convenience in selecting the featured entries among the proposed one since the article creation date is an important factor and the proposal submission isn't. At the same time he contacted Michael to let him know that when the entry suggestion is rephrased, both the new and the old variants should be presented.

My only other edit of that DYK submission after that was this image substitution. I inserted the image that you proposed yourself BTW since it most accurately represents the subject of the article.

I hope you are now satisfied by the complete information that you asked for. In the future, to find what was done and by whom, you just need to go to the article's or talk page's history and use the "Compare selected versions" button. --Irpen 21:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi! Could you help me please in discussion about Comparative military ranks of World War II. My opponents tend to indicate for example Soviet Generalissimo as having the same rank as British Field Marshal of RAF or US General of the Army. Since there is no factual support to this point of view, I strongly disagree. Also they delete Soviet Marshal of (specific arm) ranks, which were invented in 1943. My arguments you can find on my talk page. Thank you!--Nixer 03:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Nixer, I will try to help but not right now, sorry. I have my hands full with other things at the moment. In any case please do not revert war and do not get yourself blocked. --Irpen 03:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Chernivtsi Oblast

Стосовно диференціації румун/молдаванів у Чернівецькій області можу додати таке. Коли я був влітку у Чернівцях прочитав у офіційному довіднику, що розподілення на румун/молдован йде в залежності від місця проживання. Населення Новоселицького района, що межує з Молдовою, вважає себе молдаванами, а деяких інших румунами. На жаль не вийшло знайти такої детальної статистики по районах в інтернеті - може просто погано шукав. Тобто, це самоідентифікація без ніякого примусу з боку влади. --Yakudza 11:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Image:VRU Jan23 2005 guests.jpg, Image:Yuriy Yekhanurov VRU Sep22 2005 vote.jpg

Please mark this images as {{fair use in}}. I don't think that {{PD-UA-exempt}} is applicable to images, and doubt that nobody could copyrights photos from Ukrainian Parliament. --EugeneZelenko 15:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Bonny again...

He, I've just been on the Moldovan Wikipedia - it's fun. Bonaparte is there, trolling as usual. The interesting page is at: [14]. There is a vote whether to keep of ditch the Moldovan Wikipedia. It's about Node ue in favour of keeping it and a Romanian gang if favour of abolishing it. It's in may languages, mostly English and Romanian and Bonny is trying to get everyone to speak Romanian or leave - he says it is disrespectful. That doesn't stop him speaking Romanian on the English Wikipedia though ;-) Izehar 21:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Some Romanian Wikipedians on the Moldovan Wikipedia are so rude. I can't speak Romanian and the only Moldovan editor can't speak English. He does know Russian though and I do know a little, I don't think it's any good, but he seems to understand and I can understand him at the poll page. A Romanian Wikipedian told me this. If that is not a Russophobic, almost racist claim, I don't know what it is. Thank G-D that fellow hasn't come here (yet). Do all Romanians have that attitude? Izehar 23:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

(V)Orsha

You sure you meant me? I have never-ever edited the article, neither recently nor long ago... Halibutt 19:59, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Irpen please don't start a revert war. If you have a problem with the next paragraph about the moldovan language on Bukovina, then erase it or change it but don't revert it without a good reason. Thank you.Constantzeanu 23:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Kiev Metro

You might want to know that at Kiev Metro, there seems to be an edit war with a hypocrite, not to insult him, but demanding sources for existance of street vendors in subways, weather removal of plaques and sculptures of Lenin damaged the original architectural composition and design of the stations, and, you will love this one. If Serpukhovskaya in Moscow, looks similar to Lybedskaya in Kiev that is original research and it is no way possible that one could have influenced each other. Also there seems to be a problem wether it is more correct if the Soviet Union broke up or Ukraine bacame indepedent.á Maybe this is for the laugh of it but can you help me convince this skeptic to realise that original research and some general logic are not necessary the same things. --Kuban kazak 22:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

He is loose right now!!!-Kuban kazak 22:27, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I have used all of the material you gave me (Take a good look at recent developments and future plans for each line), but I seemed to lost the original message, can you re-post it, preferably here. --Kuban kazak 23:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Romanian press

Please let me know whether this is a general complaint in the Romanian press or specific complaint made by a "Romanian organization inside Ukraine". I don't doubt that Romanian press has such an opinion over the issue. I tagged the statement that complaints are being made by "Romanian organizations in Ukraine". --Irpen 20:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

A general complaint in Romanian press? Not at all. I don't understand your request. --Vasile 13:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK RfAr closed

The AndriyK RfAr has been closed. Until by consensus he has agreed to a suitable and mutually agreed naming convention using the guideline Wikipedia:Naming conflict, AndriyK is prohibited from moving pages, or changing the content of articles which relate to Ukrainian names, especially those of historical interest. AndriyK is banned for one month from Wikipedia for creating irreversible page moves. Andrew Alexander, AndriyK, and MaryMaidan are warned to avoid copyright violations and to cooperate with the efforts of others to remove copyright violations. Ghirlandajo is warned to avoid incivility or personal attacks.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Duca

Hi Irpen. I know we do not agree on all issues but I would like you to know that Duca by no means represents the opinions of the Romanian wikipedians here nor does he represent my own opinion. As I do not want one individual to stain my position as well as the positions of others on the bukovina article, I propose that we all just take a brake from there, stop reverting it for a while and come to it later when all our heads have been cleared. On top of that he cannot continue his rhetoric if nobody will be there to listen. What do you say? Constantzeanu 02:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. I've seen Duca before and he won't be here for long. I also have many colleagues and even a former housemate from Romania and I am well aware that an extreme Romanian nationalism is not very common among the Romanians. Thus, the abundance of it among several Wiki-editors only surprises me. What surprised me more, however, is a relative tolerance of several established Romanian contributors to their compatrots' trolling and thus giving a bad name to the entire Romanian wiki-community. I have a feeling that [I skip names here] kind of like to use [skip names again] as pet trolls to advance the cause. It is such a pity! Regards, --Irpen 03:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:221.169.51.189 / Bonaparte

I agree that if it's an open proxy it should be banned - I am not an admin though so I'm just left going through the warning/reporting motions for standard vandalism. You might report it at WP:AN somewhere. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

What is going on with 221.169.51.189? Here you're saying that it's an open proxy. If so, then it should be indefinitely blocked - you should take it to WP:AIV. Latinus 21:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Verkhovna Rada

Do you think the meeting place is really worth a separate article? Sashazlv 02:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Especially that it is a DYKable article. The DYK-suitable trivia included the glass dome and the colocation of Stalinist neo-classical architecture building with the Rasstrelisque palace. I started it at my userspace, see User:Irpen/sb2 and feel free to correct. I want to Polish it just a little before posting it to mainspace only because as soon as I do the clock will start ticking for 72-hours that it can be accepted for WP:DYK. --Irpen 02:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Piłsudski

As to Фигуры ХХ столетия. Юзеф Плисудский: начальник, который создал себе государство - I know that the more exact translation (word for word) is the one you propose. However, I believe that in English his office of Naczelnik (начальник) is called not Chief but Chief of State. Hence my translation, which is a tad further from the original, but at the same time IMO explains the title a tad better. Halibutt 14:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Borodino

Hello,

Thanks for your efforts in preserving the integrity of the Battle of Borodino article. Please be mindful that anonymous editors may be new users unaware of the edit history function, and as such, may not see comments left for them in edit summaries. You may find it more helpful to leave a note on their talk page.

I've gone ahead and left a message for User:199.111.242.235 informing them of Wikipedia's three revert rule. You can do the same by entering {{subst:3RR}} on a talk page and signing your name.

Warm Regards, Adrian Lamo ·· 04:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I've been asked to informally mediate the content dispute in re. the Battle of Borodino, in hope of finding an agreeable middle ground between other editors and User:UberCryxic. Would you be amenable to this option?

Thanks! :) Adrian Lamo ·· 05:35, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I would participate but I am not the most active editor to this article nor am I the most interested one. Unless others agree to participate in mediation they are in no way bound by its course or the outcome. As such, without getting others of board, we will be wasting our time. If, OTOH, you get others, especially Ghirlandajo, agree to the mediation, I am in. So, pls take it as a conditional yes. --Irpen 06:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for replying. I'm very aware that you're not the only party involved here; I'd appreciate it if you could look over the list posted at my talk page to see if it looks complete. I'll probably open the issue on the article talk page.

And ... thanks for reverting vandalism to my article :)

Adrian Lamo ·· 07:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think your list is good to start with. As for "your" article, believe it or not but I made no connection between you as a wiki-user and that article at that time. I simply followed the edits of an anon IP prompted by a kind of message s/he left at the different user's talk page that happened to be on my watchlist. I saw "your" article in that user's contributions and reverted it because after the original message I had reasons to view her edits with suspicion. I haven't realized that this was the article of the same person who left me a message at talk because we met only briefly by then and I didn't take a note of your name at that time. Now, I will remember of course. Cheers, --Irpen 07:59, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I, of course, did not mean to imply ownership by saying "my" ;) There's just not that many other ways to refer to that article.

Adrian Lamo ·· 08:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I wish I was notable for a wikiarticle too. Maybe sometime :). See you around and thanks for getting in touch with me. Cheers, --Irpen 08:46, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Trust me, it's a friggin' headache ; ) Adrian Lamo ·· 09:03, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for the latest revert. I never imagined my birthday could be so controversial. I'll be in touch in re. Battle of Borodino.

Adrian Lamo ·· 09:13, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

See my comment in the edit summary. I suggest you check those anons for being open proxies. I just have my hands full and I am sure you know how to do it. Once determined as such, post a note at WP:AN/I and they'll be permabaned. There was a fellow who ran a sophisticated botnet and used proxies even to register different accounts to rig votings, 3RR's, etc. Permabanned now of course. Take care, --Irpen 09:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardin Lamo's birthday

I remember back when Lamo was featured on TV they specifically mentioned his birthday was once every 4 years (eg, Feb 30th). Here's a google search that might help [15] you can look through the results. Lamo is on line right now and I'm sure he would have denied that if it wasn't true. I'm placing his birthday back in the article, let me know if you intend to revert it. 68.223.43.236 07:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

whiskey tango foxtrot! If it were a leap year, the extra day would be the 29th ... I may need to write a "Please don't vandalize Adrian Lamo. xoxo, User:Adrian Lamo template ;x Adrian Lamo ·· 08:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Government of Ukraine

Hi,

Can you figure out who destroyed "Government of Ukraine"? Someone changed it to a redirect to Politics of Ukraine and important information was lost (i.e., country code, long/short name, state symbols, other governmental institutions, etc.). This saddens me a lot, but I don't have time for extensive search.

I think the proper way in such cases is to ask for a discussion to combine the articles. And certainly not to destroy one article in such an ugly way. Sashazlv 04:01, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Well it easy to find who made the article to be redirect. It is User:Electionworld. The old text is of course on [16]. Do you think we should revert Electionworld's edit, or just merge the articles? It looks like the common practice is to have a redirect, Government of Russia e.g. is a redirect as well. abakharev 04:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks for restore, I think I already had minor clashes over Ukrainian articles with that overly self-confident Dutch lawyer before. Sashazlv 13:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Polish Wiki

Huh: http://www.inosmi.ru/translation/225474.html --Ghirla | talk 12:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Maskhadov

I know he "took part". What I asked was whether he commanded the attack. --_Lysy^talk 09:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Tank factory image

Hi; sorry I didn't take a look at image:Tank factory.jpg sooner. I'm afraid they're all KV-1 tanks on the factory floor, but I did find a good place for it in Soviet armored fighting vehicle production during World War II. Thanks.

In related matters, have you had a look at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Russian copyrights? Lots of images are in danger of disappearing, but the justification for doing so does not seem completely clear. —Michael Z. 2006-02-13 17:19 Z

Editing Sevastopol

Beg your pardon ? Ukrained 17:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Confused you with Uapatriot, the usernames are confusable for obvious reasons. I thought it was you. Sorry, --Irpen 18:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Rus' (people)

Hi, Irpen. One clueless guy and his likely sock attack the article, adding here silly pseudoscientific claims aired by a TV-show. We need to counter the assault promptly. Please take a look. --Ghirla | talk 18:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Igor Sikorsky

I've left an apology at User talk:Mariah-Yulia. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Urban

Urban and Goebbels, Goebbels and Urban. Fasolt and Fafner, Fafner and Fasolt. Irpen, don't waste time with him. In fact, I once asked him if he was writing a resume for a job in the Ministry of Propaganda, but not to bother, since Dr. Goebbels was dead, and the Ministry was kaputt. This was after a series of ad hominen attacks on me, plus the usual rants and missrepresentations of facts. Dr. Dan 06:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

removed trollish section heading

Dear Irpen. First, I didn't badmouth you like you state here. If you're talking about this my post... there are no names there (except one, of a user many times warned by administrators), there is no YOUR name. If you like to confess in POV-pushing and trollism by "signing the trend", that's up to you :)))) .

Second, please don't LIE in your "battle for hearts and minds" :). In this post to Duca, I was evidently protecting you and WP principles. I was and is grateful for you policy towards Romanian nationalists. But I'm not going to back you again. Not so good wishes already, Ukrained 20:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ukrained, in this your post you spoke about "some of them were quick to welcome you above". And before you just explained who are "them". There was only one person welcoming new user, myself. Was it not badmouthing me? In your post to user:Duca you wrote: 'You know, we're fighting the Russian imperial propaganda on the UA pages. I thought Romania-concerned editors were more civil and co-operative than Muscovy ones - as being more "Western" and "European".' I think this is an attitude writing. You may wish to say a word a two to the editor who responded to you by adding a anti-Ukrainian message at his userpage. You judge for yourself whether to "back me up" in the future. I just request that you don't attack me and if you absolutely must, don't use abusive edit summaries and/or section titles. Regards, --Irpen 21:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Irpen, looks like your lying is progressing :). As every attentive reader may see, Kuban Kazak, a renowned troll (warned even by you) left his welcome there after you. I meant him, not you. So I demand apologies about this particular incident - as proof of your "civility" and "good faith" (the words you permanently use in your anti-AndriyK preaching :) ). Too bad that you removed the section heading that properly describes your recent attitude towards me :( Ukrained 21:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I appologize then. I didn't see that K.K.'s also welcome the user. In no way I support your opinion of him as a troll but he was incivil at times, granted. In any case, your accusation of me lying was totally undeserved. I stand by my demand that section titles for messages left at my talk be appropriate. Let's now put the issue behind and return to improving WP. --Irpen 21:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Quick question

Hi, Are you available to answer a quick question? (I "watch" your page -- no need to reply on my talk). Sashazlv 01:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I wanted to contact you myself, btw. Check your email in 5 minutes. --Irpen 01:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

About gmail? Does it offer anything special? I mean, I now use two emails at once, one for "official business", and hotmail for everything else + several more stay there unchecked for months. Another account is likely to join the category of "unchecked for months".

Now the question. There's something I don't quite understand about the nomination we are arguing about. I got to know about it from you (I normally don't check requests for adminship) and an anon posted it on the board. What would have happened if the anon had not posted it? Was it semi-secret? And why does it come so early after the previous attempt failed? Sashazlv 01:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

If Irpen does not object, please allow me to answer here. The nomination was not intended to be kept in secret. Some nominations are not announced at all, yet candidates manage to collect a lot of votes. In this case I myself announced this nomination on the Russian noticeboard (because the majority of Alex's work is Russia-related, so Russian colleagues would naturally be interested), and on the Polish noticeboard (because during the last nomination some Polish editors voiced their regret that they were too late to participate due to not being notified). I was hoping that Irpen would announce it on the Ukrainian noticeboard as he did last time, but (and it's my fault) I forgot to ask him to. I myself do not feel comfortable announcing anything there. As for the second question, Alex actually had his doubts about the re-nom being "too soon". I kind of convinced him that it's OK. Why? Two reasons—it is my strong belief that the first nomination was nothing more than a trollfest, which influenced too many people to vote against/neutral and ultimately brought the margin to the bare minimum, which the closing bureaucrat decided to interpret as lack of consensus. Secondly, that same bureaucrat indirectly suggested that Alex's nomination will be welcome to be cosidered again a month (a minimum period per guidelines) and hopefully it'd be more successful. Well, by the looks of it, it is the same fest all over again, with participants beating each other to death and poor Alex in the midst of it being poured with oodles of dirt and being blamed for things he never committed but may will have, because of a few times he made his POV known in some discussion (him being a Russian has, of course, nothing to do with anything). Frankly, if his current behavior is not sufficient to show what a fine admin he'll make, I don't think anything will. Hopefully this addresses your questions.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 02:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Asking you to be just again

Dear Irpen, if you DO want to co-operate with me civilly, simply to discuss things with me, you should stop applying double standards and tricky PR-practices to me. Particularly, you should not:

• insult me on most public talk pages while praising my edits and calling for peace on less visited pages; the same with posting "uncomfortable" and "comfortable" parts of our discussion on different pages
• intentionally misexplain my evident and clear actions

Also, if you insist on not trolling between us, you may concider renunciation of some of your posts made [17].

As for your recent suggestions on my talk, you may or may not discuss them there. Ukrained 12:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Kievan Rus and Britannica

It would be very interesting to see the way Britannica is presenting the subject. I guess is not very different of that released from the University of Toronto in association with the Ukrainian cultural organisation in Canada. --Vasile 02:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Answered at the article's talk. Please raise issues there first. --Irpen 02:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Irpen, thanks for the links; what you have done and proposed is in the right direction as sockpuppetry is a serious allegation. --Gurubrahma 02:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I hope that despite his accusations are obviously without merit, the Wikipedians with a checkuser will not ignore the request (as they usually do with other frivolous submissions) and wil clear the names of the the falsely accused wikipedians. --Irpen 02:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Russkaya Pravda at Wikisource

Russkaya Pravda have also an entry in wikisource now. It is an accurate translation? --Vasile 03:59, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take a look. But even better, I will ask some with more expertise. Regards, --Irpen 04:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

From User:SuperDeng

was:I was blocked but then he changed his mind, but I would much rather talk about Russia with You :D

Wanna talk some Russia and Ukraine stuff? If so I will get the ball rolling

Do you think Russia and Ukraine will unite again? I think it is possible if Russias economy started grwoing even more then now and lots of ukranians moved there to get jobs. After a few years of that some people might say hey why dont we unite again we all seem to be working in russia so why not become the same again?

What do you think, is it possible?--Deng 01:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Deng! Let's not talk nonsense. Better yet, let's write an encyclopedia together with others. If you are interested in Russia and Ukraine, don't forget to check the most recent developments and the Russia portal and Ukraine portal and, especially their New Article Anouncement boards [18], [19] which are a good idea to add to your watchlist. I think you have some knowledge to share with WP on the WW2 related articles. Just remain civil and patient. I have never seen anyone around here whom advise to be patient ever helped. Please be the first one. Nice seeing you around. --Irpen 01:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense :(

But I want them to unite :D

I am sorry I dont know Russian, not yet anyway ;)

I am from Sweden. Schools here are free, but to study Russian at an uni level is no joke so I dont know if I want to do that AND to study what I am allready studying which is math but I will most likely jump to physics.

And nice seeing you to ;)

(Deng 01:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for your voting!

Thanks!

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 mach, once more! abakharev 07:34,

Thanks for your support

rƒa · ɐƒɹ

Thank you for supporting me in my request for adminship! It ended with a tally of 39/5/4, and I am now an admin. I'm glad to have earned the trust of the community, and I will make use of it responsibly. Of course, you can let me know of any comments or concerns you have.

With a million articles in front of me, I'd better get mopping.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Survey_guidelines#Fixing_giant_loopholes

The debate has restarted, your input would be much appreciated, as the discussed propoasal is the one incorporating your previous suggestions and comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Please do not twist the facts in the comments to your edits

It's not tru that UPC-KP came to existance in 1991 or in 1992. In fact, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church existed before this timepoint. In 1991-1992 it bacame independent from Moscow Patriarchy and change its name. Accordxing to the Civil Law UPC-KP is a successor of Ukranian Exarchate and autonomous UOC. You perfectly know this. "Retained" is just the right word there. Other people have already explained it to you. Will you start to listen other editor's arguments at last?--AndriyK 18:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The creation, succession and lineage issues are discussed at the article's talk. If you disagree, say it there please. --Irpen 19:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Українська Повстанська Армія

I downloaded it from somewhere maybe two years ago. All I remember is that it was not copyrighted. Sorry. But I have some more in my collection, give me your e-mail and I'll send it over. Kasmicheskiy Pyeshyekhod aka Space Cadet 01:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I just sent some pictures your way. Let me know if you got them fine. Space Cadet 02:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Translation from Rusyn

"If you know Rusyn, could you please translate for me the caption to the picture there that says: "Перед кунківском церквю капітан ПВ одберат мельдунок"."

I do not speak Rusyn, but since I speak Serbian, I can understand part of the sentence. Translation would be like this: "In front of the Kunkivska(?) church, the captain PV (одберат мельдунок)(?)". I do not understand last two words. PANONIAN (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My Ukrainian is good enough to understand what you translated :). That's "одберат мельдунок" is what I have a problem with. If you know any Rusyn speakers at Wiki, please ask them. I know you take an interest in the topic, so you might know some people. Thanks! --Irpen 18:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It might be "receives/heres a report", but I am not sure.--AndriyK 18:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe "confiscates property"? Ukrainian: одбирає майно. Any Rusyns speakers please? --Irpen 18:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure why I think so, but (based on the vague associations in my head) it seems to me that "мельдунок" is a blank or form of some sort.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! See, how we all have trouble with the modern Rusyn text despite being fluent in Russian and Ukrainian! This link suggests that it it property. From this one I infer that it is some kind of asylum. Olha Kobylianska (uk:Кобилянська Ольга Юліанівна) uses the word in her "Zemlya" novel and it looks like something different too. And some claim that Rusyn language is just a dialect of Ukrainian, of course. --Irpen 18:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is what User:Yakudza wrote on my talk page about this:

See http://www.lemko.org/lemko/slovnyk.html

• мельдувати - доповідати

Мельдунок - доповідь (in Ukrainian), доклад (in russian) - Report(?)

одберат мельдунок - give a report (This only my version source from dictionary) (User:Yakudza)

PANONIAN (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that. There is still no clarity, see above. --Irpen 18:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Here not "Rusyn speakers", but "German speakers" are needed - Meldung - German word [20] --Yakudza 00:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! And одберат pbbly means "receives" indeed. Thanks again, --Irpen 00:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to add one more language to the Slav talk. In Polish "odbierać" means exactly "receive", and "meldunek" has two meanings. One is "report" in military terminology and the other is the registered place of living or stay. E.g. your home address. Like during communism everyone had to have the address registered and written in ID. So "odbierać meldunek" might have two meanings either receive report (or even listen to a report), or receive an appartement/flat/house (the place gov chose to register you at). However, I think you are right and he probably receives report.--SylwiaS | talk 01:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Since we do not have any photos of the events themselves, and possibly there were none taken due to their nature, I think a screenshot from the film is suitable to add to the artice. I hope, others would find it acceptable, when I add it. Cheers, --Irpen 01:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I can only guess what you're talking about, but I'm sure it's fine. BTW "odbierać mienie" would indeed mean "to confiscate property", and "meldunek" is often in a written form. Everyone was right :)--SylwiaS | talk 02:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I was talking about this article. The phrase in question is the caption to the third image from top. --Irpen 02:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting! Sure it’s right to add it. The village where the church is, is called Kunkowa, and PV stands for Wojsko Polskie. It’s a pity that he didn’t finish the film. You may also want to check pictures on Polish Wiki and here [21] (Ukrainian version for you). Check the boards 23 and following. You may also find there our infamous general Jaruzelski getting his early experience as an officer. I was thinking about dividing the article similarly to how IPN did it, and add information plus pictures. I’m sure someone can cut them out of there.--SylwiaS | talk 05:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Kiev Metro Lines Map

Hi Irpen,

Can you please look over the history of development and add your comments/suggestions to the Talk:Kiev_Metro#Line_map?

Thanks, mno 10:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Polonization and Russophobia

I see you have reinserted Polonization as an example of Russophobia. How these are relevant ? --_Lysy^talk 21:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This was already discussed at Talk:Russophobia#Religious. If you still have objections, let's continue this at the article's talk. --Irpen 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I know this was "discussed" but never explained. I hoped you'd be willing to explain that but I see you'd rather prefer driving towards another revert war with Ghirla :-( All right. --_Lysy^talk 21:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you avoid accusing other editors unnecessarily. I see you restated the question at talk. OK, I will give it another shot there. --Irpen 23:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems I was right, unfortunately. This is hopeless. --_Lysy^talk 17:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed in Cieszyn

You add {{fact}} in that article, I realy don't know why, because it's so obvious for Cieszynioks (inhabitants of Cieszyn Silesia) :) that here really was the invasion. See Talk:Cieszyn. Regards, D T G 19:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Long time

It has been a while since I talked with you. I was wonder if an article exist on the Russian TV station ΡΤΡ (Russia Television)? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 02:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. There is a Category:Russian television networks. I hope you will get back on board on Russian and Ukrainian topics. --Irpen 02:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was working on the BRSM, but I worked on Mexican related topics to score brownie points with my Mexican girlfriend. I still think Hero of Russia could be an FA, so we could try that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 04:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Romanianization

I'm waiting for a reply from you... Are we having a discussion or not? Thanks. Dmaftei 16:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks fot your note. As your your msg also at the article's talk, Just haven't got a chance to respond yet. I understand that it is my turn, I just was in the middle of other article's discussion and it consumed all the time I had for WP. I will respond at the article's talk shortly. Thanks again, --Irpen 21:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't gotten to it. I think you now have a right to remove this again until I get to it. Sorry again and thanks. You've been more than considerate. --Irpen 07:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that. I'll be more than happy to restart the discussion when you have time to return to the topic. Regards. Dmaftei 15:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

UPA

proszę nie wywolywać agresji na forum, jeśli dodajesz cytaty w języku polskim to chyba wiesz co tam pisze ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.22.212.170 (talk • contribs) 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Совет - ответь по-Русски, как в анекдоте про Латвийскую кампанию написавашие письмо в Казахстан по-Латышски получили ответ по-Казахски...--Kuban Cossack 13:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Alex, thanks for removing the inapropriate entry. Anon: Прошу писати менi однiєю з мов, вказаних на моєї сторiнцi користувача. --Irpen 06:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

user chisinau

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chisinau. mikka (t) 20:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Bonny

He logged in again. His first action was to snatch a couple of userboxes from my user page (as he had done before). Check his other contributions, they are pretty obvious. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Map names

Hi there! I noticed you asked Piotrus about the toponyms used on one of my maps (I guess it was the one for the article on Polish-Muscovite War). As a rule of thumb, I chose to use consistent naming in all of the maps pertaining to the series. That is: German names for towns in Germany, Silesia and parts of Austria, Hungarian names where applicable (I would use Turkish names for the northernmost eyalets, but I simply forgot them so I use Hungarian instead, Polish names for all parts of the Commonwealth (even in variants of the map depicting the period before Polish replaced Old Ruthenian as a chancery language in GDL - for simplicity's sake) and modern English transcryption for places in Russia. And English names wherever applicable (Moscow, Warsaw).

I know this system is not perfect, but I made the first map shortly after one of the Talk:Danzig wars ended and I decided not to give people too many reasons to start endless quarrels over the naming. I adopted one common naming system for all the Rzeczpospolita series and used it consistently ever since. BTW, in case someone wanted to prepare a localized version for his own native language wikipedia - I made the source code available through the commons, so there's no problem with that either. I initially also wanted to prepare a map in the Lithuanian version for the Lithuanian wiki, as some of the contributors from that country seem to be alerged to Polish or Ruthenian, but DeirYassin lost interest in wikipedia lately and no other Lithuanian seems to be interested any more. Halibutt 03:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think consistensy from map to map is good and I don't object to it. I just think that if you use Warsaw, you might as well use Kiev. Or you could have used Warszawa. I don't mind either way but Kijow and Warsaw is inconsistent, IMO. --Irpen 03:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Likewise

Same goes here. I know that if you are Ukrainian, this must be a touchy issue for you as well. It is good to see that you can keep your calm despite the fact that others are challanging what you honestly believe is right. It's funny how nationality, borders, territory is all based on such myths. I am sure that in Ukraine, schoolchildren must learn how Kiyevan Rus' owned the land before the Principality of Moldova did. The same is done in our schools and we learn how the Dacians( our other ancestors besides the Romans) owned it before everyone else. Don't you find it also funny how we (as human beings) hold on to the things that we have no power over. We did not choose to be born in a certain race, continent, nationality, religion. yet these things that we did not choose are what define us and what most of us would fight for the most. Constantzeanu 06:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

UA/RO topics

Irpen, after talking to Ghirla, I feel like I am talking to a diplomat with you and I honestly do not want to fight with you over every single issue about cernauti or bukovina. If you want Chernivtsi Oblast to stand alone without a Romanian name, then so be it(provided herta, cernauti city and bucovina will keep their romanian name too). Currently I have no major issues over either article. I propose we stop the revert war and leave them as they are (save for additions in other fields like economics, etc. etc.).Constantzeanu 02:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I repeatedly said that I support Romanian names for historic places. It is just that Chernivtsi Oblast isn't a historic term as I explained. As for other articles, I don't think they are ready to be left alone. In the last couple of days, they were somewhat POVed and they need to be balanced again. I also hate edit wars and hope they will stop. I also hope you will help me with that. --Irpen 03:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Line Map

What do you think?

• original
  original
• my improved version
  my improved version
• ENGLISH VERSION (TEMP)
  ENGLISH VERSION (TEMP)

--Kuban Cossack 02:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should preferrably have a map in English. If we can't, we should use a Ukrainian map rather than the Russian one for the metro in Kiev. Other than that, adding an island is a good idea. If you want to see the shape of the Dnieper river and its distributary, you can check out Google Maps image.[22] And here is the Hidropark platform with the 5-car train that happens to be at it :) --Irpen 02:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I designed for ru:wiki and decided to upload it here beforehand. I will commence on an English map tommorow/two days time and should have it compleated. WRT to river, it is going to be impossible adding its precise contour, and this is a good approximation, the island will be larger. For the meanwhile I replaced Mno's original map with this one (before I can get an English one sorted). I have Google Earth anyway. --Kuban Cossack 02:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you then. It would be helpful to add a commented out note to the image caption that you are working on the English language version and happen to have completed it first. Otherwise, you know... Cheers, --Irpen 02:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Irpen: It would be helpful to put the original map back. Until the English map is ready. I really want to leave Wikipedia as I don't have time for it. Can I really rely on you guys hoping that you are working toward Neutral POV, respecting other countries and nations? Anonymous, 05:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think you know me well enough to judge whether you can trust me when I say that I respect my country and my nation as well as all the others. The problem with an old map is that it is incorrect because it does not reflect the new station. K.K. pledged to make one. If anyone makes it earlier, I will support the substitution. Personally, I am too a bad artist to draw it. I have no reason to mistrust K. K. who says that the English map will be there in one-two day time. On a side note, anonymous, even if you contribute occasionally, please reregister. It would make communication easier. Schasty, --Irpen 08:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No, prob, congradulations of Vyrlitsa btw. [23], [24] --Kuban Cossack 02:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

And now trolls are attacking it! Help. --Kuban Cossack 19:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Just make an English map and everything will be fine and dandy. --Irpen 20:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

...as long as the English version not based on Russian transliteration, that it :) Anyway, the real reason I'm leaving this comment is this edit. I can't come up with justification off the top of my head (plus, it's getting late and I'm pretty shot), but it somehow does not seem right to omit that piece of information. Maybe the intro line isn't the best place for it, that's true, but to remove it altogether... I don't know, it just feels wrong.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 04:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I will explain at the article's talk. --Irpen 04:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok here at last is the English version, but unfortunately it looks quite crude, потому что из-за чертовой молнии станицу на полчаса отрубили без света...so my lovely photoshoped version was permanentely lost :(. This was done on a paintbrush and temporary it is here. --Kuban Cossack 00:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You know what? I see potential trouble coming out of your version and you know the reason why exactly as much as I do. I would have reverted it myself, but since it has English names, I find it useful despite the excessive "letters" you put there. I say, keep the Russian names only when necessary and don't insert them when not necessary. Modern names on modern maps is the place when they are not necessary IMO. Take my suggestion into account when you make a final drawing. In the meanwhile, because your version uses latin letters while the old ones used the cyrillic ones, I will not revert it for now only. Please don't be surprized if the ususal suspects have less tolerance then myself. You could have avoided the problem altogether if you did this the right way. We will talk about this again, when your final version is ready. Goodnight. --Irpen 00:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I followed the this style; and if someone decides to replace the big cyrillic with the Anglo-Russian translits and add translits of this in place of English ones; I will not mind.--Kuban Cossack 00:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

As none of the parties that I thought would object to my map have in the last three weeks said anything, I have given up on the Photoshoped version (can't be asked). So unless they begin complaining we might as well keep that version from now on. What do you think?--Kuban Cossack 01:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I didn't mind the dual transliteration map. My consern was that others might and I wanted to spare some blood over the issue where I think the second transliteration, while useful, is not necessary enough in order to produce more conflicts and sour feelings. As long as everyone is fine with it, I don't mind. It is useful to be able to distinguish on when to take a firm stand and when to let it go. We should all remember that. --Irpen 02:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Speaking on the law, the map that you uploaded is based on the original map, which is a copyrighted product. As Ezhiki mentioned, your modifications may be considered as copyright infringement. 01:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

bonny redux

He is trying to sneack back. Check WP:AN. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

FAI

Can you please help me to stop Halibutt inserting the copyrighted image into the FAI article?

He looks like he cant read English text in rules on fair use--Nixer 13:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

'45 Poland

You believe Communist Poland in 1945 was independent ? --Molobo 21:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't independent in terms of being representative of its people. Neither its leaders were able to do things they see fit. --Irpen 21:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Lost for words...

At [25]. I think we all want to avoid another RfC (or something more serious), but really, there are limits of Wikipedia:Civility that should not be broken. Swearing in edit summaries is one of them, IMHO. I doubt that any attempt from me or other Polish user to talk to Ghirla would do any good. Can you do something? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I agree that this was an inapropriate remark. There is no doubt that Molobo did the best he can to provoke his opponents lately, but still that's not an excuse for this the remark. RfC would only make things worse IMO. I will ask Ghirla to be careful.

While we are at it, please do smth about this edit of yours. You removed a reference and changed the meaning with the rollback button which is supposed to be used only when dealing with vandalism. Please explain the edit at the talk page.

Finally, please have a word with Molobo on your end. If he keeps on, I see him getting himslef in trouble. --Irpen 04:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your support in my RfA.

Sadly, my RfA failed (on my birthday out of all days!), mainly due to it's closeness to the previous one. I hope that in any future RfAs I'll have your support!

Nonetheless, if I can do anything for you don't hesitate to ask me.

Have a nice St Patrick's Day!

Computerjoe's talk 21:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure, please leave me a note or an email when your next RfA comes. --Irpen 07:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Leopolitans

If you read the earlier discussion you posted a link to, you'd probably notice that I proposed it myself. And I'm fine with the move if that's the decision of the community (unless it's going to be moved to some bizarre title like List of famous L'vivians, of course). I opposed deleting the section outright, but not it's removal into a separate article. Of course, IMO the article is still not long enough for such a partition to be done and I really don't see a need to divide it, but if others do - then why not. We could do the same with other sections as well, BTW. History section comes to my mind.

As a side-note, I find it quite comforting that, despite all the national conflicts in wikipedia, all the Ghirlandajos, Molobos, Zivinbudas' and other hot-minded guys, the article has retained much of my original version from 2004... Isn't it some kind of a record? Halibutt 00:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Lviv is not Ghirlandajo's cup of tee and be honest, the articles in which he takes an interest clearly benefit from that. Speaking of Western Ukraine, his unstubbing of Halych and writing of Pochaiv Lavra come to my mind first which is not even close to being exhaustive.

I could see your discomfort from dealing with him and I admit that he indeed was rather rude at times but comparing him to Molobo and Zivinbudas is totally frivolous. I said it pretty much at the time of RfC when we discussed it at your talk and my opinion fundamentally did not change. The problem with bad blood in the edit conflicts is unwillingness of the editors to put aside their patriotic sentiments for the sake of the objectivity. Ghirla has some views but he is not alone in that. Neither he is alone with being persistent in sticking to his views. I must say, in persistence and in rejection of opponents, Ghirla is neither alone nor the most severe at that. --Irpen 01:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to throw my few coins in, I would be the first to admit that Ghirla is much more productive then Molobo or Zvin (who to my knowledge contributed not a single useful content), and he is doing a great job on Russia-related articles, but I wonder - can you show me any examples where Ghirla has been a positive influence on a Poland-related article? Especially a controversial Poland-related article? Other than being so annoying with his POV-pushing that other people decided to shut him up by improving the article (as was the case with Katyn massacre, whom I pushed to FAC partialy un responce to Ghirla edits about Katyn being a CIA conspiracy...). And really, I wish you'd stop slandering Molobo. He may not be the biggest content creator out there, his lack of attention to spacing and such in talk is irritating, 3RR not pretty, but he is much more polite and cites his sources much more often then Ghirla.v--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I never slandered Molobo. I agree with you that he is rather polite for the person with such extreme views. His general mission to expose the injustices that Poles suffered from Russians and Germans is an acceptable, while rather strange, agenda. His not being able to put aside his extreme views in editing and, sometimes, getting hysterical over the disagreements is extremely unproductive. I advised him several times to write rather than revert, delete and paste, and he sometimes does some writing. I think I am totally objective to Molobo and I even think that he doesn't hate me as he does many of his opponents. If Molobo reduces the edit warring and hysteria while continues to write the content (which he occasionally does, I must say), I would consider the overall impact of his presence at wiki to be positive rather than negative. However, even if we forget about the rest and see an amount of content, the comparison to Ghirla just doesn't fly.

The useful contribution of Ghirla towards the Polish articles can be seen in that thanks to his intervention these articles are sometimes corrected from the common biases in the Polish national historiography. Besides, in Polish-Russian related articles, which are up to now mostly written by the Polish contributors, he often brings additional information. The examples are abundant and there is no need even to elaborate. Besides he often brings the perspective from the non-Polish viewpoint and these articles eventually end up more balanced. If you say that Ghirla is sometimes rude and being rude is wrong, I would agree with you. However, as far as the compromise over the content goes, I have seen Ghirla agreeing to compromise and I have never ever seen that from Halibutt, at least not voluntarily. Still, I also consider Halibutt an excellent contributor despite several problems as I wrote at my comment at his RfA (which I supported nevertheless). --Irpen 02:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla seems to have an allergic reaction to me adding any information to Russia related article: [26], [27], [28]. Please talk to him, because this is clearly vandalism. And while I agree mostly with your first para, the second seems like a fairy tale to me: maybe we are speaking about two different Ghirla's (and Halibutt's)? I have yet to see a Polish article where the information he brought were not Russian (always unsourced) historiography POV ([29], [30]), unsourced (again) accusations ([31]) or evident (unsourced, of course) delusions (Katyn as a CIA fabrication is my favourite). And I have seen Halibutt work towards compromise many times (like on your talk page, for example), while this word seem not to exist in Ghirla vocabulary (please show me an example where I am wrong).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This above suggestion by Halibutt is not a compromise in any way. This is not about his vs mine edits. This is an attempt to mediate in connection with the Molobo's edits wich, as usually, were rather extreme. --Irpen 07:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh. I am not here to discuss Halibutt, anyway, but to see if you can do something about Ghirla. His recent revert war at Muscovy is really annoying, and it appears to me his RfC was pointless. He has also called my referenced addition to Nikolai Vasilyevich Repnin a POV fork, and unless you convince him not to we can expect to see another rv war at Nicholas Repnin. I'll event not mention his countless offences against WP:CIVIL - I don't care about them, they only reflect bad upon him - but his content vandalism is something I cannot stand. If you cannot moderate him, I'll have to ask for RfA with a goal of banning him from reverting any Polish-related article or information.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I also wonder if you'd comment about his petty 'uglyfying' revenge here? [32]? Or [33]? To me that looks like a definite WP:POINT.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Soviet treatment

Users Halibutt and Irpen should rejoice at this splendid news. In order to have an informative analysis of Soviet policies in occupied Poland during 1939-1941 I acquired a throughout scholary work on this issue, mainly Educational policy in occupied eastern areas of the Second Polish Republic in 1939-1941 by doctor Elżbieta Trela-Mazur(here are her qualifications[34] and the publication Forms of constraint applied by the Soviet authorities in relation to the people of Wilejka region by renoknown scholar of Slavic studies in Wrocław Professor Franciszek Sielicki.

Both publications present an excellent analysis of Soviet occupation and are full of various interesting data. --Molobo 22:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you are going to use some serious sources and you are so committed to Wikipedia as to spend money to buy books for your article research. That's the good thing to do! --Irpen 23:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

anonymous editing

I simply have a computer that logs off sometimes during my edits. I don't know why. Also I clicked on new password. So I will have to wait before I can log again. Never hid that the IP is mine. --Molobo

OK, but please, again, title sections properly. Do you ever listen to what's being said to you? What's "Irpen" as a section title? --Irpen 23:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

From Halibutt

History of Poland (1939-1945)

The solution is simple: let's talk. It always worked in the past, didn't it?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I asked you several times in a row:

1. Not to vandalize the article with your comments (use proper tags for that, not your comments inetrspersed in the text)
2. Not to comment out things you find incredible. Mark them with tags
3. Not to comment out things that oppose your point of view yet are perfectly sourced.

As can be seen from your last edit you decided to ignore my pleas. Fine with me, though I admit I'm on the verge of loosing my nerves. Talking to you at the talk pages doesn't work, apparently, neither does sourcing the material. You just have to push your own POV no matter what, don't you. I'm not going to retaliate against the articles you started as it would be both childish and disrupting. However, I admit I'm loosing any hope discussion with you is beneficial - either to the project or to anyone involved. //Halibutt 11:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

xx

Don't worry, Irpen. I never saw you add sources to articles or take part in a discussion on sources after people get seriously involved in it. So no, I am not stalking you. Mostly because I don't believe you'd ever source any article. Of course, it would be really lovely if you either took your blatant POV pushing campaign elsewhere - or at least try to support it with sources at the relevant talk pages, but apparently that's not going to happen and I'm fine with that.

I noticed some time ago that this is your normal modus operandi and there's no way anyone could change that. First your pal Ghirlandajo comes up to some article, adds as much Soviet/Great Russian prop to it as he can. When people revert his inventions, often based on sources as credible as Great Soviet Encyclopedia or katyn.ru, and that's when you come and cry murder. When people finally manage to stop the revert war and gather at the talk page to settle the issues you two raise, at first all is ok. But when the discussion is going in the right direction, that is people gather enough sources to prove that most of your (plural) POV is completely absurd, you all of a sudden loose interest in the discussion, abandon it and move on to some other article. That was the case of numerous articles so far, where you managed to repeat your stance over and over again, yet failed to convince anyone with sources and then, after seeing that your POV will simply not hold, moved along. Katyn, history of Belarus, Polish-Lithuanian-Muscovite union, Polish-Bolshevik War, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, History of Poland, Międzymorze, Polish contribution to WWII, Wołodarka... Of course, I appreciate that you're the reasonable guy to help stopping the revert wars. However, loosing my time and nerves to find solutions to your problems is a simple loss of time apparently. Piotrus believes it's beneficial to the project in the long run, I'm not so sure about it.

As I said, I consider such "retaliation" childish and below my dignity, so I won't adopt your stance, although I admit I find it tempting. I could take some article quite notable for the Russian community here in wikipedia, add as much Polish POV to it (I mean Molobo-style, of course), start a revert war, then force the people to loose their time and nerves to try to convince me that what I wrote was a complete rubbish (eventhough I'd perfectly know that by myself) and even add some pictures. You know, some Russian people greeting the Nazi forces liberating them from the Soviets, some statements about the Polonophobe traditions of the Moscow University, some books to argue that the Russian Civil War was not a Red's victory... And then I'd quit the discussion. However, I doubt it would be as funny to me as it is to you. Over and out. //Halibutt 10:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Extremely well described, Halibutt -- my impression exactly. --Pēteris Cedriņš 17:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Wojsko Ludowe

I have found an analysis of this formation by IPN. Lots of interesting facts. I shall add them soon. --Molobo 23:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda poster

Original section title "No"

Mikka clearly said about the slogan. [35] --Molobo 01:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

He was mistaken. If you disagree, find the poster. And, finally, learn to use descriptive section titles I am telling you for the tenth time! What is No in TOC?

TOC?--Molobo 06:02, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"Table of Contents", the software puts on top of any page, listing the section titles? How meaningful is "Could you?", "No" and "Irpen" in TOC of the talk pages. --Irpen 06:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Russian tsarinas

regarding the names of tsarinas of Russia: if from abroad, they changed their first name, such as Wilhelmina became Natalia Alexeievna, etc. Now, Wikipedia has certain rules that the so-called consort name is not to be used, because of several persons being e.g Empress Maria Fedorovna. And that a pre-marital name should be used. But I feel that it is acceptable to make a formulation "Natalia Alexeievna of Darmstadt" (the "of Darmstadt" being for disambiguation purposes) instead of using "Wilhelmina of Darmstadt". Now, as there are plenty of Germanist and anglicist opinions, I would like to know some of international opinion as well as of Russian opinion. In other words, I am asking you to think whether from the perspective a Russian, (1) would it be acceptable to say "Natalia Alexeievna of Darmstadt" and (2) would that be better or worse than "Wilhelmina of Darmstadt". 62.78.105.68 08:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the talk page for Alexandra, I'm trying to get a policy discussion going on this; there are several other options besides the ones suggested above. Please consider visiting this talk page and endorsing one of the options, or adding one of your own. Thanks! Choess 01:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I tried to find article about Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse (wife of Nicholas II, not of Nicholas I) in the Russian wikipedia, but I did not find such article. Could you check whether any such exists? If yes or no, it would anyway be nice to have the English article to have interwiki link to her Russian aricle (please create such article if it does not yet exist in russian wp). 217.140.193.123 19:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Alexandras

Please kindly check Alexandra Romanova - welcome to comment. 217.140.193.123 00:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Misleading vote summary

Maybe it'll be easier to explain in personal talk page ? You're saying that the "PoP" name is common in English usage only in the context of history of Poland. What is the other possible context. The article describes an event from the history of Poland exactly, so what's your point ? What would be the most used name for this from "wider European perspective" then ? --Lysy ^(talk) 20:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Any explanation ? --Lysy ^(talk) 10:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought I explained at talk, but I will add to your summary as soon as I have a minute. --Irpen 15:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Operation Wisła and Holodomor articles

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that:

1. you insist on mentioning the brutality of Polish against Ukrainians in 1918 to give the broader context of the 1947 events in Operation Wisła, and at the same time:
2. you justify removing paragraph about repressions against Ukrainian elite from Holodomor article, explaining that it does not belong there.

Does it not seem to you like double standards, especially that the Stalinist repressions agains Ukraine are very closely tied together, and only the broader context allows to explain the purpose of the artificial famine. Why do you think that hiding this (documented) information would be useful ? --Lysy ^(talk) 18:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I will correct you if you seem wrong as you allowed me. One thing is a bare mention which puts something into context. The other thing is adding a whole section on a marginally related topic to a narrow article. Please reduce the chapter to the mention of cultural purge in view of this if you insist in having it there. --Irpen 18:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Koniuchy massacre at WP:RM

Hi there. Why have you reopened the vote to rename after it's been closed by an admin ? --Lysy ^(talk) 22:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I explained at talk. --Irpen 22:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you have quoted the policy stating that the vote can be removed "earlier at the discretion of an administrator", which actually happened, so actually your reopening the vote violates the very policy that you mentioned. Did you do this because you were not happy with the result of the vote ? --Lysy ^(talk) 22:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I explained clearly that whoever closed the vote violated the policy which doesn't call for premature closure for the lack of consensus. It only calls for premature closure to implement the move if consensus is easy to determine early enough. Please continue this at the article's talk. --Irpen 22:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I am surprized by your accusation but I guess I have to take it though I thought you knew me better by now. --Irpen 22:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You often surprise me, and I surprise you ;-) The rest in the article's talk. --Lysy ^(talk) 23:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen these edits: [36], [37], [38] ? Wonder why he did not care to post a similar message in the Polish message board ? Sigh. --Lysy ^(talk) 22:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, did you or anyone post the announcement of WP:RM listing of Partitions of Poland at RU board once Piotrus posted it to the PL one? --Irpen 22:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I posted it anywhere. Have you seen me recruiting on Polish message board ? Still, Partitions of Poland are relevant to Poland, don't you think ? How is the Koniuchy massacre relevant to Ukraine, Belarus or Russia ? And who is a nationalist here ? I wonder why are you still defending this attitude. --Lysy ^(talk) 22:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not say anything about nationalists. You accused Ghirla not in nationalism but in "not caring" to post it at a Polish board as well. All I meant in my response is that people tend to post announcement at places where their preferred POV will get most of the support and gave a similar example with the PoP announcement. I am not making a judgement on why people do that. And, yes, the actions of Soviet partisans and allegations to their war crimes are relevant to the History of RU. --Irpen 23:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since you mentioned PoP, I've specifically asked only non-Polish people to voice their opinions there, including a number of Lithuanians, of whom I knew that they will have different POV than mine and I did it exactly in order to have well balanced representation of view on the PoP issue, so it does not seem that "people tend to post announcement at places where their preferred POV will get most of the support" unless they're interested in pushing their POV only. That's also the reason why I've *not* asked for support of Polish editors on Koniuchy or why I've posted the announcement about Huta Pieniacka to Ukrainian notice board first, before I posted it to the Polish one. But your mileage may vary of course. I'm constantly attempting to assume good faith, but sometimes the evidence is just too obvious. I have the feeling that if there were more Ghirlas on wiki I would really turn into a Russophobe :-( Anyway, forget it. --Lysy ^(talk) 00:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Orden

Many thanks, Irpen. I am not sure I desreve all this. Thanks abakharev 06:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the Info

The article was interesting to say the least. And easy enough to read and understand without needing a dictionary or help from some translation program. Thank you. The Marshal and Colonel were amateurs next to their mentor, Pilsudski. If I'm not mistaken, I believe Beck was actually Hitler's guest at Berchtesgaden for New Years, 1939. The facts concerning their blunders need to be brought forth accurately and without bias. That it will be vociferously challenged, is to be expected. One should be prepared. It seems this group of editors enjoys entrapping people into reverting wars, and they then try to have them blocked, or removed from participation in the Wikipedia project. Hopefully, the powers that be, will begin to see what's going on here. Dr. Dan 06:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

talk:Polish September Campaign

Irpen, why can't you stay on topic? As to your latest comment, either point me to a text where you see my applause or strike the comment. You don't value me highly, but you don't have to resort to slander, do you. Halibutt 21:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, I will moderate my comment all right. I took your lack of response to Molobo's pasting and to my attempts to undo them as your support of his actions. "applause" might have been an exaggeration and I will moderate it. In any case, slander is an overkill and you know it. You know that your "You don't value me highly" is wrong. I don't want to go into details and I do not want even to spend time to reassure you here because it is to obvious. I would like certain things in your editing to be different and I don't deny it. I am sure you have a wish or two regarding my and some others' edits as well. So it is fine as it was. There is no need for both of us to loose temper over topical disputes. --Irpen 08:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales didn't intervene either, did he. Nor did "your fellow" Ghirlandajo intervene, which doesn't mean he applauds Molobo. Anyway, let's move along. Halibutt 10:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not mix apples with oranges. Jimbo and Ghirla have nothing to do with this. The discussion was between you, Piotrus, Molobo and myself. And when Molobo started his habitual trolling there was a dead silence from both of you and my desperate attempts to undo his damage. This stuff is still in the article, he periodically restored megabytes of outside material at the talk page, making it unreadable and I can't simply succeed if I oppose such a dedicated and fervent troll just on my own. Instead of doing something to help restore the working climate in the article, you went into unrelated jokes about clocks and watches which is not only off-topic but also insensitive, as I explained at the article's talk. --Irpen 19:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

And here go your double standards. You feel I am responsible for Molobo's actions yet you don't feel obliged to intervene when Ghirlandajo starts his habitual trolling... also, you are somehow silent when I'm trying to undo damage done by your own actions. You frequently resort to off topic (as in the case of Wołodarka where you in most cases either wrote huge chunks of text about battle of Moscow instead of staying on topic), yet you're holding the same attitude against others. Ignoring the log in your own eye is not something unusual anyway. Halibutt 12:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and you just copied Molobo's conduct in clogging the talk page of Battle of Olszynka Grochowska with a large chunk of text from our private chat on your own conduct rather than the article. If it was Molobo to do it you'd most probably call him a troll and move the huge piece of unrelated discussion out of the talk page. However, when it is you to do the same - it's perfectly ok... Halibutt

Your accusations

I said I won't use your talk page any more but apparently I was wrong. After you recently accused me of being a troll and told me to read one of the definitions of who a troll is, I'd like to point you to some of the definition you perfectly seem to fit. For instance WP:TROLL#Edit_warring, WP:TROLL#Misuse of process might come in handy. Are you satisfied now? Halibutt 15:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support in my RfA

Just wanted to drop a quick note — nothing fancy! — to say thanks for your vote of confidence in my recent request for adminship. As you might have noticed it was unsuccessful; most objections related to my lack of experience. While I disagree that nearly 4000 edits, whether spread over two months or ten, constitutes a lack of experience, I respect the vote and will try again at a later date. I'm disappointed that I won't be able to help out in the meantime as much as I could with admin access, but again I appreciate your support and hope I'll have it the next time I am nominated. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 18:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Kharkiv/Kharkov again

I suggest we revote on the name В Харькове русскому языку придан статус официального--Kuban Cossack 02:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should change anything. The legitimacy of this decision is still questionable. However, most importantly, the naming issue was decided based on the prevailing English language usage. I specifically conducted the search for prevailing names for all Oblast centers in Ukraine in major English Language media and other encyclopedias. All except of Kiev and Odessa are called through the transliteration of Ukrainian names. For details see this and this. Prevailing modern English language usage is the primary factor to determine the article name. At least that's how it was decided earlier to implement the vaguely formulated (perhaps on purpose) official guideline Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). --03:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point your attention to the writing on the side of this, NEW, aircraft [39] and to this UKRAINIAN company's official website [40] Still I urge you to reconsider your obscure reason about modern use. --Kuban Cossack 23:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Also look at the text used on these two memorials, istalled in 1999 [41] and 2001 [42]. --Kuban Cossack 23:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Kazak, it's all very simple. We follow the prevailing modern usage in English language media. Once the major papers search shows the prevailance of Kharkiv, the decision of this or that organization won't affect the article's name. --Irpen 23:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That is ignoring the fact that this or that organisation happens to be Ukrainian state-owned :( I mean don't get me wrong I am not trying to push a POV or anything, just that I continuously gather evidence why the move is more than justified... --Kuban Cossack 11:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are ignoring what the Ukrainian state or state-own organizations use for whatever because they have zero jurisdiction over English. The only thing that matters is the prevailing modern usage. The best indication of the latter in the major English language media and other language encyclopedia. While LexisNexis major papers search shows an overwhelming advantage of Khrarkiv AND Britannica uses Kharkiv as well, the answer is clear. The article titles should not be changed with each new momental event. Wikipedia articles titles reflect the long term trends, avaraged over time. So far, it is Kharkiv. I will do a LexisNexis major paper search one of these days and update you with the results since you seem interested. Stay around! --Irpen 01:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

8 - thankyou-s

Irpen, so kind and so nice of you! (Портрет мне, конечно, льстит :) Wishing all the best and all the success - Vera - Introvert ~? 19:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Others?

Any ideas who are the other generals on the Image:Polish Mil Victory Parade 1945.jpg photo?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I wrote there all I knew. I am no fan of Gen. S. at all and I only identified him at the photo because he was identified at the source where I found the image. I wanted to give others all the info I could. Actually, I was not looking for S' image, I was looking for the parade image and S just happened to be there among the others. I notice you added the parade photo to his article. If you click on the link to the image source, you will see other images of him. I just think the S' article is too short for many images and that's why I did not add them because they would turn an article into a gallery. But feel free to upload them and tag them "PD-USSR". OTOH, it is amusing that the usual suspects are trying to supress the image from the article where it is clearly relevant. Perhaps, you could have a word with some of them. --Irpen 23:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed interesting to know who else was there. This article mentions pl:Stanisław Popławski and Swierczewski. "Swój ślad w zacieraniu śladów niesłusznej historii odcisnął wczoraj premier Marek Belka ogłaszając w napisanym dla „Gazety Wyborczej” artykule, że Rosjanie nie zaprosili Polaków do udziału w moskiewskiej paradzie zwycięstwa w maju 1945 r. Trochę pan premier się pospieszył, bo owszem, generałowie Popławski i Świerczewski już zeszli z tego świata i niczego poświadczyć nie mogą, ale wciąż żyją skromniejsi rangą żołnierze, którzy w polskich pododdziałach maszerowali po placu Czerwonym. "

If you can identify which of the general is Poplawski, you can surely add him to the text under the figure in the image file. I think the names can be used if the image is going to be added to other WP articles, but as for the "Polish contribution..." the parade itself of the forces that helped defeat nazis is enough as a catpion. If the article ever expands to include individuals, they can be mentioned in the caption as well. On a side note, I found it incredible that Polish officials deny such a well known fact.The claim at the Foreign office site as well as the one written by Belka are rather surreal. --Irpen 01:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Tribuna article Irpen ? :) Anyway something for Piotrus:.. [removed incomprehensible by Irpen]... You see now why I have objections towards photo of those being presented as representative picture of Polish contribution in WW2 ? --Molobo 02:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't. But you don't need to convince me that communists were pretty bad. I am well aware of that. However, my Polish is almost non-existent. As for that Trybuna article, it's not "another one". It is the same one. Too bad you didn't check the link I posted a while ago. OTOH, I do read all your links if they are in the language I can understand. Please talk to Piotrus at his page and not mine. Drop your habit of pasting kilobytes of stuff all over Wikipedia. Links would suffice. Besides, my Polish is very poor. The small quote above I understood only because I saw that article's translation. --Irpen 03:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Your tactic to delete other users comments is most offensive. --Molobo 22:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Molobo. You are at it again. I didn't delete a single word of your comments. You pasted the huge piece from an external web-site. I explained why this is not appropriate. And several people repeated that to you many times. Please reread what I said at Talk:Renaissance in Poland. --Irpen

Rus

Molobo, please praise the achievements of Polish culture in the Polish culture article. This has nothing to do with Kievan Rus and its talk.

I agree, but in case you haven't noticed it was Ghirandajo who started comparing Poland and Polish culture to Rus. Perhaps you should tell him that ?

--Molobo 20:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't lie. It was your friend Piotrus who started hailing Poland as a cultural luminary of the world and compare it with backward Muscovy. Although he still perseveres in his POV, I'm not going to tolerate nationalist-motivated revisionism. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 21:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see Piotrus starting to mention Poland in discussion page on Kievan Rus. Please point it to us.

--Molobo 22:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

When Piotrus set up a sect fact tag to point out to the disputed section it was removed. Will you agree to setting up it again over the disputed section of the article. --Molobo 20:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It was removed all right but refs were added at that time. --Irpen 20:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Refs were added only to population numbers which we were hardly disputing. --Molobo 20:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Also-are you going adress Ghirandajo over his bringing of Polish culture subject since you mistakenly believed it was my while it was him ? --Molobo 20:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I will reread the discussion and if you are right, I will talk to him. Please care to format your comments! --Irpen 20:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is where Ghirandajo started to bring Poland as subject [[43]] --Molobo 20:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you agree then to more general Sect Fact template over the disputed section rather then citatitons required tags ? --Molobo 20:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

When I tried to use a single, more general template, I was reverted [44]. Now, it is not that I doubt that the information in the article is true, but I want to see academic references for those facts. And by all means, there are many article I worked on - including most of my previous FAs - that do not use inline references and would need those templates too. Eventually all articles should be referenced as good as Katyn massacre. Incidentally, if you look at how that article was developed (for example here) you'll see that I added many fact templates to it, which were eventually repalced by proper citations. I'll certainly NOT mind if you are more active in using this template, on Poland-related (or other) articles. As for Halibutt's addition, I advised him to move it to mainspace (although not necessarily to that section). I think that articles tend to improve much more if they are edited by many people, and controverial articles attract more attention than the others.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Russia under the scepter of Romanovs 1613 - 1913

Thanks for the book. It was a long time since I had seen such amount of hatred for Poland combined with antipolish propaganda. I will add information from it to polonophobia article. Especially comic was the schocked statement that Poles didn't want to live under the benevolennt scepter of Russian emperor. I guess it was a Jesuit intrigue :D --Molobo 04:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Warsaw

Irpen, can we please make that article as balanced as possible? Molobo did not contribute to ths article, and trying to justify bad practices by what he does is completely out of order. Furthermore, it borders on WP:Point.

BTW, please archive more of your talk. The page is so long that editing it is very slow, on my computer at least.Balcer 19:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Rycina 1752 Palac Branickich.jpg

Please stop removing the source tag from the image Image:Rycina 1752 Palac Branickich.jpg and making remarks about "copyright paranoia". All images need to have a source, this one has no source and not even who the artist is. If a source is provided, then all is fine, until then this image will be tagged. Gryffindor 21:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please use some common sense. It is obvious that the image is old and no lawsuit is possible. As such, pls don't damage Wikipedia by tagging clearly OK images adding work to the editors who are busy enough in real life and want to use the time for content creation rather than fending off the self-appointed WP copyright police. I know that copyrights is a real issue. This image is not the case. --Irpen 21:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That is none of my concern. The image has no source, I do not see any proof that the image is old. If a source is found, the image may be uploaded again, but until then I am afraid the rules are quite clear. You are coming dangerously close to a three-revert edits violation, please stop. Gryffindor 21:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can't figure it that the image's old, I can't help. 3RR rule applies to everyone, yourself included. WP:IAR is a very important reminder and it is written exactly for cases like this. Pls no wikilawyering and use some common sense. If you have time on your hands, please help add content to WP rather than remove it. Removal has to be justified by some real danger. This vintage image doesn't pose any of it. I suggest you leave it alone. See m:Copyright paranoia. --Irpen 21:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, count me in for 3RR matters involving commons sense and paintings. I tried looking for the soure of this painting and couldn't find it - but we can as well assume it was a photo made by Witkacy or something. It is old and pd-art obviously applies.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I double that comment. Stop copyright paranoia! You could also try {{Art}} or {{fairuse}} - I can't see how the current use of this image doesn't fall under fair use (provided that copyrights other than PD apply at all!). --Misza13 ^{T C} 17:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Life is beautiful

Allow me to ... remind that life is beautiful. Smile!

Thanks! Yes indeed. Even the orchestra is beautiful! -Irpen 07:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Moscow

[45]. And why not "the Germans failed to break through"? //Halibutt

Because they were trhown off and never returned. And you of course hint to your ill-fated Volodarka crusade. There is a difference. In Volodarka, Soviets failed to break Polish defences but:

• everything returned pretty much to pre-battle positions
• That Soviets failed the first time didn't prevent them to advance into the territory in about a week later.

By your logic, all defences consist of defenders victories (how many, I wonder. As many as there are hours, minutes, or seconds?) How many Russian victories was there at Siege of Smolensk (1609-11) that Poles eventually captured?

I explained that to you earlier. Please stop pestering and please use descriptive section titles. How meaningful is LOL in TOC? --Irpen 13:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Football AID 9 April - 15 April

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

FC St. Pauli has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Привет

Благодарю за приглашение. Мне померещилось или право русская община на Вики захилела(кажется англоязычных статей о России и СССР порядком больше чем русских)? Crocodilicus 10:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Invasion

Before we start another revert war on List of invasions, please read carefully what our Invasion article says:

An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government. An invasion can be the cause of a war, it can be used as a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in and of itself.

Balcer 15:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You might also want to note that the 1945 invasion of Poland, Austria and Eastern Germany by the Soviet Union has long been listed on List of invasions, so your comment (by this token, there was '44-45 Soviet invasion of Germany. If someone invades and gets repelled, the second party is not invading) is out of place. Balcer 15:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Vorkuta

The Vorkuta article has been locked from editing. Discution continues at Talk:Vorkuta. -- Petri Krohn 15:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What the talk page is for

A friendly note: use Talk:Polish September Campaign page for discussion on Polish September Campaign. For discussions related to User:Halibutt use User talk:Halibutt. As simple as that. It keeps the talk pages clean from spam. //Halibutt 20:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! In which case what was this siblings thing? But anyway, I am happy that you think that way. --Irpen 04:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Polish September Campaign

Well, it's one of those neverending low intensity conflicts that have been going on for centuries in various parts of Europe. To quote Ogden Nash:

And so it goes for ages and eons 
Between these neighboring Europeans,
I hope that such perpetual motion 
Stays where it started, across the ocean.
:-)

Ahasuerus 20:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:85px-Adler.jpg

The version at Commons has no source information either. I came here from there. Jkelly 19:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you blanked this. In any case, the source that you provided has no information on the licensing of that image; where they took it form, when and where it was first published, or who the photographer was. In short, it isn't helpful in establishing whether or not the image can remain on Commons. Jkelly 20:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I blanked the exchange that has no info and no value and I responded in the edit summary. I keep any criticism in my talk and in archives and you can check it. I don't need to keep the exchanges that are pointless. But since you are willing to make a ethics issue out of this, I will sure keep it from now on, don't worry.

The m:Copyright paranoia is very tiresome. This image is clearly an OK one. Old enough so that there is no threat of the infringement lawsuite against Wiki foundation. Too bad that some overzealous users turn themsleves into a self-appointed Copyright police and aggressively tag clearly harmless and non-threatening images endangering the WP content and adding work to people who would like to write some content during the time the real life leaves them for Wikipedia. Besides, this image is plastered all over internet and you can't really claim that every and each site it is posted owns its copyright. If you really have so much time on yout hands, please spend it on looking for sources of really problematic images. Not the images like this one. Or spend time yourself on finding a source of this image and a copyright excuse that would satisfy you. That would be much more productive for the community than your actions that cause a content removal and/or extra work for the others. --Irpen 19:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Please help

Hi Irpen,

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

• Chişinău
• Romanians
• Eastern Romance languages
• User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry
• User:Chisinau
• Republic of Moldova
• War of Transnistria
• Bukovina
• Moldavian SSR

Please contact other people if you feel that it's necessary, thank you. —Khoikhoi 19:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Will do. --Irpen 19:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Irpen. Yes we have met before. However, I do not understand why you say that "You are free to provide any valid and referenced criticism to census results and I said so earlier here". Who decides what I am free or what I am not free to do? I think I do. About what you said before about the "official data" and that "the reader is not supposed to see the interpretations of this and that wiki user", I think that in this case Wiki rules on official data "have to be used with care" as argued by the international observers to the census. In fact the sentence "have to be used with care" is taken verbatum from what those observers said. They ment it exclusively in cases like these when we try to provide a reader with info on Moldova. The CIA world factbook seems to have taken the advice. Why can't we?

I am going to re-restore those pages and hopefully, next time we can have a civilized discussion on the matter at hand. I also, just like you, do not want to turn this into a revert war and a means for sockpuppets to get the attention they want. Constantzeanu 00:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Tag

The "dubious" tag is exactly what is needed, thanks. As this quote is given pride of place in the article, we really ought to have certainty that it has been translated correctly. Furthermore, the very placement of the quote is highly unusual, and almost certainly violates Wikipedia's manual of style. But then again, that is to be expected in an article that is a monument to POV. Balcer 01:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, articles on such topics are always problematic (see e.g. Polonophobia). We should at least make sure they are precise on facts because we will never make them fully neutral in any reasonable future. I support your call for an exact source of the quote. OTOH, I don't find it unbelievable and I would expect the source will sun be given. --Irpen 01:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I can also believe that there might have been some people in the Polish military who would have considered an alliance with Germany against the USSR one answer to Poland's foreign policy dilemmas. It is their views which might be reflected in this quote. However, nothing came of this. Poland did not participate in any partition of Russia. The quote as currently presented does not make this clear, and thus could mislead the reader. Especially as it is followed by another similarly framed quote describing German views which were put into practice extensively, and were not hypothetical at all. Still, if the quote is genuine, and if it is accompanied by a proper explanation (which right now is utterly missing), I would not have any objection to including it.

But first we need to be sure that is has been correctly translated, and does not contain any POV laden terms inserted via multiple translations (Polish->Russian->English, if that is what took place). Balcer 02:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, please let me know how much time should be given for the concerns about the quote to be addressed? Will it just carry the disputed tag permanently? So far Ghirlandajo who put in the quote has had ample time to at least enter into the discussion about it, and so far he has not. If a quote is considered unreliable, and the editor who inserted it refuses to provide information to confirm its reliability, surely it must be removed at some point. At the very least it can be placed in the discussion until the necessary confirmation is supplied. Balcer 13:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, dubious info I tagged in Polish article is still there some after months and I haven't deleted it yet. Please give at least some reasonable time. Only info that not only unrefed but incredulous should be deleted. This is not the case. --Irpen 16:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Football AID 16 April - 22 April

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

Ukrainian Premier League has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Fantana Alba

It was a clear massacre by any definition: shooting of a crowd, just like Bloody Sunday `'mikka (t) 19:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, provided the facts are true, which I have no reason to doubt. It's just that such titles create bad precedents. All the info about the crime can be conveyed by the article under a less drammatic title. More here and here. --Irpen 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Chişinău

In response to this, I was just trying to work out a compromise so Constantzeanu wouldn't revert again. I did it based on mikka's edit here. —Khoikhoi 01:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the way towards compromise is to add referenced discussion of the census flaws to the article. However, the census doesn't have a combined figure for "Romanians/Moldovans". As such, the article can't say that it does. Whether those are indeed a single nation is a worthy topic and belongs to a separate article. The census treats them separately and the article giving census numbers should just give them as they are. --Irpen 02:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, cool. —Khoikhoi 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Khatyn

Since we are trying to neutralize controversial articles, I would like to point out the Khatyn massacre article, and in particular your recent edit. Why do you think it warranted to remove any mention of the fact that some people believe the close resemblance of Khatyn and Katyn names is not a coincidence, but that in fact Khatyn was chosen on purpose out of hundreds of massacred Belarusian villages, to score a propaganda point? You don't even want to allow that this was a possibility. Do you really think the resemblance is pure, innocent coincidence?

Anyway, even if you disagree with this, the whole idea of NPOV is that all valid points of view are discussed. So, could we at least work into the article the statements along the lines: "some people believe the choice of Khatyn as the main war memorial in Belarus had political motives, while others believe it was just a coincidence".

Incidentally, now that Ghirlandajo has moved Khatyn to Khatyn Massacre, I am assuming you will no longer complain about the use of the word massacre in article titles. Unless of course you don't support Ghirlandajo's move, in which case I invite you to move the article back. Balcer 04:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think both articles should be under the Khatyn and Katyn names respectively. I will raise this issue on occasion. Would you agree?

In the edit you pointed out I simply reverted the change by Rydel to a previous version. He imposed his change ignoring the ongoing talk page discussion. --Irpen 05:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, I think the word "massacre" can be used in article titles when warranted. There is no reason to make a rule to exclude it in all cases. I also have no problem with the title Khatyn massacre (and My Lai Massacre, Wounded Knee Massacre etc etc). I brought the issue up because I wanted to know what you think about it, in the context of this article. I am glad you are consistent in your views, as it makes discussions with you much easier.

Anyway, I am assuming then that you have no objection in principle against mentioning the possibility that Khatyn was selected for political reasons. One description of this viewpoint is contained here. Would you accept a section containing information along those lines? How do you feel about the issue personally? Balcer 05:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, my view is that Massacres and Genocides in titles should be used only when there are no good alternative titles. Here, since the places are mostly known by these events, the solution to use just placenames exists. The message on whether something was indeed a massacre or a genocide can be conveyed to the reader from the article itself. There is no need to send this message from a title. Besides, for almost every massacre and genocide there is a POV that this wasn't one. Such debate need to be presented in the article text and, the title should not prejudge such discussion.

I honestly never thought about the connection between the two. I view Khatyn as well as other similar actions by Nazis as a horrific crime. Debate on the Soviets picking this one may be mentioned provided it doesn't make half-an-article which would be difficult now, while the article is small. Similar debate about whether Holodomor was a genocide is presented in the Holodomor article along even with the lunatic view that Holodomor never happened or was caused by natural reasons. However, the Holodomor article is sufficiently detailed on the events to accord some space to such discussion and such discussion don't obscure the info about the Holodomor itslef. In Khatyn we may get the article about the massacre almost entirely devoted to the speculations about its role in the Soviet propaganda. --Irpen 05:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I happen to differ here. Regardless of the moral weight of certain words (and especially their usage in article titles), moving the article on Katyn massacre to Katyn is not a good option. Firstly, the article describes a much wider phenomenon, associated with the village of Katyn in general knowledge, but not limited to it. If we were to rename the article on Katyn massacre, or rather merge it with the article on the village, then it would have to be split onto the articles on Kharkov, NKVD, Kiev, Lvov, Piatikhatki, Kozelsk, Gnezdovo, Ostashkov, Brest-Litovsk, Minsk and perhaps a dozen other articles, as the name of the entire phenomenon was coined after a single village, but the phenomenon itself was not limited to it. On the other hand Khatyn was related to a single place in the world and I would not oppose merging the article on the village with the article on what happened there. However, I would also not oppose leaving it as it is - provided that the name of "Khatyn massacre" exists anywhere outside of Wikipedia. //Halibutt 16:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverts at Uprising of Khotin

This is your Very Sterm Warning re WP:3RR at Uprising of Khotin. Please don't do it, no matter how correct you are. And I suppose a reminder about no-ownership-of-articles, too. But since I've protected the article you escape a block William M. Connolley 18:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have to (partially) take that back. You have 3R, not 4. Apologies. Mikkalai has unprotected the page, so I'm going to leave it at that. William M. Connolley 20:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

William, I have not even 3 but only two reverts. I only reverted two times within 24 hours and even those where to remove the trollish unexplained tag. No matter how right I felt I would have never violated the 3RR. If dealing with good faith users, I try to avoid reverting at all as much as possible. Blocking a user or even leaving an warning message with an accusatory edit summary at someone's talk should not be taken lightly without studying the matter. I provided a detailed analysis here. I hope now, once we are clear about the facts, we can move on to creating content. Please be careful about strangely placed compliants with ommitted time stamps and placed clearly by someone's socks. --Irpen 00:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I still maintain that you have 3 reverts, so we're not quite clear on the facts. Bear that in mind when getting close to 3RR - people don't always agree, and you may get an unpleasant surprise William M. Connolley 08:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Like I did :( Better err on the side of caution, Irpen - that's my good hearted advice.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you had 4. Read the rules :-( (especially the bit I added just recently :-) William M. Connolley 15:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

William, I had not 4 and not 3 but only 2 reverts according even to the strictest rules. I analyzed this in every detail here. The whole matter is now well behind and the issue is moot anyway, since 1) there was never 4 edits, let alone reverts, within 24 hours; 2) Even though 2 per day is better to avoid, I was clearly dealing with a bad faith editor who refused to talk; 3) My opponent was obviously a sock on a mission to provoke me into 3RR which he failed anyway. The bottomline is in the end of my message at the 3RR board. --Irpen 23:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Strasveti Irpen

FYI: Predictions of Soviet collapse.Travb 07:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria stub

Maybe of interest to you ... there is a discussion on Wikipedia:Stub_types_for_deletion (scroll down to April 20, Transnistria) about the Transnistria-stub and I am the only one who is participacing who has even the slightest knowledge of the region. You may want to chip in with your own view of the situation. So far, I am the only outsider who is replying to the "Stub Gods". - Mauco 12:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Football AID 30 April - 6 May

Thank you for participating in the Football AID vote this week.

History of the FIFA World Cup has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Mediation request

Sorry that I have neglected to respond further to Piotrus' request for mediation, back at the end of March. I've been drawn away from Wikipedia by other responsibilities and don't expect to spend much time back here for a while yet. Apologies and best regards, —Michael Z. 2006-05-03 15:20 Z

Thanks!!!

Thanks so much for the recognition. I appreciate it very much, and it means a little more comming from you, since you are an editor whose work I admire. I hope I can live up to the high standards of WP in the future, and I hope we can work together on more Ukraine-related tpoics. Thanks again. Kevlar67 23:36, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Kostomarov

Sorry, I had no intention to contribute to the article on Kostomarov. I merely pointed to the fact that the guy represented quite a one-sided view on history and that much of what he wrote (and of what you quoted as a source) is factually inaccurate. So far I didn't have time to finish the chapter. It is fascinating as a monument to Russian vision of history, but I simply left for the weekend (a German wikipedians' meeting on Usedom island) and did not return until 4am today.

As to EB being a decent source - I admit I have (rather bad) experience only with EB1911, which is not a best source for the history of Central Europe as it is known to reflect only the Russian 19th-centurish view and for a complete disregard on other views. I hope modern EB is better than its predecessor. Anyway, I always prefer to discuss original sources rather than other encyclopedias, as it is easier to check the sources the author used - and the author himself. Cheers! Halibutt 00:47, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedias simply represent modern mainstream version of its time. If modern EB says that PSW started from Kiev offensive we cannot just say in WP that it started from Vilnius. This is the sense it is important. We can present EB's version along with the other, but we cannot present a version that contradicts EB as the mainstream and discount EB as erroneous. Again, if EB says that the Polish goal of the war was to "seize UA" we cannot just say that its goal was UA's independence. We can say, that there is a dispute but something being in EB means that this is mainstream, or at least one of several mainstream versions.

You may not be ineterested in Kostomarov's article. That's fine. I just want to move the lengthy talk to where it is relevant and that's why I am asking you. I would be interested to know what you say when you finish it. I would like to reply to what you already said but I would like to do it at a diffrent talk page. That's why I asked whether you would mind if I move the material. --Irpen 01:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind at all, feel free to move it. However, since you used his vision for support of your arguments at the discussion on the history of Kiev, then perhaps leavcing a part of it there might be appropriate as well. After all the fact that the guy saw practically everything as a means of oppression (even the Magdeburg Law - lol) is quite relevant to that discussion. Halibutt 01:39, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

As to other encyclopedias - here we differ. For me other encyclopedias - even as acclaimed as the EB - are written by people like you or me, who have their own views and the articles they produce are still more of their own selection of facts than representation of mainstream history. Especially that the current mainstream history of PBW is published in Polish and Russian and not in English. Hence, the (unsourced) claim that the Polish aim was to conquer the Ukraine might be simply a mistake, a reflection of authors' views, a reflection of Russian sources rather than Polish or Ukrainian, or for instance, a bad wording (the term used as a short for capture militarily and pass it over to Ukrainian authorities). All in all, IMHO encyclopedias can be used as a decent way to cross-check the wikipedia articles, but they are hardly sources of their own - and should not be used as conclusive in determining such crucial issues as the aims of the war - especially that we have plenty of original documents to work with. Halibutt 01:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Why are you lying?

The source that is available online says clearly that it was a Polish victory. So, in fact it's not that it's my conclusion, it's Fudakowski's conclusion. Halibutt 04:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Watch your tongue! Now to the point. I explained what's wrong with using Fudakowski's conclusions. His descriptions are interesting to get some small detail not an overall picture. The other source (an academic one indeed), calls this "failure". It is your concsusion that failure is so significant as to qualify for a defeat. I disagree. Why don't you mention what Davies says about it, BTW? Back to your "lying". If you want to turn this into an ethics dispute, I will only welcome it. You know how to start an RfC, don't you? If this just accidentally slips, watch yourself. --Irpen 04:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• One source calls it a victory
• You say that no source calls it a victory
• You lie.

Also, from now on I'm stopping to watch your talk page. As a sign of courtesy you could reply at my talk page. Halibutt 21:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Check again WP:Civil. An academic source does not call it a victory. The one that does is, as I explained, not credible in this respect for two reasons. If you cite that Davies also agrees that it is a defeat, I will accept it. --Irpen 21:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

As to your words that seem a lie to me, you might not like one source for this or that reason (for instance that the author was too young to see what happened or too close to the battle to tell the result), but you cannot decline that the source exists. And this is exactly what you suggested.

Because, as I already pointed out (three times in a row, if memory serves me right), I don't have Davies' book at home. So, contrary to your allusions, I don't simply "refuse to say what Davies says", in fact I don't know. Halibutt 22:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Very well, could you ask Piotrus to check then? As I said, I will accept the Davies' version. I thought you said you don't have Davies in English but have him in Polish. So, I assumed you cold check that. --Irpen 22:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The Chernihiv issue

Hi there, Irpen! First of all, thank you for your kind words on my "Siege of..." articles. I hope they won't be badly butchered by our Polish wikipedians :). As for the voting, I really feel that some admin or sysop (whatever they're called) should intervene and sort out this mess with sock puppets and one-time visitors. Otherwise, this voting doesn't make any sense and will have to be moved to arbitration committee or something. Btw, was this AndriyK blocked? Do you know? Take care and I'll see you in the Russian Portal, as always. KNewman 18:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

He was blocked and not once by now, but his blocks already expired and he can edit now. --Irpen

Just wanted to add that admins can't really check if a user is a sockpuppet. I left a message to David Gerard, one of the few people with the CheckUser capability. I wouldn't hold my breath for him to review this request any time soon, but at least he did not decline it right away. If that fails, ArbComm might be the only option.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I am prepared to go for ArbCom on the issue as way as in general against the user who made all this trouble. This is, however, rather time consuming. OTOH, recruiting voters at forums popular among the Russian chauvinists may result in future debates that would be even more time consuming. Personally, I prefer the ArbCom as I explained earleir. --Irpen 07:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

PMW

If I should revert this or not. Ghirlandajo comment, unsuprisingly, is not helpful. What do you think? In other news, I have been thinking about making our EENoticeboard more active. One thing that would be useful would be a listing of pages with disputes involving our editors (like currently Międzymorze, and maybe others I might be interested in but am not aware of). We can also have a list of past discussions with a summary of a compromise reached (like on Domeyko and Polish-Soviet War). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

While I disagree with a comment in the edit summary, I am not so clear about the phrase itself as I've said at the article's talk. Ghirlandajo's change about what the day means in Russia now is certainly correct. We are only talking about the phrase regarding the Polish interpretation of that and I am not clear of it. Did you mean that it is interpreted as such in Poland now because the events it is connected to happened at the time of the Polish intervention? Or do you mean that in today's climate the relationships are so strained that, therefore, it is interpreted as such? Since it was not clear to me, the phrase probably needs changed in any case (that is if it's kept, of course).

I am all for the EE board revival despite there was a Polish editor who at some article (I forgot which one) argued whether the PL is EE on the first place. The braoder attention to PSW and PMW would certainly help. Some discussions are still not resolved (like the Volodarka one which was decided by a vote tally when the result 3:1 was not statistically significant, it's not 30:10, but I just got tired of that)

As for Miedzymorze, this is a serious issue too. While "imperilism" name isn't neutral, much of this article is about expansionism rather than just the Miedzymorze, and this would benefit from discussions.

What's your take on the Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Geographic names discussion. I think we are close to a good proposal (the last version). Regards, --Irpen 02:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for copying the responce to my talk page, I don't check other people's talk pages for replies. I meant that today's relationship are so strained that this festivity in Moscow was viewed by many Polish commentators as a Putin government message to Polish government ('we don't like you'). I wonder how it was viewed by Russian commentators? It certainly was (for a few days) hotly debated in Poland (IIRC). As for Poland being in CE/EE, I think many would say it is in CE - while I think that the correct answer is that it is in both, and serves as a bridge. If you could add the links of those discussions to our board, it would surely increase its usefulness. I will check the discussion soon, tnx for the note. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Map was done by Halibutt, and it is still beta. Feel free to nag him to do a new, better version :) I just got tired of waiting :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Naming rules

Why I insist on stricter naming rules. This is specifically important from Polish perspective. As you know, territory of Poland was shifted a lot after WW2. Now, having the naming rules defined will not allow the Polish more nationalistic editors for the schizophrenic behaviour they are exercising now, where they would like to see more historical names in the East, while at the same time insisting on the modern Polish names in the west of the country. Generally, most of the towns in northern and western Poland has their German names, while also most of the countries in Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine have Polish names. That is why I'm against "leaving it up to the authors". I think it should be set either one or another way. --Lysy ^(talk) 00:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree with you about strict rules in the first line. I just think it would be harder to define strict rules for the inside the text usage. That's what I meant at the discussion page. --Irpen 00:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Please pay attention: lies is against WP policy

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Civility#Examples.

As I pointed you out many times, the city name Chernihiv is applied by creadible English-language sources to all periods of history: [46], [47], [48], [49], [50] [51], [52].

Why do you misinform other users telling that it's "anachronism". Don't you have a better argument except lies?--AndriyK 16:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I have shown you repeatedly that Chernigov is preferred in historic context. I replied to that links list of yours where you posted it originally at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Geographic_names#Text_of_the_Article. Too bad you don't read replies to your messages at talk pages. Also, no need to post something twice at my talk. One time is sufficient since I pay my undivided attention to your opinions. --Irpen 16:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You lie again! You did not show me that "Chernigov is preferred in historic context". You've cited something using both"Chernigov" and "Chernihiv" without any reference to the source.

Even if other sources use "Chernigov", this is not a reason to to call "Chernihiv" "anachronism". Or you pretend to be more competent in modern English than the authors and editorial board members of the sources I cited above?--AndriyK 16:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sigh, I explained at the talk page linked above everything that needed to be said on that. I appreciate your posting of a WP:NPOV link at several talk and discussion pages. It is indeed a very useful reading. You may also consult WP:Civil, another pillar of WP. --Irpen 16:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

AndriyK, you don't think "Oleg of Chernihiv" is an anachronism? You've been occupying lots of editors' energy with fabrications like this.

Regarding civility, a bald-faced accusation of lying looks pretty hypocritical and uncultured to me. The exclamation point really adds class. —Michael Z. 2005-11-7 17:00 Z

No, I do not conbsider Oleg of Chernihiv is anachronism. Why should it be anachronism if creadible English-language sources apply Chernihiv exactly to the times of Oleg's life? If you have any conter-arguments, I would be glad to see them.

Exclamation signs is not so bad as lies. Please note, I am not the first one who mentioned that Irpen lies. (See above).--AndriyK 17:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

AndriyK, voting at talk:Oleg of Chernihiv have shown that Wikipedians somehow see this an anachronism and most of those who think optherwise are recruited by you absentee voters with no clue of the issue, just like those recruited by Yanuk and his fellow criminals in former zlochynna vlada. As for the real academic specialists, read my response to you at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Geographic_names#Text_of_the_Article as well as what almost every Wikipedian who established himslef my his contributions have been telling you. And please discuss things at the relevant talk pages, so that more editors can see you.

By your "you lies!" BS you are just making a fool of yourself. Better yet, do it at more public discussion pages than at my talk. OTOH, I do not object to your using my talk for showing off and I did not delete any of your comments so far from it. --Irpen 17:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I copied your answer because the discussion is not about the naming convention but rather about your dispute style and your ignoring of facts.--AndriyK 18:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

AndriyK, too bad that when you decided to join the discussion, your input is mainly a twist and a personal attack.

As for the links you posted, several are just WP mirrors that prove nothing. Link to Encartha is a dead link and I can't check it. PDF file from fco.gov.uk indeed uses Chernihiv for historic times, but it is hardly an academic publication and more like a CIA fact book (still notable but would be more important if it was a book by a historian). Your link to Britannica disproves your point more than it proves it. Yes, EB uses Chernihiv in Chernihiv article but, as I have shown at Talk:Chernihiv#Britannica.27s_use_in_historical_context, EB uses Chernigov in the articles of every historical person (and there are several articles like that).

The whole point about the text usage, is not about manipulating, but about writing articles. I wrote the Chernihiv article and you came in and the only thing you did was name manipulation. That's why a proposed an additional ethics rule at EE portal but too bad you don't support that because otherwise you would have to write things in order to see your favorite names, much harder than edit warring. You started to write an article about the principality and you started to use Chernihiv there. Too bad you abandoned that. The flexible rule might have allowed you to keep it but I guess writing articles is just too hard and not very interesting. --Irpen 01:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This was you who started a personal attack on me instead of discussing the naming convention.

There was only one WP-mirror. I replaced it and added one more.

The Encarta link is not dead. Just pay $5 and you will read the ancient history of Chernihiv..

Why don't comment on the Columbia Encyclopedia?

You do not consider the publication by Eastern Research group of British Foreign and Commonwealth office as academic? What is more academic then? Do you think the people there do not have degrees in history or related areas? You just do not want to accept facts. This is the reason.

The new reference I added is a publication by historians.

I tried to write an article and I immediuately got your message that it'll be listed for renaming. That is the reason why I gave up until the issue is solved. Another my article was vandalized by your friend Ghirlandajo several times. As I learned from the WP-mirrors Chernihiv was used much more frequengtly in WP articles several month ago. Who replaced it with Chernigov without writing new articles? And now you blame me for "manipulating"!--AndriyK 18:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that Encarta's is invalid, I said that I cannot comment until I read it. The link you posted was not to an abstract which can be expaned upon supscription but to an error message. Maybe it is an Encarta's bug. I will check the new links you posted and will comment on them at Talk:Chernihiv. I don't know what you mean by learning of the past usage at Wikipedia from mirrors. All histories in WP are available as only the stuff like copyvios (like what you or your buddy used to add), threatening texts and other similarly inappropriate stuff are deleted from history too. Chernihiv article was written by me from scratch as you can check here and later expanded by other editors. You don't need to go to mirrors to find this out, check the histories. I have elaborated on Britannica's usage at Talk:Chernihiv#Britannica.27s_use_in_historical_context. I have elaborated on the Church debates at the appropriate talk pages too. Take the discussion there, so that others can see it if you have anything more to say.

You are wasting yours and my time by limiting this just to me and by trying to make your position more convinsing through a name calling or resorting to the Party of Regions tactics of recruiting absentee voters and/or revert warriors that would, like this user wrote "shoot under your command" (I hope they didn't use sockpuppets for that, I will try my best to have this whole matter indestigated). Your time will be used more effectively if you debate this at article's talk and see whether it is just me, or others too find your arguments unconvinsing. --Irpen 19:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Oleg of Chernihiv

Please think once more. Is it nice to have one spelling in the title and another one is the article?--AndriyK 20:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Current spelling of the title is caused by the rigged voting. Judging from the edit histories of the voters, more than a half of the voters that supported your moves are those recruited by you at Maidan and asked to vote a specific way. I am going to bring this issue up to have these votes suppressed or the results overturned or revoted and your behaviour sanctioned as soon as I get to this.

I have told you that I was surprized to see a Ukrainian patriot using himself the absentee voters tactics copied from Yanukovych's presidential campaign and urged those who opposed you not to respond your fraudulent action by similar calls at different internet forums.

In any case, you cannot force the results of the rigged vote on the usage in general. When and if real Wikipedians rather than those brought to help in revert wars and voting (and who left until the next call), so when and if real Wikipedians start to see that Oleg of Chernihiv is more appropriate, the usage will smoothly evolve as it did for Luhansk, Kharkiv, etc (with my direct involvement in the moves of these pages). However, I doubt that Oleg of Chernihiv will ever be used. If the English language usage ever switches to Ukrainian terminology, he will be called Oleh of Chernihiv. --Irpen 20:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If you doubt the validity of the vote, please provide the reference to WP Policies confirming your assertions. In any case, the present title of the article is Oleg of Chernihiv. Is it nice to use another spelling in the text?--AndriyK 09:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not only nice, it is necessary.

Why have you removed that spelling completely in your edits? I'll never understand you fanatics, with a policital agenda or whatever your reasons are, who want to hide this information from people using search engines, using the quite common names they already know. Why in the world do you want to do that? Gene Nygaard 21:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I just would like to make Wikipedia conforming other modern English language encyclopedias. Concerning the altenative spelligs, they can be listed in the article.

There are also redirect pages with alternative spellings, so nothing is hidden from search engines.--AndriyK 11:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Holodomor

So, I was right about the ensuing battle for Holodomor, wasn't I? Sashazlv 06:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

You were! What do you think of it? On another issue, I would like to finish over the weekend. Drop me a note if you have any suggestions or drafts. --Irpen 06:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid not much can be done against a gang of schizophrenics. This shows how far they are willing to go. Just another example that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don't have the means to respond adequately.

I am now inclined to think that there are more productive ways to spend my time rather than participating in edit wars and trying to devise arguments for people who wouldn't listen anyway. I have much work to do elsewhere.

Don't cast your pearls before swine. Sashazlv 14:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

So, where do we go from here? I originally thought, and I am still inclined to think, that AA may have his heart on the right spot. But, somebody prescribe him valium and give him a book on basic logic. It's very frustrating. But, I am not yielding, I think discussing holocaust denial for almost ten years has given me the required stamina... Dietwald 20:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks for pointing out what's going on there. I may need support, though. Dietwald 20:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Polish invasion of Russia

Not long ago you did not believe that creation of the "Polish Imperialism" redirect was a purposeful provocation by Ghirlandajo. I'm curious to see your opinion now, after a new redirect of his: Polish invasion of Russia. --Lysy ^(talk) 10:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Would you be willing to mediate the case ? I feel a bit uneasy doing this myself, as G. tends to call all Polish editors "nationalists" and I'd prefer to avoid this sort of discussion if possible. --Lysy ^(talk) 21:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree with this redirect and I would be willing to mediate but it isn't very likely that all sides accept me as a mediator. Personally, I think that the "Polish Invasion of Russia" should be used for a different war, that it the Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618). Reasons I outlined at that article's talk as well as the other alternative name (Russo-Polish War). --Irpen 23:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediation process, maybe?

Hi Irpen, please see my message Edit wars on the Talk:Oleg of Chernihiv page.

Copied my reply from there: Nonetheless it doesn't stop you guys from revertwarring, and you all but stopped commenting on the WNC/GN page. This is unacceptable, especially from the experienced editors who should well know better then disrupt Wiki. I'd like to propose a solution till a consensus is worked on WNC/GN: let one party have its way with names from A to M, and another with N to Z. Otherwise I will consult several admins and propose that we PUT ALL AFFECTED PAGES INTO PROTECTION until you reach an agreement.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Copied a part of my reply from there: the A to M and N to Z idea is certainly unacceptable as a WP rule. Still, it's quite reasonable as a temporal solution to stop the edit war. From this point, I stop correcting/reverting the names that start with the letters from the second part of the alphabet (i.e from N to Z). This is also a good occasion to see whether the opposite party is able to accept any compromise in principle, or the edit waring is the primary goal of Irpen and alike.--AndriyK 09:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Coppied from the Ghirladajo's talk: I didn't start the war to stop it. If you don't revert an article, there will no more edit warring. It is as simple as that. Anyway, as I fully trust user:Irpen, I'm prepared to accept any compromise approved by him. --Ghirlandajo 11:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I am waiting for your answer. Do you accept any compropmize in principle? The let's agree for this temporal compromize and find the final solution by developing WP:NC/GN--AndriyK 15:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree on A-M, N-Z bs. I agree to discuss the naming convention and I am discussing it already. However, all versions there, so far, include historical usage, where appropriate. I am prepared to go to arbitration regarding your frivolous bad-faith page moving, redirect creation, vote fraud, copyright violations, disruptive behavior and personal attacks (including off-site forums). --Irpen 15:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

So you prefer to continue the edit war.--AndriyK 15:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I prefer to deal with your behavior in the way prescribed by the policies. I described your offences above. I haven't seen any change and/or appology. I agree on specific resolutions topic by topic, like St V's. As for your general pattern, you simply can't do this and come back and say "let's negotiate". Neither you would undo your frivolous moves/redirects, nor you would admit to vote fraud and appologize, nor would you appologize for the personal attacks. At least not yet. --Irpen 15:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to repeat once more "If you doubt the validity of the vote, please provide the reference to WP Policies confirming your assertions. If you cannot confirm your assertion, please stop slandering."--AndriyK 16:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I will provide the evidence of this as well as of other policy and ethics violations by you soon, don't worry. And I don't mean just the two moves where you engaged into vote fraud. Others are made in a simial bad faith. As for "slandering", that's really funny to hear that from you. --Irpen 16:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

And when this "soon" is going to happen? You have been slandering since 9th of November 2005. You have had enough time to provide referencies.--AndriyK 16:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Józef Piłsudski's forces plundering of the Western Ukraine

No, I'm not troubled about it being mentioned as long as you think this is credible. I'm only interested to learn more and would be happy to see some sources supporting it, other than magazine articles. I don't have any sources that would be useful WRT whether there was siginficant plundering or not. What is plundering anyway ? Civilians killed or raped ? Villages burnt ? I hope Poles did not do it, especially that Piłsudski apparently respected Ukrainians, but it would be good to know. You said you'll try to research this when you have time and that's fine with me. Thanks. --Lysy ^(talk) 21:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too

Thanks Irpen. І Вас з Новим Роком! Веселих Свят! Ukrained 00:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Happy New Year! C Новым Годом! З Новим Роком! abakharev 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's to the happier one, Irpen! to you and yours - from me and mine :) thank you, so much. - Introvert ^talk 00:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Irpen. I'm adding my thanks and best wishes also. May 2006 be a good year for you and your close ones ;) mno 01:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Joining to everybody in thanks and wish you to keep up your titanic work! З Новим Роком і Різдвом!--Bryndza 02:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not New Year for another four hours, but it's New Year by wiki time. Happy New Year! --Berkut 04:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

З новим роком. Thanks for adding an entry on my talk page ^^ -Iopq 06:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to see you around too! Happy New Year! 172 07:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Спасибо, Ирпенюшка! Тебя также с праздниками! А газ им всё-таки отключили... KNewman 08:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

very thoughtful of you:) Best wishesDietwald 19:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Irpen. Щасливого нового pокy!--SylwiaS | talk 19:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Best regards and thanks for the congratulation. I just want to let you know that after reading the replies on Zach's discussion page, I have decided to suspend my participation until the issue with advertisements gets clarified. My impression is that they (administrators) discussed it amongst themselves and agreed it would be "a lesser evil" to keep things going. As soon as the first ad is posted, I will quit permanently. I feel I was cheated out. Sashazlv 20:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy New Year to you, too ! --Lysy ^(talk) 20:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Спасибо за поздравление! И тебя тоже с праздником!--Pecher 19:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Unwarranted warnings

Perhaps you need to make sure that you compare the original with the current text in Ukrainian language prior to posting and reposting ridiculous warnings. There is no even remote semblance of copyright violation. Just imagination.--Andrew Alexander 08:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I did compare with the original. I will not be "reposting", I said enough. I just wanted to make sure you are aware of the problem with the text you keep restoring. --Irpen 08:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please post the results in that case here or on the discussion page. Which words or sentences are the same? Always ready to correct those problems.--Andrew Alexander 08:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

What I would like to do first of all, is to restore much of the removed information from the article deleted by your now blocked friend as well as by yourself. I made a committment to myself to get back to this article once the arbitration is over. If my expansion of the article will prompt a discussion and in the end it would be decided to restore the phrases you "borrowed" from wumag, we will discuss their modifications. I will need a little time to go over several months of edits to not forget good faith changes of so many users to be included. --Irpen 08:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Verkhovna Rada building, 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 support

Hi Irpen,

Thank you for your support with Novostroika. I admit there's a lot of issues with the article, and my comments on the request to delete page was that they're free to do as they wish. I am generally disappointed with the state of wikipedia, where if information is not necessarily relevat it is deleted rather than changed/moved. Best, mno 20:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

I like help out where I can. You've done some good work here. Tufkaa 04:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Avhustyn Voloshyn

Take a look there should be expanded, but some heavy POV-pushing is going on. (I started to neturalise it) --Kuban Cossack 22:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

PLC refs

I really want to thank you for going over the article and pointing out where online citations are needed. On this subject, could you provide a link for your (I think) ref #7 (Britannica, Union of Lublin - middle of the 2nd lead para)? Btw, you've called my request for citation for Kiev Rus 'pestering' yet you have asked for same data in the PLC article. As I have provided that date for PLC article, can I assume you'll go back and add the relevant citation to the KR article? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There is an important difference. PLC is a FAC and Kievan Rus needs much more basic work than referencing of a well known info. While useful, it is not the most productive way to spend time. We live in a real world with real time contraints. More at Talk:Cossack#Alliance is a POV, Talk:Kievan Rus'#Common sense in tags demanding for refs. --Irpen 07:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you a serious editor?

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability carefully. Now you have to options:

1. Act as a serious editor: replace the {{fact}} template by a reference confirming your statement about Stalinist style of the Verkhovna Rada building or remove the unsourced information;
2. Or you can proceed in your usual way: start a new edit war [53] for removing the {{fact}} template and ask your pals to participate [54]. Than you may blame your opponents for rusophobia, nationalism etc., as you usually do.

What will you choose this time?--AndriyK 19:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop pestering either at Verkhovna Rada or at Vasyl Stus or at other articles. Write article rather than troll around trying to drain those you view as "enemies" into the tiredom. Any article can be disrupted by continues pestering disguised as "calling for sources". Often reasonable, requests for sources should not be used as as tool to disrupt. Any number of fact tags may be thrown into any articles at any time. There is a difference between legitimate discussion and trolling presented as "requests to cite sources". Don't disrupt Wikipedia. There is such a thing as Common sense. While indeed hard to strictly define, it is useful to remember that such notion exists. Most reasonable people can agree on things and this creates a set of implied rules called ethics. While impossible to define and write as specifically as wikipololicies, Wikipedia will stop functioning if more users start behaving like yourself. Please reconsider. It is very disruptive and harmful for the project.

And don't resort to your usual "it's all your fault thingy". You really don't want to bring this up to the wider community to decide who is at fault here. I am not threatening you with another formal action. I don't want to fight with you or take any such steps because it is time-consuming, nerve-wrecking and, I think, your contributions may be potentially useful for the project. You've got answers at both talk pages, Now, please give a thought to my suggestions and do some new content editing instead of fighting all the time. At least you wrote an Vasyl Stus article now. That's already something. --Irpen 20:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Would not it better to give a single reference instead of writing two long paragraphs about ethics, Common sense and bla-bla-bla? Or you do not have any reference and the "Stalinist style" of the Verkhovna Rada building is just your own fantasy?--AndriyK 12:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"Any article can be disrupted by continues pestering disguised as "calling for sources""
"Any number of fact tags may be thrown into any articles at any time."
This is exactly what your friend does [55].--AndriyK 16:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo

I've just blocked Molobo and he isn't taking it well. Oddly enough. If you felt like having a word over at his talk page I'd be grateful, as you've been a moderating influence in the past, I think (I'm not very sure how the factions or whatever around this line up, so please forgive me if I'm embarassing myself here). If you have any comments on his block, I'll listen (reply here, SVP) William M. Connolley 22:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

William, thanks for your message. I will try my best to help sort all this mess out. I am out of time right now being busy at work, but I will be able to help I am sure. In the meanwhile, Molobo's block may help to cool off some passions as well as Molobo's head too. I think he hates me less than many of his other opponents, if at all, and I also want to end this mess. More soon, --Irpen 23:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've moved the discussion to WP:ANI, btw William M. Connolley 09:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Quick note

As you already know, Molobo will be taking a break (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Molobo_blocked_for_disruptive_edit_warring). Hopefully this will lower the temperature in Polish-Russian and Polish-German relations on Wikipedia, so to speak.

I hope that the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Warsaw controversy that we had such a long argument over is now resolved. Reading back over my comments towards you I see that I have used some words that might have hurt your feelings. I should also not have claimed you acted in bad faith. It is not my place to judge the motives of another editor. For all this, I apologize. Balcer 22:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, no problem at all. Your responses were very civil and I really value your contributions a lot. Would you please help to resolve the controversy over History of Poland (1939-1945). The article underwent drammatic POV pushing. The image of Soviet tanks liberating Lodz I found was blanked several times by multiple users, the info about Molotov's phonecall congratualting Nazis as well as the Brest parade doesn't belong to such a wide article, the whole section about "Treatment of Polish citizens by evil Soviets" doesn't belong to such a broad article as well, etc. Please turn your attention to this article. I will be trying to bring it to normalcy, but I expect a new wave of attacks by Halibutt :(. --Irpen 22:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I will try to find time to take a look at that article. The controversy over "Soviet liberation" is for me a little bit silly, as the perfect compromise exists. One can simply talk about the "Soviet liberation from the Nazis", which is factually accurate, and also does not suggest that the Red Army brought Liberty (note the big L), which certainly was not offered by the communist regime imposed next in Poland.

I must disagree with you the second point. It is undeniable that half of the territory of prewar Poland was under Soviet control in 1939-1941. The fate of those territories and the people inhabiting them definitely must be discussed in the article about the history of Poland in 1939-1945 years. The Soviet annexation of those territories was only slowly recognized by the international community as the war progressed, and was not really acknowledged until around the Yalta Conference in 1945. Even then, only the population transfers which followed thereafter finally removed those territories from being within the scope of Polish history. It is entirely natural to discuss the issue in its own section, though the title could be changed if it is not neutral. Balcer 23:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, please view my answer shortly at Piotrus' talk. Thanks! --Irpen 23:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, and, yes, I was proposing the exact same solution you just said regarding the ocntroversy of "Soviet liberation". I kept saying "liberation from Nazis", not just "liberation". Just check the article's talk! Piotrus was inclined to agree. Molobo of course not. Halibutt, who lately got inclreasingly radicalized, was also staunchly opposing to any word that might have given any credit to those evil Russkie and even made a mockery out of the image (see this.) --Irpen 02:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

State-mongers

Unfortunately we don't have the text of the original speech in Polish (I am guessing it was given in that langauge), so we really have no idea which word is the best here. I would go with "politicians", given that "state-monger" is a rather obscure word which is not listed in mainstream dictionaries (Webster does not have it in its main online edition) and sounds really awkward. It seems to be an archaic term and it is not even clear if it has a negative connotation in English.

Still, I see your point, and if you want to go back to state-monger, be my guest. I still think including the whole quote is problematic. Balcer 11:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on Balcer, Molobo is gone and someone simply has to continue his mission to insert lengthy citations from dubious sources anywhere they please. //Halibutt 11:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's funny you said that, Halibutt :). But I am pleased you are watching my talk page. Please be my guest. Not only I don't mind, but I encourage you to stay around. Thanks! --Irpen 15:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Red Army

I should say that I find your revert back into Soviet propaganda version deeply disturbing. But moving onto less personal observations:

• my mistake with dupe para, I was confused by the Number 6 sockpuppet (?) edits (check that user contribs...)
• Brest parade existed in the article before my edits ([56]) and was expanded into a whole para by Number 6. And yes, I'd agree it should be moved into a separate article and doesn't deserve anything in RA article but a link (when subarticle exists, of course)
• your "theats" about the Rydz Kiev parada are getting boring. Write the article if you wish, stop bothering others with it otherwise. Complain to Number 6 if you wish, he can use a talk page :>

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, what threats? I have no intention to write a separate article on Rydz' parade and it is not a threat in any case. It is encyclopedic, but I have more urgent tasks. My question is how large should be the breadth of the article that include such peculiar events. I only added Rydz' parade to the Kiev Offensive where it is no doubt relevant. My question is whether you think it is OK to add this info to the PSW and History of PL article. And if not, I request the info on Brest parade also out of broad articles.

Your revert of Number 6 was done as if in haste. When I followed on Molobo's article, I almost never reverted him wholesale but tried to merge whatever I could from his edits into the following version. If you join and article, spend an adequate time there, that's all.

I still hope you will help me with the mess of massacres article titles. --Irpen 05:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you will notice that I did kept some of Number 6 information. Nonetheless he seem to be engaging in full scale trolling on that article, and he is reverting your version too. Although I consider him a rather obvious troll/sockpuppet, some assistance in dealing with his vandalism would be appreciated. As for Brest parade, to which articles the information about it should be moved? Currently PSC seems like the most relevant place.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I think the parade belongs to a narrower Battle of Brześć Litewski article. Similarly, I didn't add the Rydz' Kiev parade and vandalizing Kiev to an entire PSW article, only to an article devoted to a narrower episode of it. --Irpen 03:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that the details of the parade should be in BoBL, but the parade itself can be of course mentioned and linked from other relevant articles. As for Rydz parade, is there any article more detailed then Kiev Offensive that it could go to? If not, then KO is the place for it (for now, at least). I don't consider writing about either of them 'vandalizing'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidate

My protege - Dnieper Hydroelectric Station, if we can't put it on the main, we can certainly put it on the portal where the Hero of Ukraine featured article is long in need of replacement. --Kuban Cossack 13:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding the article. We can certainly feature it at WP:DYK at the maimpage. At some point with can expand it to WP:Featured condition (well woth it IMO) and then place it to the Portal as a feauted article. There was some talk I remember that discourage the usage of the "Featured article" wording even at narrow context (like portals) in order to keep the prestige of the real WP:Featured mark. As such, if we replace the Hero of Ukraine by any other article, we will have to change the window name from the "Featured" to "Selected" article wording since H of UA is the only UA-related trully featured article we have. We might though apply for a WP:Good approval stamp and have a separate window to list such articles. Thanks again. Sorry, I've been busy lately and didn't do much of what I planned to. Regards, --Irpen 01:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

==Happy Easter==

Khristos voskrese! --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if you celebrate Orthodox Easter, or not. If you do, Happy Easter, if you do not, Greetings to you, and Best Wishes anyway! Dr. Dan 21:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan! --Irpen 06:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oleg of Chernigov

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

Welcoming

Well, it just looks that I am so much more cruel than you are :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 17:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Please watch your language

Irpen, people complain that this edit harasses User:AndriyK. You have been on Wikipedia longer and done more than me, so you should know that we are expected to express our negative opinions about other users only on RfCes and keep the name calling (even such mild as Don Quixotes) strictly to the personal communications. You may want to edit your message and/or apologize to Andriy. abakharev 01:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Alex, thanks for caring for the civility at Wikipedia! I fully share your concern and appreciate you reminding me to keep my cool. Most involved with the Eastern European history article can always use such a reminder and myself included.

As far as the specific difflink is concerned, several qualifications are in order. First of all, my expressed opinion that certain users put a shame on the Ukrainian wiki-community was based entirely on those users incivility. Three users I named are notable for the fierce personal attacks on their opponents, and especially, perpetual bad faith accusations (applies to all three). Two of the three users mentioned in the difflink above while engaged into attacking the others are also guilty in using an extremely horrific language unacceptable not only in Wikipedia but even at the internet fora, where the civility rules are much more laxed. One example is just above, more can be found in checking that user's contributions and in AndriyK's arbitration case.

As such, my statement is basically that those with the filthy mouth put an entire community they claim to represent in the bad light. If you find it disputable, please let me know and we can continue this discussion.

Also, I notice your message starts with the "People complain" thingy. I checked the contributions of those three involved users and haven't seen their complaints. Moreover, no entries at WP:AN/I, no RfC's filings, actually nothing. So, I guess one of them, and I can even guess who, contacted you privately, picking up on you recent (too mild, IMO) warning to the owner of an extremely filthy mouth trying to embarrass you into getting involved and "prove your fairness and even-handiness". Caught in this embarrassing situation in a trap set by the bad-faith user, you rushed to "act", and perhaps didn't check what was going on thoroughly enough. If AndriyK, instead of contacting you, brought up his request at WP:AN/I, the issue would have been investigated and seen by anyone uninvolved as a hollow one. He might have been even warned himself for trolling. This reminds me of a similar clumsy trap [58] [59] set against you earlier by user:Ukrained. A striking similarity! Please take investigating the complaints you receive more seriously.

Finally, I would more than welcome any of the "offended" to file an RfC against me if they see my entry as a personal attack, harassment or such. That in the months of being here they found nothing to instigate any action just shows how much merit their accusations have.

More of passionate responses of those involved would not surprize me. --Irpen 01:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing the tag does not resolve the dispute

Dear Irpen, if you disagree that the difinition of Ukrainization in the corresponding article is an Original Research, please proviode the reference to a creadible source where this definition came from.

Removing the OR-tag does not solve the problem. If you do not agree with me that the definition should be taken from a creadible source rather than invented by a wikipedian, let's go through the dispute resolution procedure. (see WP:DR).

In any case, the tag should be there, until the dispute is resolved.--AndriyK 08:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Some tags where unexplained, others addressed at talk already and yet others were purely trollish as it was clear that you didn't bother to read the cited sources. However, your tagging spree has to be dealt globally similar to your past moving spree. I will give you that. --Irpen 21:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello, Irpen/archived closed issues, and thank you for vote on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 62/2/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. As I acclimate myself to my new tools, feel free to let me know how you believe I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again! RadioKirk talk to me 05:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

С Праздником!

НАШЕ ДЕЛО ПРАВОЕ!
МЫ ПОБЕДИЛИ!

--Kuban Cossack 00:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

С Днём Победы!

С ДНЁМ ПОБЕДЫ!

9 МАЯ 2006

Поздравляю с великим праздником - Днём Победы! Ура!

Cossack 02:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks :) I am not leaving, but I don't have as much Wikitime as I used to, so I tend to pick random short articles and uplift them when I have a few minutes :) Ahasuerus 03:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Victory Day on MainPage

Hello, Irpen. I hope you approve of my latest edits at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 9 & Victory Day (Eastern Europe). Let me, or other admins like abakharev, know if there are still problems on the MainPage. Thanks. -- PFHLai 09:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Victory Day 3

Discussion regarding revert has been left in the Victory Day (Eastern Europe) article discussion.

Catskul/Andy 06:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Zalissia and Yasenivtsi

Hello! I am seeking detailed information on the history of the villages of Ясенівці and Залісся (Золочівський район, Lviv 'oblast'). They may be in English, Polish, Ukrainian or Russian. Zalissia was called Zalesie in Polish. Yasenivtsi (also spelled Yasenovtsy, Jasenivci) was spelled Jasienowce, Jasieniowce and Jasionowce in Polish. The only information I've got come from Slownik Geograficzny Krolestwa Polskiego 1880-1902 and Księga Adresowa Polski(=Poland Business Directories) of the years 1891,1926-1930 - there are some population data and some surnames. I have placed these information at uk.wikipedia.org (Залісся, Ясенівці). So far, the largest source on them is there... I would be grateful if you could help me and provide me with some additional information on the history of these villages. These may be some Ukrainian encyclopedias/glossaries/guide-books entries. Word or scanned documents. I am willing to help you in the things you are interested in... I may look up some information for you. Have a nice day! --Riva72 21:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could contribute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_World_War_II

Article now presents a picture that Germany was the main victim of WW2, nothing is mentioned about the enourmous devestation made by German armies in WW2 in terms of infrastracture, industry that needed to be rebuilded after WW2 in territories of Poland and Soviet Union, the claim of organised rapes is being repeated. The Red Army rape claims are repeated. Perhaps you know the date on destruction in SU ? --Molobo 17:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Stalin page

Can you add your 2 cents to the Stalin discussion page. (Deng 21:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

More questions

I wonder how you would square the claims the Poles blew up Kiev's railway station in 1920 with information given here and here. My Ukrainian is not that great, so please use the information contained in these links to make appropriate changes in Kiev Offensive article. Balcer 21:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Now let me ask some more questions about the Poles blowing up the Kiev electric power station. How come there is no mention of that in this timeline? How come it is not mentioned in this detailed article? Again, my Ukrainian is rudimentary, so insights would be appreciated. Balcer 23:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to your reply. I hope these links demonstrate that, given that this is year 2006, there is a large number of various Ukrainian and Russian language links covering even minute details of Kiev's history. The fact that, excluding the Kiev bridges, no evidence of "Poles vandalising Kiev and making the city unlivable" can be found in such Kiev-related links, leads one to an unescapable conclusion that such an event either never occured, or was so insignificant in scale that it does not belong in the Kiev Offensive article.

Let's remember that we are not arguing over some small detail here. As it stands, the Kiev Offensive article accuses the troops of one European nation of maliciously vandalising the capital of its neighbouring nation in relatively recent past. If that really happened, we probably need a whole separate article on it, and I would definitely support one. But if such events did not happen, or are at least vastly exaggerated, then inserting claims to that effect amounts to propaganda which results in encouraging dislike between two countries and nations.

Poland and Ukraine are making large strides towards resolving the historical differences between them (for one example, see the recent Pawłokoma massacre article and feel free to add to it). Let's do our part in this process, which I hope you support. Balcer 12:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for your comments. If you don't have time to respond, let me know, and I will modify the article in accordance with the information from these links. But I would prefer your input since I don't want to introduce errors due to my faulty translation. Balcer 04:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Balcer. Haven't got to this yet. But it's high on my list. Just give me a little time. Also, in connection to my previous message at your talk, this is another interesting reading. Is this typical attitude in Polish press, I wonder? --Irpen

I honestly don't know as I don't read Polish press regularly. Wprost is famous for its sometimes provocative graphics though. Anyway, let's resolve the issue at hand, since Polish Soviet War FA will be on the front page soon, and so one of the main articles it links to should have its controversies resolved before then. Balcer 04:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean graphics, I meant the text. I have a translation and found the article totally disgusting and there is much other similar stuff coming from that paper. If PSW is going to the mainpage, it should get the utmost attention now. I am sorry to see such a POV article to be at the mainpage soon, but I will try to do what I can to have at least some problems addressed. --Irpen 04:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The Polish press is what it is, and it has nothing to do with what we are doing here. Just to be clear, I think that article is idiotic. For what it's worth, I have not read Wprost in years. Let's fix the Kiev Offensive article. Did the links I included above change your point of view on the issue? Balcer 04:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I see those links don't mention these events. However, the power station links don't have a word for an entire 1910-1955 period (no doubt other notable events took place at that time). The railway station links speak generally about the building of the station and not the junctions infrastructure. I don't think Poles blew up the building as I see them as no vandals. The article makes sourced claims, and goes into length explaining that claims are restricted to particular sources only. I've seen this claimed made elsewhere on the web and I can't remember sites. Will need time to dig them up if you insist on more sources. More on that paper: [60], [61] and this is just a small part (in no way I want to say this is related to K.O. but this is in regards to another dispute we had). --Irpen 05:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if it does not say much about events between 1910 and 1955, the implication must be that the building survived those years, and was not blown up and completely rebuilt. If that happened, I think it would have been mentioned. Furthermore, destroying "junctions infrastructure" conveys a slightly different meaning than "destroying a station", don't you think? Again, destroying railway tracks by retreating armies was standard practice at the time, and cannot be called vandalism by any stretch of the imagination. Balcer 13:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is that obviously historians are human beings and they make mistakes or have their biases which lead them to overemphasize certain events. Even when I read a historian like Norman Davies, who I greatly respect, I find that his books often contain various errors, especially when he devotes only one sentence or paragraph to the subject in passing. Based on the evidence we have, don't you think that the same might have happened in this case?

Let's be clear here. In this age of Google, which is able to search Ukrainian and Russian webpages, it really ought to be possible to find some websites devoted to various aspects of the history of Kiev, which would mention the "vandalism" of the Poles destroying the civilian infrastructure of the city (other than bridges). If such websites, or other books are not found, and the only thing to go on is one paragraph in one book by one author, then this is simply not enough.

As I said, the allegation that one nation vandalised the capital of another is a serious one. It cannot be made based on one paragraph in one book. That is not enough. So, if more evidence is not presented, I will fight for the complete removal of that passage, sourced though it is. The other possibility is to include a citation, but with a full explanation that no other confirmation of this supposed fact can be found. Balcer 12:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, we are not talking about "vandalism" here anyway. It is a POV term at any rate. What objects of the city's infrastructure were destroyed by Poles is the issue here, no more, no less. Yes, I've seen other writings about the Polish actions in Kiev on the Net in the past. That prompted me to look for a serious claims on that and that's how I found the Meltyukhov's reference. I plan on digging up other sites where I saw that (I don't now remember) as I didn't save them preferring to use a serious books rather than web-sites to support the claim. Due to your persistence, I am going to go find other refs.

Since your point here is that the claim even referenced to an otherwise acceptable source can be removable if, in view of anything else, it makes little sense, may I ask you to take a look at the statement at Halibutt's Treatment of Polish citizens by occupiers that as late as in '39 Soviets used "Dicatorship of Proletariat" slogans during the Sovietization of Western Ukraine annexed from Poland. This term seems a total anachronism for late 30s' as I explained at talk (Search for "Dictatorship" string if you can't read an entire talk page). Halibutt sources this to some book but I have a feeling that either he misquotes (non-deliberately) or the author messed up. In the meanwhile, I will check the ru- and ua-nets for more evidence on Polish behavior. --Irpen 18:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You might also want to check the latest Polityka weekly, where it is argued that it was not until Khrushchev that the dictatorship of proletariat idea was dumped, along with some other ideas of bad old Lenin. //Halibutt 19:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's just use common sense once in a while, instead of trying to establish some universal rules which will lead to ridiculous outcomes. A single scholarly reference is probably enough to establish some obscure detail, such as when some Communist slogan came in and out of use. On the other hand, if only a single reference mentions an event such as the "vandalising" of Kiev (Meltyukhov talks specifically about "vengeful vandalism") which, had it happened, would have had profound and wide-ranging impact and thus ought to have been mentioned in other sources, both in books and on the web, and yet it is not mentioned, then the reference might be wrong. Especially if it is a reference writing about a much wider subject, which can only spare a few sentences to the event it claims supposedly took place. But if you can dig up other references, that would be great. On the other hand, the fact remains that credible websites which should have mentioned this event had it happened in fact do not.

Again, I must stress here that it is not sufficient to show that some vandalism took place. It must also be demonstrated that this vandalism was significant enough that it merits being discussed in the Kiev Offensive article, as opposed to History of Kiev, where it definitely would belong.

As for the dispute between you and Halibutt, how the heck did you get into an argument about a particular communist slogan? Since when did communist slogans correlate with reality anyway? Balcer 22:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP:ANI

Heh, that is because of the edit conflict between you and me lol... Anyway, I reworded my statement accordingly. Cheers, -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

WU1794 Russian generals

I recently expanded the Warsaw Uprising (1794) article, and I added two (probably polonized) names of Russian generals. I hope that you can correct them, maybe link to existing articles (for the first one I couldn't even find a first name). The first one is gen. Chruszczow whom Igelstrom sent from Warsaw to intercept Kościuszka with part of the W. garrison, the second one is Ivan Nowickij who was apparently stationed nearby or part of the garrison. If you could add names of other prominent Russian commanders that were involved in the event, it would be great: currently majority of the names are Polish. PS. Perhaps you could also add names of the Russian commanders to other battle of the K. Insurrection?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

I have not thanked you yet for the honour you gave me. Thank you very much, I really feel very honoured and will carry your barnstar wherever I go... :-) --Daniel Bunčić 06:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Vandal on Ukrainian Insurgent Army Article

Is there a way to block an anon vandal relatively quickly? Some guy keeps adding an offensive, unsourced photo there and I've grown tired of reverting it repeatedly (as have others). Regards, Faustian 18:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT ?

Hi, I'm sorry to see that with this edit you have removed the map illustrating the war. What was the purpose of this edit ? What's happening to you ? --Lysy^talk 16:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, there is not WP:POINT here whatsoever. I don't understand your removal of the image from the infobox in both articles. Please explain yourself at the article's talk if you intend to persist. --Irpen 17:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I have specifically decided to use your talk page, as I'm addressing you personally. I have noticed you're editing several different articles in the same manner, replacing images with maps or vice-versa. If however you're not willing to discuss this here, that's very bad and would definitely make me feel sorry. --Lysy^talk 18:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If all that interests you is my own views on these, I have no problem explaining them here. However, I would like to discuss the article-related issues such that other interested parties may take part. Please see my recent entry at talk:PSW on the infobox image. --Irpen 18:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem that I have is that your edits at Polish-Soviet War and Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618) have different nature, and it's therefore difficult to discuss both at talk:PSW. I do not intend to offend you but I think your removal of the map from Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618) is on the verge of trolling. At PSW we simply do not have a good single map to illustrate the article. --Lysy^talk 18:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, trolling is a very serious accusation and you should be sure what you are talking about when bringing it. The map is duplicated in the down in RPW. Similarly, in PSW, when I put the map to the infobox, I moved the prop pic you seem to like to the appropriate section where the battle is described. I also tided up the images and took great care to make the layout look more organized. You reverted on the spot without discussing. That's a bad faith edit. Please care to check the matters before jumping into accusing other editors, like some here like to do. --Irpen 19:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

'trolling is a very serious accusation' - true, but considering that you accuse Molobo of trolling in almost every post or edit summary when you meet him, aren't you using double standards? And for the record I also think your actions here are breaking the WP:POINT.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If this can't be called trolling, I don't know what can. I don't "accuse" Molobo of trolling as frequently as you state because he is not trolling that much. When he is trolling (like above), it's a different story. As for your accusation of WP:POINT, please elaborate if you really want to make a record. As far as I remember, I made this edit. By it not only I replaced the questionable painting by a neutral map in the infobox (note that I didn't remove the painting, but moved it to an article section) but tidied up the images layout, organizing them in columns rather than having them messing up the text making it horribly looking. The main thing of that edit, however, was not tiding up but NPOVing. In no time Lysy not only reverted me, restoring the questionable image in the infobox, but claimed in the edit summary that this was only a "layout" restoration. Now, who was acting in bad faith? I hope no one, really. --Irpen 05:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

do you have better information how to spell Cecilie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin?

Kindly then share your knowledge in a constructive manner, telling exactly what is the solution and what are its reasons. A summary opinion does not help. Marrtel 08:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to Mikhail/Michael issue. All I requested is you raise the issue at talk before moving. How can this hurt? --Irpen 09:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Ochkarik

This user has recently done some minor damage to the articles on my watchlist. He doesn't seem to be a vandal, rather a newcomer who doesn't know yet how to properly edit articles. Sashazlv 20:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on my experience with this user, he does not know much English, is somewhat slow on the uptake when it comes to understanding/following guidelines, and is not very sociable (meaning you'll be lucky if you get a response from him). He isn't really a novice to Wikipedia (he's been editing ru.wiki for a while now), but he is somewhat new here. Just thought this information may come handy.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:PUI

Hi - I have removed the Image:Warsaw uprising.jpg section of the PUI page since the image has been deleted. The discussion can be found here and the summary from the file deletion is:

03:49, 27 May 2006 Nv8200p deleted "Image:Warsaw uprising.jpg" (Removed non-free image per WP:PUI on May 12, 2006)

If you feel the deletion was incorrect, please start by contacting Nv8200p directly. If there is still a disagreement, the issue can be brought up at WP:DRV. Thanks -SCEhardT 18:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Bij Bolszewika

I am sorry but I don't understand Russian what do these words mean which you used: it meant "kill", similar to Russian "Bey polyakov" or "Bey nemtsev".? I don't know about Russian language much since we no longer are forced to learn it, but in Polish bij means to beat up somebody. Cheers. --Molobo 19:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

So Molobo that would meant that learning Russian had some use...;) Anyway you are right in your hypothesis, bey literally means beat or in context of the slogans it is metaphorically reffered to as attack the enemy, and indeed does not imply murderous as Piotr picked up. Bey Nemtsev - attack Germans. Bey Nasmert - Fight till their death, does imply murder. --Kuban Cossack 09:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So Molobo that would meant that learning Russian had some use...;) Since it was Irpen,perhaps he should learn Polish ;) --Molobo 10:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Bij, which even sounds similar to beat (and may have common roots perhaps) has also similar meaning. I don't know if the translation on the page you got it from is wrong, but bij really means 'to beat' (although for language sake I'd translate it as 'fight' into English). I could go on, but the bottom line is that just as in English words 'beat up' or 'fight' while they imply struggle they don't imply murderous intent. PS. In Polish to kill is 'zabij', so if the placard said 'zabij bolszewika' then we could translate it as 'to kill bolshevik'. Yes, it is a minor issue, but one that we can resolve pretty quickly I believe. Something simple we can both agree on, I hope?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that false friends can occur between closely related languages. Balcer 09:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I know that PL bij = RU bey literally means "beat". I was talking the closest in context translation, not the literal one. "Bij Polaka" or "Bij Bolszewika" in the context of war certainly doesn't imply "beat" or "kick his ass". In the war it implies killing the enemy. Do you see this differently? --Irpen 05:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte

See Special:Contributions/Vlachul. —Khoikhoi 18:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Miedzymorze

1. It's no secret that Ukraine's independence, in Pilsudki's view, depended on democratic principals, in contrast to the threats posed by the totalitarianism of Soviet Russia. There's nothing else to it; cold, hard facts. And if Soviet Russia cant be called totalitarian (anachronistic woes?), then what? 2. Quote has been faithfuly translated. Dont know what you mean. PS The diligent and very militant Ghirla took no delay in reverting me, so no worries. Reichenbach 08:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, regarding Lvov, please see other Central European place names, such as Transylvania, or any other place name for that matter. Reichenbach 21:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hey Irpen,

When you have the time, could you check out the Hutsuls article and make sure it's neutral? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 18:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Language question

Sorry for bothering you, but I have a question about Russian/Ukrainain pronounciation. I have always been intrigued as to why words that have the /h/ sound in other language are often transliterated using г in Russian and pronounced likewise. Then I saw that the г letter involves the /h/ sound in native words as well, for example "ого" which would be pronounced as oho rather than ogo. I was wondering whether it is always correct to pronounce the letter г as h in Russian if you know that the word has an /h/ sound in the word's native tongue, for example Гитлер or Робин Гуд, even though conventionally the sounds are pronounced as /g/.

Then I saw that in Ukrainian the letter г actually denotes the /h/ sound whereas the letter ґ represents the /h/ sound. My question about that is in words where the letter г is used would that sound be pronounced like /h/ in the word "hello" for instance? Then for the words холод and голод the difference is only between the /h/ and /kh/ sound, right, the word голод is not pronounced using a g sound like in Russian?

Thank you, Vox Populi (TSO) 20:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a really interesting question and I am not certain on how to fully answer it. Latin "H" have sometimes indeed mutated to Russian "Г" in German-originated names that start with H, like Hitler, Hamburg, Hannover, Hans, etc. I don't know the reason while it is certainly known to others. The sound of the letter Г, however, is more like /g/ in Russian and it's only in the talk of southern Russian and most Ukrainian speakers of Russian, Г is read, still not quite like /h/, but more of a softer /g/. In correctly spoken Russian, "ого" would sound like "ogo" and not "oho". So, in Russian one should always pronounce "g".

In Ukrainian the situation is somewhat more complex. "Г" corresponds to a softer sound than "G" but still different from "H". IMO, it is still closer to G than to H but why is it transliterated to H is a totally different and, sometimes, a politically charged question. The fact is that in official transliteration it is usually transliterated as H and we should stick to it. In addition to "Г" another letter "Ґ" was recently reintroduced (some say introduced) to Ukrainain in the 90s. This corresponds to a solid sound "G" but is only used in few words. When this letter was absent, they simply tought at schools which Ukrainian words with "Г" to pronounce with a hard G.

I understand this is confusing. Feel free to ask for more though I am not a linguist. --Irpen 20:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, your response was very helpful. Vox Populi (TSO) 21:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for your constructive position in many contentious articles. Cheers, --Irpen 01:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Labor - Proletariat

Hi Irpen. That's an interesting addition to the template. A bit ironic that a template about labour is full of links to organizing ideas, and not the people themselves. :) --Bookandcoffee 19:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:). I agree. --Irpen 19:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte again, again, and again

Keep an eye on GDP, Bonny's new sockpuppet. Also add Romania to your watchlist. Spasibo! —Khoikhoi 19:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That admin from yesterday threatened to block me for accusing GDP for being Bonny, so I suggest you be careful in your accusations, or they may threaten to block you as well. --Candide, or Optimism 19:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll just call him GDP then. ;) Irpen, he just used an open proxy to revert me on Romania. Could you help out? —Khoikhoi 19:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I will take care of this, don't worry. And as I always behave properly (LOL), I am not afraid of any repercussions. --Irpen 19:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Дякую! I wanted to thank you for the newcommer award you gave me. I admire your work, so it means a lot. I tried to thank you earlier and accidentally added in to your archived talk page. Thanks again, I hope to work on more projects will you in the future. Kevlar67 02:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

dyk

On June 4, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Patriarch Mstyslav (Stepan Skrypnyk), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Please consult history books before changing.

[62] What you described as "sneaky vandalism" is actually present in every history book. The city was renamed after a General who captured it in FIRST World War. --Molobo 11:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

images from RU:

Hello Irpen! Would you mind taking a look at ru:Изображение:Teuton knights.jpg and ru:Изображение:Zamok.jpg to see if the images can be transferred to the Commons or used on the English wiki? Olessi 01:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The author of the first one is Eric Fessard [63]. You can find it following the link. His web-site is created for selling his pictures and I think we can reasonably use the {{Publicity}} (providing the author's name) for en-wiki but not for commons as "publicity" is a variety of "fairuse".

The second one is already in coomons. Good luck! --Irpen 01:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Olessi 02:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK

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

thanks for fixing this up and getting it nominatable... ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Jagiello

Would you care to visit at Talk:Wladyslaw_II_Jagiellon_of_Poland#Survey. The simple "Jagiello" - for that there is now a formal listing going on to sign support or opposition. ObRoy 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

1864

Hi Irpen, do you know if there exists an article about the 1864 abolition of serfdom by the czar? Appleseed (Talk) 03:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Emancipation reform of 1861 in Russia. Good luck. --Irpen 03:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Party

Are you thinking what I am thinking? See talk of that page. I was quite suprised when I followed the link and found... that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Polish medieval monarchs naming

Hi. I have proposed to move the following monarchs from their current, generally Polish-spelled names (with diacriticals) to the systematical English name, citing my general ground that English should be used, not Polish. Would you share your opinion at Talk:Bolesław I the Brave , Talk:Bolesław II the Bold, Talk:Mieszko II Lambert, Talk:Władysław III Spindleshanks, Talk:Jan I Olbracht and Talk:Kazimierz III the Great. Marrtel 19:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Minin

You are correct. It is sometimes funny how one sees different things differently. You are correct that both of those events can be named invasion. I would still argue that there are important differences, and that we should aboid the use of word 'invasion' as a rule, but I will not revert this issue in Minin again.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Caution against removing the POV tags.

Content moved to Talk:Russian architecture#Causion against removing the POV tags. for better exposure of the problem. --Irpen 06:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This caution was addressed to you personally. What is the reason to flood the article's talk page?--AndriyK 09:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Mongol invasion of Rus

Can you take a look at the recent edits and see if I was out of line? Thanks!--tufkaa 03:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Tufkaa, see my comment on the article's talkpage abakharev 05:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding page moves

I was under the impression that it isn't neccessary, looking at the example of Ghirandajo [64] who moved a page without consultation. Ok thanks for the notice. --Molobo 21:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Nikolai Danilewski

Mentioned at Social cycle theory as "an important Russian philospoher". Red link - if it rings a bell, perhaps you can redirect it or stub it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Nikolay Yakovlevich Danilevsky created abakharev 23:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Spasibo :) --Irpen 05:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Polish-led

Polish led is certainly more NPOV then dominated. As for democractic... you yourself note that it is word hard to define. Nonetheless I think it is important to note that it would have been a federation of independent, likely democratic countries, and not, let's say, a federation of republics or states in a single country with strong president.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about the definition of "federation" rather than the definition of "democratic". Democratic is questionable, hypothetical, unrpovable (even unlikely) and highly irrelevant here. --Irpen 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for collage

Re: User:Travb

Thanks for the collage. You and the User:CJK have inspired me. Spaciba balshoy commrade! (Is this correct Russian?) Travb (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

.

[65] and you dare to call me a troll and a vandal... //Halibutt 07:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Award

Thank you very much! Biruitorul 11:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Józef Piłsudski

Please vote. By the way, this talk page may get some award for being the longest user talk page in WP. You need to do something about it. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If I'm correct, FA's are based on consensus, not votes. And even if they were, that would constitute vote stacking. Just a reminder to keep the policies in mind. Aaрон Кинни (t) 06:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not get your point. My vote is explained in great detail. If you want to comment on my vote, please do so and, better yet, at the same page, where everyone interested would see it. --Irpen 06:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Medzhybizh

I believe that the name is Ukrainian, not Polish. Would you correct? Xx236 10:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

pl:Cerkiew (budynek) and Russian ambassadors

I am surpised en wiki has no article on that, but I refuse to believe Russian wiki would also have no article to interwiki? On another note, would you happen to have a list of Russian ambassadors to PLC? I know Repnin, I found an article on pl wiki about pl:Otto Magnus von Stackelberg and on German about de:Jacob Johann Sievers. I wonder if there were other notable ambassadors? It would appear it was a pretty important posting (at least until it became obsolete :>). Last but not least: I wonder if Jan Walenty Węgierski was of Orthodox faith?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I inserted ru:Церковь stub into the Polish article - it is about building not about organization. Maybe Irpen has the list of ambassadors, I don't unfortunately. abakharev 03:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex for being faster then me and thanks, Piotrus for the question. I think Ghirla is much more familiar with the Russian history of the time. He would be the best person to ask. To answer myself, I would need to do some reading first. --Irpen 03:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Georgia Move

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 03:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Partisans

Oh, a novelty, I was not reverted on sight... Anyway, the borders did not change officially until 1945. So, the section is legitimate where it is as Soviet partisans operated on Polish territory. It was not until after the war that the areas were ceded by Stalin to himself. Feel free to merge some info from the sections on Baltic States, Ukraine and Belarus to the Polish section though. //Halibutt 18:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I do not wish to discuss anything with you, the article is all yours. Feel free to reword it the way you feel fit and add as many liberations as you please. //Halibutt 18:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, please! I am trying to talk here. If you want to exchange barbs, pls go to Wilno Uprising and/or Volodarka where we seem to not have a common ground. I am always trying my best to be reasonable. I think that either the article needs restructured or your material belongs to other section. I could take time and rewrite it but I am really busy and you know your stuff better anyway. So, why not consider my suggestion to add the material to other sections yourself? Spitting is of no use for the articles. And, BTW, you know that I prefer to talk in the one place. If you transferred the discussion to my talk, fine, let's continue it here. If you prefer not to talk, than don't. But next time, I would prefer to see a response at your talk (see a message on top of my page). This is a non-controvesial request and I don't see what prevents you from doing it.

Anyway, that's secondary. Please give a thought to my suggestions on the partisans article. That fellow's approach leads to the dead-end, as of now. Your edit, OTOH, brings some referenced material. I like information and want it in WIkipedia no matter what you might be thinking. --Irpen 18:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Dialog

Thank you for contributing on Alex's talk page. I gather that both you and Alex see Ghirlandajo's actions as rather harmless. It is easy to come to that conclusion if you are not on the receiving end of them. As for Ghirlandajo being a prolific editor making some very useful contributions, that might well be true, but it does not change the fact that his contributions and attitude in articles related in any way to Poland are counterproductive and divisive.

As for Ukrainization, I am afraid that I completely lack the knowledge about the issue to make any useful comments. Balcer 12:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, still pls take a look at the article and it's talk from the common sense perspective as well as the discussion at its talk when my opponent who follows me from article to article brings up an issue of the Original reserach. The article is well-referenced, BTW, so you may get a clue over the issue on the fly and not from the article but from the refs.

As for the "receiving end" issue, no. First of all, I've been on the receiving end of the Halibutt's offenses. This is a simialr example when having to take the less than civil behavior from otherwise a prolific editor (having to take AlexPU above doesn't consern be at all). Moreover, I thought of starting an RfC over that too and I am glad that I didn't because it is the content that matters first of all. My point is that the Ghirla disputes are the content disputes and should be treated as such. Let's continue this discussion from this perspective. --Irpen 21:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Then it was not you to call me a troll, a vandal, a known POV pusher, and so on? And it was not you to follow most of my articles, add tags to stubs and so on? Finally, wasn't it you to go around and push your POV at all cost, often in violation of an established consensus? I'm sorry then, I didn't know we have two Irpens here. Though you might want to start a RfC on me, feel free to. //Halibutt 18:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, see above. --Irpen 18:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Since I am asked to comment. I find it distressing that two reasonable editors such as yourselves have gotten themselves into this neverending conflict. I have not kept up with all the twists and turns of it. The centerpiece of it seems to be arguments about small details (battleboxes etc.), which do not seem that important to me. I have little advice to give, except for this one suggestion. Could you please let bygones be bygones, so to speak. The Battle of Wolodarka has not been edited for 3 months now. Is it really such a great bone of contention still? If you keep dragging out old disagreements, the conflict will never end. Balcer 20:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, I don't know about my opponent, but from my end this has nothing to do with Volodarka. Moreover, following the Volodarka, I still voted support on Halibutt's RfA and spoke highly of him [66] at that time and many times after that which I think is telling. As for the new Halibutt's diatribe above, too bad he doesn't provide diffs as I don't recall ever calling him a troll or a vandal. I do consider some of his edits trollish, and I said so at times, but that's not the same thing as calling someone a troll. The latter is an editor who does nothing but trolling. Halibutt is clearly a great editor, just a short-tempered one and with strong certain views. Just for one example, see the games with the Soviet tankists in Lodz picture or an attempt to use the copyright issues to get an upper hand in a POV dispute. Still times after that we discussed things normally even after Halibutt started to "use popups" to revert me even after I requested clearly not to do it. I would rather not continue this discussion. When (not if) new issues arize, I hope they will be resolved on their own merin. OTOH, if they won't, Balcer, please follow up on both of us and the issues as well. --Irpen 23:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Something nice for you

[67] What do you think? (reply to the e-mail as well); Speaking of which did that Kiev Metro site answer you and can we use their photos? --Kuban Cossack 20:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen Kiev Offensive on Main Page? If not, take a look. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks, I missed it. I wonder who wrote such an amazing DYK proposal :). While the "Victor's parade" with its perception as well as vandalizing the city would have been some much more amazing and unknown pieces of trivia. --Irpen 07:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Another gem for you: Iona Yakir. The information could use verification, to say the least. Balcer 21:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Crimean War 1853-6.jpg

I don't appreciate being accused of Copyright Paranoia and of damaging Wikipedia. That usually applies when an old image of unknown provenance with unclear copyright status is listed for deletion. But in this case things are crystal clear. This image comes from a very popular atlas, which I have used frequently myself and which is available in bookstores as we speak. You can buy the newest, unused 2004 edition yourself from amazon.com right away. It would really be great if we could scan all the images from that atlas and put them into Wikipedia under fair use, but that is just not how Wikipedia works. Balcer 18:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, in no way I wanted to offend you, who I consider the most neutral and reasonable Wikipedian writing in the field of Polish history. I still think that removal of the important material from the articles is damaging Wikipedia and I don't see that image threatening. Let's see what others say at its talk. If it gets deleted, I will not make a tragedy out of it. If some of the mapdrawing editors make a Wikipedia map while the drawing is still up to use for that, it would be great. --Irpen 19:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Crimean War - Black Sea theater

Thanks for the kind words. In my mind there are very good reasons for keeping Wikipedia free of clearly copyrighted images that cannot be shown under any valid license, and keeping such images out is a service. It is vitally important for Wikipedia that it maintains its reputation as a source for images which anyone can confidently use without fear of being sued for infringing copyright.

If the image gets deleted, I uploaded another one to Commons which may replace it. It is not as good because it does not show the military operations, unfortunately, but it is better than nothing.Balcer 19:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Zhukov

Hello

Could you please take a look on the Talk:Georgy Zhukov page and add your two cents to the matter (Deng 18:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

Allowing You

Bolshoi spasibo!!! Eto ya nye ozhidal!--Smerus 14:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Olimpiysky Sport Complex, 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.

Good work on destubbing this one. ++Lar: t/c 02:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Kiev Offensive

I presented a list of reasons why the current paragraph on "Poles vandalising Kiev" cannot stand, based on the currently given sources anyway. Please respond to the points I made. I believe they provide good grounds for completely removing that section and the references backing it up.

I also have a general question: what is your opinion on using books published in the 1930s in the Soviet Union as sources, especially when they are books on controversial, politically sensitive topics? I also wonder how you would feel about using sources published in Nazi Germany during the same period. Balcer 20:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I will respond to your points at the article's talk. I will also find more references. The mauradeering of Polish troops in Ukraine is not at all as obscure and little known as it may seem if you base your opinion solely on the Polish books.

As for using the POV sources in general, there is a distinction between using their facts and their interpretations. I would not use the conclusions and interpretations of events provided either in these books, nor in Polish books of that time. However, as far as the mere facts are conserned, I think they may be usable, if sourced, unless they clearly make no sense, so that it is obvious that even facts themselves are fabricated. I am similar cautious in using not only Soviet sources but some of the modern Ukrainian sources. I recently read the article about this very war in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine and was amazed by an amount of ommitted info and POV presentation. But I would still use its facts when it says that something happened and there were that many Russians and that many Ukrainians in the Red Army or elselwhere. --Irpen 20:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome, Irpen. I am utterly new at this, so forgive any missteps. Despite our disagreements I value our interaction; it is always pleasant to deal with a well educated person on an interesting topic. Faustian 20:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome and thanks for your input. --Irpen 20:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Liberate

Thank you for your kind words in the discussion, btw. I 've had a crazy day involving 8+ hours of travel. I'll think about the question of "liberating" Russian cities over the weekend and be back online Sunday night at the latest. Hope all is well. I'll let Grafikm know as well.--tufkaa 02:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, could you moderate your friend? //Halibutt 09:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

{{Ukraine-hist-stub}} and category

You appear to have recreated this recently-deleted "stub type", with the unenlightening edit summaries of "cat" and "recat". What gives? Alai 07:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't get the question. You think the stub category should not exist or what? --Irpen 07:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that it's still undersized, still unproposed, and now is recently deleted to boot, the question is, "why should it exist?", if that wasn't clear from the original. Alai 16:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I will make sure it is populated from "Ukraine-stub" which is definetely overpopulated. Most countries have a history stub cat separately from the country stub. The History of Ukraine is rich enough for events, existing articles and article to be to make sure the underpopulation won't be a problem. Regards, --Irpen 18:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I refer you to WP:STUB? (As well as once again to WP:WSS/P.) Ukraine stub is not overpopulated (by stub-sorting custom and practice generally considered to be over 800 stubs), so there's certainly no pressing need for this type. Your recreation clearly is underpopulated at present, nor have you even said whether it'll have the normal creation-threshold of 60 stubs when you're done populating it. Alai 02:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So, why not delete the Ukraine-stub (underpopulated as you say) as well and retag the articles by "europe-stub"? That it is a useful cat is clear because lumping Eternal Peace Treaty of 1686 in the same category as the modern Republican Party of Ukraine would create confusion and prevent editors who specialize in Ukrainian history and editors who are interested in expanding articles on more modern Ukrainian issues from easily finding articles waiting for them. I really don't uderstand how you don't consider the stub useful but harmful. Maybe we should solicit opinions on Portal:Ukraine board. Would you object? --Irpen 02:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I said that Ukraine-stub is "not overpopulated", not that it's underpopulated; there's a considerable difference. No one is objecting to a Ukrainian history category, but why are you persisting in creating a stub type, without apparent regard to the stub creation guidelines, or indeed, the stub proposals page -- ever considered "soliciting opinion" there? This has all already been thrashed out at SFD, and deleted accordingly, and you've said nothing to indicate why the judgement should, or would, be any different now. By all means consult the Ukraine portal, but I'd still appreciate you addressing my material points. Alai 03:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ukraine hist-stub 2

I have just re-speedied this stub. The vote for deletion was 6-2 in favour of its deletion. More specifically, several of those votes were "populate or delete" - that is, get the stub up to threshold size (60) before the end of this debate or delete of it. There were far fewer than the required number of articles at the end of the deletion debate, therefore it was deleted as per the comments of those who took part in the debate. Even now, several weeks after its deletion, there are less than half the number of stubs that would be needed for this template to reach threshold. If at some point in the future you believe there are enough stubs for this stub type, feel free to re-propose it at WP:WSS/P. DO NOT simply re-create a template that was deleted by due process, otherwise it may be taken as an act of vandalism. Grutness...wha? 08:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The stub was deleted in violation of due process. Here are the vote results: 2 keeps, 4 "populate or delete". Even if you count the latter as "delete", 4 vs 2 is not a consensus (it was not 6 vs 2 btw which would also not have been a consensus, btw). The stub was around for a while rather than created recently. To address your conserns, I populated it yesterday and it reached 30 entries. Quite a resonable number. I can open my Ukrainian encyclopedia and create 30 Ukrainian history stubs in one day, if this is what you insist on, but IMO pity stubs harm Wikipedia more than they help it. In summary, the stub (and the cat) were created a while ago. They are not recent and it was deletion, not the creation, that violated the process. 4:2 is in no way a consensus. For more, please read my discussion with Alai right above. --Irpen 17:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

... in which you don't trouble to answer any of my concerns. If you feel the original closure was improper (obviously I'd disagree), take it to deletion review, don't simply keep recreating it. I really don't see how a 2:1 ratio in favour of deletion is a sensible basis for this to exist, though (and that numerical analysis neglects the lack of actual arguments behind the two "keeps"). Or better yet, wait until there's an actual need for a separate stub type, and then bring it to WP:WSS/P. Alai 18:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to use this stub and vote 'keep' if I am appraised of any similar vote.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

The point of WP:IAR...

... is not to ignore rules for the sake of ignoring rules, or because you happen to dislike the consequence of their application (or the rule in general), but to do so in a manner that's seen to benefit the Encyclopaedia. As there's considerable long-standing consensus at WSS that having many under-sized stub types is counter-productive, and an explicit consensus on deleting this particular type, repeatedly creating it was hardly such an application. Alai 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Russo-Turkish War, 1877–1878

A bunch of Russophobes keeps attacking the article. Please intervene. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

East-west Ukrainian dissimilarities

Greetings, Please see my comments on the discussiuon section of that stub. As time allows I would like to contribute to that page. As I mentioned, regional differences seems better (it's more than east/west - central Ukraine is as distinct from Galicia and the Donbas). And perhaps writing about how these differences impacted history can be very important. I'm thinking of making a section on the events of 1917-1921. regards Faustian 20:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, you are a cunning anti-Ukrainian intrigant

Re: Ghirla's barnstar:

Irpen, I wouldn't allow him if I were you. Ghirlandajo is a strictly anti-Ukrainian editor. E.g., he advocated Crimea's parting from UA several times. Being civil with him ... OK, but being friendly? And that Soviet цяцька was in fact given to many anti-Ukrainian figures in real life. I think this is not funny, Андрій, this is disgusting and blasphemous. By allowing him you declared yourself not only pro-Russian, but also an anti-Ukrainian editor. Feel free to erase my comment till anybody else notices it (like you always do with the truth). Ukrained 08:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, you removed a necessary and explained tag from Ukrainische Gruppe Nachtigall, just to have me substituting them with others, slightly different, hours later. This was a technicality which you could do easily. So, you didn't see an evidently bad Ukraine-related page? Or you wanted it to stay such for purpose? You were saying ... I'm as Ukrainian as... what? Ukrained 08:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Irpen, moving my second comment to pick it out of context was a dirty trick, although it failed: these two comments are not contradicting if regarded in a context. Please don't do such cunning things to my posts anymore. If any comment of mine would be treated in such an intriguous way, please prohibit me of editing your talk at all (I'll admit such ban and won't file any complaints). What you did was so unworthy :(... but kept in editing history forever :) Ukrained 18:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I will respond to all this when I have time. Let me just say that you are as wrong as you always are assuming bad faith of others. While I am tired of this, I since I know this habbit of yours well by now, I don't care much. Later, --Irpen 19:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Polonophobia

Since you haven't presented any sources that would support the view that Ukrainians were polonophobic I deleted the information. While some of it might be historically correct I don't see any connection to expression of Polonophobia. --Molobo 23:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said Ukrainians were Polonophobic. Personally, I think Ukrainians are very tolerant to their neighbors, including the Poles. I added the context to the statement that the hostility to Poles you refer to were all due to the Soviets. At the time, all minorities to the East of the Poland had every reason to have an issue towards Poland. This info is relevant to the article. --Irpen 00:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss the articles at the relevant talk pages so that others can see. I am delighted that so many people scrutinize my talk and even its history (seriously) but not all editors who watch the article would stop by at my talk, to see our discussion. --Irpen 00:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I added the context to the statement that the hostility to Poles you refer to were all due to the Soviets The statement is unsourced.I removed it.Since you insist on putting it in, please give source.Otherwise I shall remove it again. I never said Ukrainians were Polonophobic. Then I see no reason for your edits there. --Molobo 11:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:PSW

The article is assumed to be ready for mainpage when it passes FA, if one disagrees there is the FARev and FARC processes. If you have any complains about the artcle being NPOV (and remembering it passed FA) may I suggest discussion at talk? I promise a swift reply. Volodarka: as I replied on talk of PSW a minute ago, it is not in index under V/W, where should I look? I'll check the other three in a minute. As for other articles, perhaps this will shed the light on my opposal to your edits: in PSW we should use the same words for P and S (if possible): I can agree that P. occupied some territories but Soviets did the same. In PSC and HoP39-45 the equivalent wording can be applied to S and NG, but this logic certainly is no basis to remove the wording and whitewash Soviet actions of 17th September.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: none of those three is in the index. Anyway Davies uses some strange Polish/Russian (transliterated into English) mix, for example we have Węgrów, Wieprzów and Vyazma and Uzhorod. If you are looking for some of the answers for Russian/Ukrainian spelling issues, I can give you more examples but I am afraid I can't tell the difference myself.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Recess Time

When I was a child, I saw a cartoon where two guys were fighting, and a third guy tried to stop them. He said, "Gentlemen, gentlemen, let there be peace." They then proceeded to attack him, instead of fighting each other. I hope that's not what is about to happen to me. Irpen and Piotrus, I value your contributions and imput to Wikipedia. I value your intelligence, and I understand the perspectives from which both of you are coming from. Aftr reading certain spats you've had recently (like in the Polish September Campaign talk pages), I think you both need a small recess or mini vacation from each other. Leave it alone for a while. You'll be glad you did. Dr. Dan 03:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dan! It'll be allright unless others (not yourself but other others) join. I got another good vaccination lately (see entries several topics above) and I am even calmer in such conflicts lately. If it comes to worse, I will simply stop editing that article for now, POV-tag it and explain the reasons at talk. I simply try to avoid it by all means since it is rather unprecedented to have a mainpage article POV-tagged. But I believe, such controversial topic articles at the Mainpage are equally unprecedented and, perhaps, too early. Piotrus did I huge amount of work for this article, but maybe such controversial topics cannot be possibly fully NPOVed. Thanks anyway, --Irpen 04:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Polonization

I'd like to congratulate you on your Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth section of the Polonization article. Very well put ! --Lysy^talk 18:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am wroking on it as we speak and I hope you are not being sarcastic. --Irpen 18:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm certainly not. --Lysy^talk 02:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Mentoring

Would you like to co-mentor Deng? - FrancisTyers 12:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

yes. --Irpen 20:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting article

You might enjoy this article from Pravda.ru . It made me chuckle, but I honestly don't know what to make out of it. Is this some kind of joke or are they serious about this? Anyway, lately Google News spits out such strange links when searching for Poland, for example. Seems their standards in selecting news items are nil. Balcer 11:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration regarding the usage of "liberation" in articles

An arbitration request involving you has been filed.--AndriyK 19:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you never cool down. Very well, I am glad you took this venue instead of edit warring. --Irpen 19:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil in the discussion

I am a bit puzzled with your manner to answer the questions of other users.

Even if somebody by mistake asked the same question twice, is it not easier to answer the questions briefly that immediately blame your colleague for trolling?--Mbuk 21:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I civilly pointed out to you that if you want to take this issue upon yourself, your reposting of the discussed issues without addressing the past discussion or cherry-picking selected answers makes things more rather than less difficult. If you think that pointing this out to you is incivil, you should reread WP:Civility. I discussed things with you for a very long time giving you the advise the best way I could and in as much detail as I could before realizing that you simply lead your opponents in endless circles hoping to get an outcome to your liking. It is your duty to read the past discussions if you want to lead the dispute resolution. If you want to achieve a one specific outcome, as it seems, you would be perceived accordingly. If you have anything new to say on the topic, say it at the article talk (told you that 6 or 7 times). For now, I see nothing like that. You come back to people's talk harassing them with undeserved criticism as if you have nothing better to do. I will absolutely stop responding to endless pestering. I suggested to you to write at least some content to Wikipedia. Your lack of interest in doing that is also telling. Still, I will treat each of your future entires based on their own merit as I always put aside past disagreements when the new issue arises. Over and out. --Irpen 21:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

TfD

I think a potentially very disruptive template is on verge of being kept. If you have time, please take a look at this TfD discussion. [68] Regards. 172 | Talk 21:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Polonizing Russian articles

I'll respond here, since it is not relevant for Russian architecture any more. After I've included the picture of palace in Warsaw in the article you've accused me of "Polonizing Russian topics just for the sake of it". I feel this is unjust and untrue. Are you aware of my attempts to "Polonize" Russian articles other than adding the obviously missing illustration to Russian Architecture ? --Lysy^talk 16:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, I did not accuse you in anything. I simply pointed out to the existence of the trend with Catherine, Suvorov, Russo-Japanese war and even Tyutchev, Pushkin and Ded Moroz articles getting an excessive polonocentric view. I disagreed with that particular edit to the RA article because it is within that pattern, set not by you. The reason why that illustration was not optimal, is explained in detail at Talk:Russian architecture#Stalin's palace in Warsaw. Your attempt to illustrate the article was appreciated. The image later was replaced with the image that illustrated the article better and there is no need for more than one illustration of this particular issue in such a broad article, especially since we have several narrower ones. --Irpen 06:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"The reason why that illustration was not optimal, is explained in detail at Talk:Russian architecture#Stalin's palace in Warsaw"

It's strange, I did not find any "xplanation in detail" there. You merely stated that Moscow University is a better illustration without explanation.--Mbuk 22:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You are making a big mistake by allowing yourself to be blindly lead by AndriyK whose remaining tenure at WP will likely be short despite my attempts to turn his efforts into anything creative. You should make your judgements yourself rather than allow others to tell you what to do. The explanation was detailed and elaborate and sufficient to the proponent of the change. Please raise issues at the article talk and on your own behalf. --Irpen 00:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not allow myself to be blindly lead by anybody. AndriyK did not write me anything about the "Polonizing" stuff.

I've read your discussion with Lysy at the Russian architecture talk and did not find there any "explanation in detail" as you clame. This is my own judgement. If I am wrong, self-citing your explanation would be much more usefull than what you wrote here.--Mbuk 06:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the link above. Here is only some quotes from there:

• "We need an image illustrating a Stalinist neo-classicism. On that I agree. Perhaps the best known in Poland example of that style is the Palace of culture. I can take it and I can see the image in the pl:Rosyjska architektura However, the best known in the world example of it are the seven Moscow sky-scrapers originally planned for the Stalin's 70th birthday. Of those 7 buildings, the Moscow State University is the most prominent one. If we have a good enough image of it, this should illustrate the style, rather that the Warsaw building. The latter has its own article and the image can be used in other articles too. If it was indeed the most prominent and most illustrative example of the style, I would not have objected to it of course. I don't care where it is. There are plenty of the examples of this style outside of Russia and of the huge scale too..."
• Lysy, the point is...to have it illustrated in the best possible way. The MSU building fits better as a single illustration of the style, especially considering that a separate Stalinist architecture article already exists, along with the palase article, and Soviet architecture is being considered....Has the palace been the most prominent example of the style, I would not have objected to it.
• Same here, Warsaw palace being the only illustration of the style in such a general article made no sense. With the presense of the palace article, the Stalinist architecture and others, what we need here is a single illustration of the style tops.

Mbuk, I have a strong feeling that you are not behaving in good faith and are just trying to make a point and waste my time. I hope I am wrong. Your endless questioning for easy to find answers borders trolling if it's not one. I request that you start acting on your own and please start adding content to WP instead wasting other people's and your own time. From now on, I firmly request that you use article's talk to conduct article's related discussion. I will see it there and will respond if I see the response warranted. --Irpen 06:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You citations is exactly what I read at Talk:Russian architecture yesterday. As I told you, there is no any explanation there.

It looks like you do not understend the difference between stating something and explaining it. You stated "the best known in the world example of it are the seven Moscow sky-scrapers ... Of those 7 buildings, the Moscow State University is the most prominent one." This is not an explanation. This a statement. Do not expect that other people will consider your statements as "ultimate truth". People may have an opposite view, and you have to support your view with a reasonable explanation and references to the sources.

It will save a lot of yours and other people's time if you understand two simple facts

• Stating something does not mean yet explanation
• Explaining something does not mean automatically resolving the dispute.

Please reread WP:AGF. If the people disagree with you or criticise your discussion habits, it does not mean yet they are not having good faith. Please be more open too the criticism.

This message is related to your edit habits rather to any specific articles. Therefore I place it onto your talk page.--Mbuk 20:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I leave it to others to judge who is right here. I fed you too much and have no intention to do it. Your disregard to advise to do any editing except pestering is blatantly obvious. Until you change the habbits, do not expect others to take your entries seriously. --Irpen 21:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Battle of the Lower Dnieper/Lviv]], and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

My tags were inserted properly. And your POV-pushing and incompetence multiplied by your stubborness and persistence in edit warring, is a real catastrophy for Ukraine-related segment of Wikipedia. --AndriyK 18:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The catastrophe is your aggressive nationalist position and an attempt to represent such views fringe within the Ukrainian society as the "Ukrainian" one. I said it all at your talk and will say more once I finish writing a response to your frivolous Wikilawyering. --Irpen 18:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Any example of "aggressive nationalist position"?--AndriyK 19:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Want me to quote your ArbCom case ??? <_< -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks

Please re-read WP:NPA. You seem to be making statements just to provoke people[69].

As general rule, please do not use article talk pages to make comments about users. Use the users' talk pages instead. The article talk page is reserved to discuss the article. Flooding it with unrelated stuff makes it difficult to read and follow the discussion. Thanks.--Mbuk 08:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOFEEDING#Dealing with pestering and misplaced criticism --Irpen 09:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your help on the Yulia Tymoshenko article! I'm planing a trip to Ukraine, how are you all feeling out there? --Mariah-Yulia 21:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the recent developments at all, as you can guess. My guess, we will see a continuation of the lack of political stalibility in the months to come. That's not good for the country, its people and its neighbors. I hope this all won't end up with a convicted criminal becoming a prime-minister again. Time will show... Thanks for your attention and interest to the Ukrainian topics. --Irpen 17:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Your conflict with AndriyK

I think, it would be helpfull if you pay attantion to the following:

• Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party. This does not mean that you have to agree with the other person, but just agree to disagree.
• Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is.
• Explore issues in a less public forum like e-mail if a debate threatens to become personal.
• Read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

and Note: There are certain Wikipedia users who are unpopular, perhaps because of foolish or boorish behavior in the past. Such users may have been subject to disciplinary actions by the Arbitration Committee. It is only human to imagine that such users might be fair game for personal attacks. This notion is misguided; people make mistakes, often learn from them and change their ways. The NPA rule applies to all users irrespective of their past history or how others regard them. (From WP:NPA).--Mbuk 06:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if he would have learned from mistakes and started doing anything at all here but tag-trolling. removing stuff from articles and wikilawyering. He has yet to add anything new at all to Wikipedia. For now, he just disrputed a whole bunch of articles which will continue until his unlikely reform or an ouster. Now, I request that you concentrate on articles, start writing something excpet of meaningless three-sentence stubs, or if you don't have time/desire for that propose anything useful on how to improve the existing article instead of harassing other editors and serving as AndriyK's revert proxy. I am familiar with policies. Also, please read the message at the top of my talk. I tolerated your harassment long enough. --Irpen 07:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

RFCs

Has your RFC been closed yet? I've got myself one too now... --Tēlex 18:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

The "closure" is not defined by a procedure. Since no one is posting there, it may be considered closed but I do not consider it such until I post the response. Just haven't got time to write it. I promise, my response would make a great reading. --Irpen 18:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You may want to draw inspiration from mine, launched this morning by Mbuk. It seems that tags are very important to them. --Tēlex 18:40, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :). I will mention it. You don't need to rush to post a response. Let Mbuk and AndriyK have their fun first. --Irpen 18:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

That User:Mbuk is exhausting. Look at the bottom of Talk:Ukrainization: he has been asked a simple question and he persistently evades answering it. In the meantime, he won't actually edit the article and insists on the tag, and will edit war to maintain it. Are we supposed to guess what he wants or something? He does not say what he wants. It's like someone going into a shop and saying I want you to guess what I want, and I won't leave until you do. --Tēlex 22:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Break in Ukrainization dispute

Irpen, you've asked me to postpone our dispute on Ukrainization article, I agreed and then you've immediately changed the lead to your version. What do you mean ? I hope it was a mistake, as I'm always assuming your good faith. --Lysy^talk 10:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed the lead before asking you. Check carefully. --Irpen 16:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you did not and I think you know this. Check the diffs I've provided above. --Lysy^talk 08:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As you were the one requesting (quite rightly) the cease-fire, it is appropriate to allow the other version to stand for the duration of it. This would demonstrate your selfless stance on the matter. Tyrenius 01:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Tyrenius, I don't have a selfless stance on the matter. When I undo someone's work, I only do so when I think the other version needs changed (it can surely happen that I am wrong in the end of the day). I asked Lysy to leave the article in my version assuming that the differences are not so great that would make leaving an article in my version totally unacceptable for him. It was up to him to decide. --Irpen 01:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You've asked for a break at 22:24, 13 July 2006,

I agreed 4 minutes later at 22:28, 13 July 2006,

To my surprise you've reverted the article tou your version 7 minutes later, at 22:37, 13 July 2006.

Am I missing something ? --Lysy^talk 19:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the list of edits you ate talking about:

• I asked you at 21:24
• Right after that, I went to the article's talk and I posted a talk page entry at 21:32
• Right after that I went to the article's page and adjusted the article according to the explanation of the talk page entry (21:37)

I don't know what you mean by missing. This is the chronological list and it is easy to check. I am surprized by your lack of AGF but fine. You have your suspicions, you bring them up. --Irpen 19:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm always assuming your good faith at first, as I mentioned above, bit now I'm starting to wonder what game are you playing with me. Did you revert the article to your version before or after I agreed for a break ? --Lysy^talk 19:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Game? I changed the article before I saw any response from you. After contacting you I went straight to the article's talk from where I went straight to the article. Any other questions? --Irpen 20:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Now, that you've realised that you've reverted after we had agreed for a break, what are you going to do ? --Lysy^talk 20:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I am going to develop the article further as soon as I can get to it. I explicitly wrote in my message to you that I hope you agree that the article is not so bad anyway to leave it as it was. I also explained at talk what was wrong with the previous version before chamging it. Per lack of action from you for more than a day, I thought you agree either with my explanation or that the difference between my version and what you see it should be is not so huge to leave as is for a while. I really don't see what you are leading this to. If you want to accuse me of anything, just say so directly and at public pages. Your fuzzy (I always assumed good faith from you but...) lacks clearity on what you are trying to say. --Irpen 20:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, there's no point in accusing you of anything in public pages. I thought we've made an agreement on your request, then you broke it, I assumed your good faith and thought it was a mistake. Therefore I asked. Now, after you've been shown the obvious chronology of the events, you still continue to pretend you do not understand. I'm simply disappointed as now I believe you did this on purpose. If you "hoped I ageed that the article was not so bad anyway to leave it as it was" then why did you revert it ? If you really respected our agreement you'd revert to the last version before we agreed for the break, out of pure courtesy instead of continuing to push your version. Sigh. --Lysy^talk 21:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Can you please end this silly dispute over a two-minutes difference in the timestamp? I'm following it for a moment, and honestly, this is just plain ridiculous. Please assume good faith, both of you, and rather employ your forces to settle the dispute rather than inflaming it uselessly. Otherwise it is really a waste of energy :(( -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 21:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Grafikm, I really don't understand what's Lysy's fussing about. I did not need to ask him of anything if I found his version agreeable. I could just leave it at that. My request at his talk asking him to interrupt the edit dispute could not have meant that it was at his version, otherwise it would have been a tautology. After I elaborately explained the problems at talk, changed the article accordingly and so no reaction for a while, I thought the article could have just stay as it was until the trolling of AndriyK and Mbuk is settled separately. Now, after several days passed Lysy starts to accuse me in things and I really don't see where this is coming from or where it is leading to. Sigh. --Irpen 21:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

All right, I don't think we need to continue this as, sadly, I got my answers. I also understand that you do not need the break any more and we can return to discuss the article. Correct ? --Lysy^talk 06:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, after your accusing me over nothing that I did wrong, dragged this discussion over nothing for that long and made it even an attack on my integrity, I am really not looking forward towards discussion anything with you at all. But if you force me to by making controverisal edits and persisting with them, I will have to respond. You can call it "discuss the article" if you want. --Irpen 06:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Lysy and Irpen please cool down. Discuss the articles, not your personal relations. At any rate 4 minute differences in the time stamps can be simply a time lag on the different SQUID servers, or an oversight to check watchlists/new message boxes or a software glitch or whatever. You know each other for ages and know what to expect and what not to expect from each other quite well. abakharev 06:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, and exactly this surprized me in Lysy's accusations. Whatever... --Irpen 06:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

To me the situation is very simple, if unpleasant. We've agreed for a break in discussing the article and I stopped looking at article's talk page for some time. I was then disappointed to see that you've continued to push your version despite the "break" that you've asked for. I do not see any "time stamp difference" issue here. Now I think I need a break as this behaviour, and your further denial really upset me. That's all from me. --Lysy^talk 08:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

To me situation became simple as well, although I did not expect that kind of situation from you. I should not have spent time responding to your assumptions of bad-faith and baseless accusations and should have followed instead the "Dealing with pestering and misplaced criticism" instructions. --Irpen 17:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sre if you're trying to offend me, but I won't let you turn this situation into a personal conflict. I intend to simply back off and avoid co-editing with you for some time, until we both cool down. So far I'm deeply disgusted with your behaviour and the way you reacted to my questions. --Lysy^talk 21:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to offend you. I am explaining how it feels to be accused in something one hasn't done by a person from who one did not expect a baselessly attacked when nothing wrong was done.

I can tell you though, that any given Wikipedian can only insult me a one single time. From that moment on I stop caring about what that person is saying to me or about me. You grossly violated the AGF guideline and then unleashed a baseless attack while anyone can see that you are either making it up or refuse to see what's plain obvious.

So, your talking about being "disgusted" here seems to me a disgusting hypocricy and I have no intention to spend any more time to convince you there was no foul play, especially when this is so plain obvious and especially after I spent so much time on writing to explain this to you. You are free to say whatever you want and I would be happy if you raise your accusations in a more public place to request other people's opinion, be it RfC, arbitration or whatever. Now, if you want to continue this, please do so at the public pages rather than at my talk so that you will get more feedback. --Irpen 23:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Subdivisions of Ukraine

Hi, Irpen! I don't know if you are still following this discussion; I am posting this just in case you aren't. I requested your opinion in my today's post. Nothing urgent, though. And hey, congrats with your cool new awards above! Perhaps I should get you a jewelry box soon to keep them all there :)) Cheers!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mikhail Leontyev

I'm deleting your recent comment on Talk:Mikhail Leontyev [70] as it provided zero information on the subject. Please avoid such comments as "unleashing this incivil trollish diatribe", and don't escalate conflicts. KPbIC 01:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I am restoring it. Please feel free to remove anything from your own talk page as you see fit. I want a certain user to follow your example rather than making every single talk page entry and most edit summaries uncivil. --Irpen 01:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

There are three parts in your short remark. First, you are telling the other long-time editor what to do. Second, you are attacking him by claiming that he was "unleashing ... incivil trollish diatribe". Third, you are turning Wikipedian into a place for discuscussin of each other attitude.

Because you wrote absolutely nothing about Mikhail Leontyev I'm again deleting your remark from Talk:Mikhail Leontyev. KPbIC 01:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I am free to give my opinion on things and don't mind to receive an occasional advise on what to do myself. Calling someone's trollish action by its name is not not a PA. You may be right that the optimal attitude would be starting an RfC for each such remark rather than commenting at the article's talk but I think it is a waste of time, so I leave my comment right below the entry that prompted it. That said, I expect my entries to stay where I leave them, save the user talk pages where they are allowed to do whatever they want. I am restoring my comment and expect it to stay there.

On a side note, I appreciate your caring for the positive climate at Wikipedia. If this is really what it is, please consider following that fellow's talk page entries and moderate them for him. If he would accept that, this would be a great public service on your part. Most of his talk page remarks are uncivil and many are pure trolling. --Irpen 02:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Józef Piłsudski

Please help NPOV the article as per your suggestions, I am afraid I lack the needed sources.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  04:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration

Hello, why don't you draft an arbitration case against the new AndriyK? His ban is long overdue, Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:13, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Patriarchy, etc.

Forgive me! I was just trying to standardize the article names. Thanks for the explanation. —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 12:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Invitation to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy

Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 12:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Government of Ukraine

Hi. User:Mack2 keeps listing the National Institute for Strategic Studies (NISS) among other bodies of government of Ukraine. NISS is a think tank with only an advisory status, and it is not a proper body of government per se. There's no law of Ukraine (or even a proposed law) defining NISS's scope of authority as it must be the case for any body of government. From his comments it is clear he is somehow affiliated with that institution.

Also, he has deleted NBU from the list and denies that. I don't know why since it's so easy to check the article history. Sashazlv 23:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sasha, nice to hear from you. I saw what was going on with that article since, as you can see, I have recently cleared up some nonsense added there by one fellow who calls himself a Ukrainian "practicing political analyst" and/or "professional political analyst" but whose "professional" edit included such pearls like "The Ukrainian president can appoint Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Defense unilaterally (without nomination or approvement)" (That's aside from the edit summaries like this or this or many "proFFesional" entries like this).

So, yes, I followed your discussion with Mack2, but yet without interfering, since I interacted with you both in the past and with a great deal of good experience. IMO, you are 100% correct about NBU but I think we need to give our colleague Mack2 a lot of AGF since he is a rather new user, he contributed extensively and at a very high quality to several topics that were in abysmal condition and our small sector of WP would benefit a lot if he, rather than some writers of nonsense, will write for it. I think Mack2 deleted NBU inadvertently and now, that this is explained, he will check more carefully to not delete it in his further edits.

As for NISS, I can see your point, that it fits better to the President of Ukraine article.

I am sure that misunderstanding with Mack2 is simply a result of miscommunication and lack of time to check diffs and/or communicate in detail. I will leave him a note about this.

On the side note, could you help clear/tidy up the Gov of UA article after the recent updates that partly include changes due to the Political reform in Ukraine. Also, in whatever time you have, please consider starting up that redlink article (or under a different name). We still need to find someone to start a 2006 Parliamentary Crisis in Ukraine (or something similar) for the current unpleasant events, as we have separate articles for the Natural Gas crisis and even Anti-NATO protests, but, I guess, everyone is too depressed by the current developments.

Thanks again, --Irpen 00:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Cossack

I need your help there. And archive at least 2/3 of this page. --19:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Stalking

My sock stalker has returned --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

UA-news portal window

Irpen, thanks for dropping by and writing a note. Will see you in the editing "field."--Riurik 15:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte

Hi Irpen,

Could you please help me out with Bonaparte? He's trolling agian. Thanks. —Khoikhoi 18:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Will do. --Irpen 18:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I restored the talk page I deleted

I restored the talk page that I deleted, as you requested, and I also removed the speedy deletion tag so that does not happen again. I'm not sure why someone wanted it deleted an an attack page. Academic Challenger 07:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I know that someone and I will deal with it if necessary. Thanks again! --Irpen 07:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, thanks

Thank you so much for the award *blush* the ukrainian communittee on wikipedia have been really incredible. Thanks you again. Odessaukrain 23:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Irpen!

Hehehe, I knew right from the start but only decided to report him when he started to piss me off. Next time I'll be less tolerant. ;) Пока. —Khoikhoi 01:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

PBW talks

I've read all the relevant talk pages before I posted my comments, I wonder what made you think that I didn't. Perhaps I haven't noticed some of the arguments and repeated them, but it was certainly not done in bad faith. Also note that I'm not reverting some of your controversial edits and instead I'm using the talk page. I appreciate your will of discussion and I hope to hear some arguments or a list of things that are actually disputed. Halibutt 00:35, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

For now, I dispute the Kruchkov story, but since it is totally on its head I have doubts about the sources in general, as I pointed at the article's talk.

Also, I would like to see copyvio problems addressed. The article, from which the text was borrowed was not listed in references. I have no way of knowing what else is from where. If you used any other online sources, list them of course, at least at talk, since I cannot just buy and read all the print books listed there. Online refs definetely have to be listed in online WP. Also, only books used in writing should be in references. The rest is "further reading".

In the dispute re outcome of Kiev Offensive we already heard each other. I would like to see what others will say, very much including the Polish editors, maybe not all but most for sure (don't want to call names). Same about Wolodarka.

Finally, for clarity, let's not split the discussion between several pages (yours, mine, articles). You can respond to me at your own talk. I will know :). I only responded here now, because these things are already said at the article's talk. It is important for all conserned editors to see relevant discussions. regards, --Irpen 01:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I believe I already adressed all of your concerns on the respective talk pages. I hope to hear from you soon. I also explained where the heck the part on Kruchkov came from. It was about the only online reference I used and now it is mentioned in the talk. As to the copyvio - please take note that it was in the original version by Piotrus, so I believe you should ask him about it, and not me. As to the other voices in the discussion - unfortunately I doubt it will attract more readers as this matter is not that popular nowadays. Or am I wrong?

Anyway, I prefer to respond on people's talk pages as it is easier for them to notice that there is some discussion going on. Otherwise, I'd have to open about 1000 User talk pages every time someone posts a comment there... Halibutt 01:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Irpen, don't get me wrong, I really appreciate your calm responses and your influence on cross-checking the articles. However, you still need to provide any sources at the Battle of Wołodarka talk page - and I seriously doubt you could find any to support your claim. Whichever way you turn the cat... Halibutt 06:30, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Kiev Offensive 1

I understand your frustration. Anyway, maybe a short break and returning to the articles afresh in a couple of days is a good idea. In the meantime, what do you think of my suggestion of writing more articles about the battles/events of the 1920 campaign that would add more balanced view ? As I tried to explain, the articles written by Polish editors are based mostly on Polish historiography, therefore their selection may be intrinsically biased. --Lysy ^(talk) 20:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I appreciate your attempts to find agreable solutions. You, Piotrus, EugeneK and myself did manage to move the articles forward a little bit before Halibutt got stuck with myself and EugeneK (I don't blame him for his vision of this but I think he did jump the gun too fast and defends his positions to stubbornly, but that's just how strongly one feels that he's right, so no bad blood is drawn).

Writing about other battles, as you proposed, is a good idea. However, this is better to be done by editors with better preparation than myself. I just tried to start from what I saw in the articles that initially alarmed me as making little sense. Only after that I started to dig into the topic. If I get into writing new articles, I would have to do so much research, that I would not be able to do anything else in WP.

As for getting back to this after a break, we'll see. We will need to have some starting points to agree on. Outcome of the battles are crucial and there are no new arguments there to possibly bring up. I asked for an alternative scenario at Wolodarka which would be a draw and how different would that be from what actually happened. I did not get an answer. Halibutt asked, how is this not a victory and also doesn't see responses as an answer. In Kiev, the outcome is so obvious and so well argued at talk, that it is just impossible to believe people can agree on anything if my change of the outcome was called "unexpected, unsupported and unsourced change ... [with evidence I] so far failed to [provide]". Anyway, I got frustrated with arguing itself but not personally with people. I will keep an eye on the articles and might even write at talk pages but I decided against trying to edit them for now. Thanks again! --Irpen 20:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to see Polish, Russian, Ukrainian etc. editors collaborate more than fight. Maybe I'm over-optimistic, but I believe this can gradually be achieved. The first step is respecting each other even if we cannot agree, and I think this is a success already. Edits like this one are very harmful and inflammatory, however. Thanks for putting it down, we don't need a flame war on top of this all.

As to an alternative scenario for a draw at Wolodarka, I'm not sure if there exists any in cases of a charge or siege, when one side is clearly defending its positions only. My view on this is quite mixed, as you've seen. I have to admit that even the Kiev outcome is not 100% clear to me, although I'm rather inclined towards "Soviet victory", but I also understand Halibutt's points. Poles were not defeated there, but withdrew, no Polish army was destroyed. Unlike Soviets, who were later defeated in Battle of Warsaw (1920). See the difference ? Thanks for your patient and cool approach and I appreciate your withdrawing instead of loosing the temper :-) --Lysy ^(talk) 21:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

No, no! I did loose my temper and therefore withdrew. As for your specific example, I view it like this. If one is trying to attack, fails and the seige fails because of that (besieging army withdraws), this is the victory of a defender (Battle of Moscow). If the attack did not suceed and things return to where they were, this is inconclusive. Another attack at a later time may or may not be a victory. --Irpen 21:48, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This seems like original research, however. It would be good to have a support of independent (not original) research calling it a draw. This could be difficult, though. --Lysy ^(talk) 05:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think it is an overstretch to call this "original research". This is just a simple and obvious logical string. I am sure that you will not find any book or source that would say literally that 1.980458456336502^{1.980458456336502} = 3.8701893442374057953370823328016, but if I need a result of this calculation in some WP article, I am sure I am allowed to use it. The article describes the battle, tells that everyone returned to an initial position and than calls an outcome a "Polish victory". I think your recent change in Wolodarka is a step in the right direction. Thanks again for your help in the search of the resolution. I didn't really plan to do anything there, but what really ticked me off is a complete disregard of my objection via a single-handed removal of my POV tag. Cheers, --Irpen 06:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Bah! Indeed, reading your chat here was helpful (see my recent comment on Talk:Battle of Wołodarka). Hope that ends the dispute. Cheers. Halibutt 13:50, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Or does it? Halibutt 07:35, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I will respond to your comments at article's talk. I really had no time today for much. I will get to this on the weekend. If/When you feel I am not responding within a reasonable time, you may remove the mention of the dispute of course. I may resurrect it when I respond but I think a couple of days isn't too much to ask. Also, I owe you responses in different discusions which I also plan to get to soon. Regards, --Irpen 07:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I have edited the article a bit further and then removed the POV tag. Let me know if there are any specific issues that you still consider POV and that remained in the article. --Lysy ^(talk) 14:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, is there any chance you respond to your own dispute any time soon? Halibutt 08:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I will respond at article's talk. --Irpen 14:03, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Page moves

Point me to page moves that need to be listed at WP:RM. —Michael Z. 2005-10-27 19:47 Z

See your talk. I think an arbitration is in order with preliminary injunction to prohibit moves by this user issued upon case acceptance. He should be allowed to propose moves at talk, of course, but not move single-handily, even if the page is available. These pages should be moved in one block. My god! That's so exhausting! I so much wanted to do something with St. Volodymyr's cathedral, because it is a very worthy topic. And with so much more! Cheers, --Irpen 19:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Piłsudski's nationalism?

I'd be interested to discuss your view of Piłsudski as being nationalistic. I think the perception in Poland is quite the contrary, he was the main opponent of nationalism. I'm curious what made you think he was a nationalist ? Maybe it was the Soviet propaganda, that attempted to picture him as a facist ? --Lysy ^(talk) 08:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well let's see destruction of multiple non-catholic buildings (including the famous Alexandr Nevskiy cathedral in Warsaw). Invasion of a sovereign nation - USSR. Having some random ideals about creating a barrier from Russia red or white, to be fair that's a bit on the nationalistic side. Kuban kazak 19:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

All right. Where do you see nationalism in this ? --Lysy ^(talk) 21:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Lysy, FYI, the Soviet propaganda preferred not to cover Pilsudski at all because he was associated with not so successful military campaign of the Soviet Russia. If you are interested in modern view of mainstream historiography in Ukraine, you may read the following article in Ukrainian or in Russian (whichever you can read more easily).

• "Figures of the 20th century. Józef Piłsudski: the Chief who Created a State for Himself," Zerkalo Nedeli (the Mirror Weekly), Feb. 3-9, 2001, available online in Russian and in Ukrainian.

I did not expect at all that the statement that he was a nationalist would startle Poles. OTOH, I beleive, that my statement to the contrary was equally unexpected for you to see. That's the consequence of systemic biases we may have been exposed too. That's the good thing about international projects, such as WP, that it brings people with such different views together. --Irpen 22:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's good and educative. I would expect that Russian POV would see Piłsudski as an enemy, and Ukrainian POV could perceive him as a traitor, but why a nationalist ? :-) Just for explanation: the Polish perception is that he was the major opponent of the nationalistic ideas of Roman Dmowski. Calling an opponent of nationalism a nationalist does not seem to make much sense. The fact that someone was fighting against the Soviet Union has nothing to do with him being a nationalist or not. Or is it that all the enemies of Russia were labeled as nationalists by definition ? ;-) --Lysy ^(talk) 22:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well first of all we must remember that the Russian common POV on nationalism is often heavily skewed away from its true definition, (for instance in some of his Postwar policies Stalin might well fit the, traditional unskewed definition of Nationalism) Ho Chi Minh, even though he was communist was at the same time a hardline Vietnamese nationalist. Most new nations begin with a heavy slant on nationalism. Poland in the post WW1 scenario was certainly not an exception to this rule, and if you look at the policies conducted by the new Polish state then, examples of nationalism are...everywhere, multiple destruction of Orthodox Churches, multiple Polinisation of what you call the Kresy territories...Usually the policies that were carried out at that time are later accredited to the leaders, I did not say that it was Pilsudskiy that ordered the destruction of churches, it may well have been that he did everything in his power to prevent their destruction, but history seems to have its own way with these events. Kuban kazak 23:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Poland in the interbellum was a highly nationalistic country. In fact the level of Polish nationalism rose with time and was much higher in the 1930-s, after Piłsudski's death than before. Nevertheless, he was the leader of the socialist party, that opposed the right wing nationalists. I don't think he ever claimed that Polish nation was superior to any other nations or that Poland should be limited to a single nation only. Piłsuski's friend and Polish president Gabriel Narutowicz was murdered by nationalists, who hated them. I don't know who ordered the Alexandr Nevsky cathedral, but you'd have to take the whole story into account and consider when and why it was built. It was clearly a symbol of a foreign occupant. Ask yourself: why should it be preserved in the newly independent Poland ? I don't see its destruction has much to do with nationalism. To summarise, on Polish political scene, Piłsudski was seen as a major enemy of nationalism and his ideas of multi-national state were fiercely criticized by National-Democratic Party. --Lysy ^(talk) 01:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The question is would there ever be such a multinational state even if Pilsudski would have gotten it his way and managed to be its leader. I don't know how genuine his words were but even if believing that he was sincere saying that, I doubt his policies would follow up. His army's behaviour in Galicia and Volhynia after the suppression of WUR leave me in doubt about him being able to accept equality of Ukraine and Poland and, perhaps, others in the Polish-centered mega-state. His army's mauradeering in the central Ukraine during the PSW may not prove much, because it may have been common at the time, but he could have taken measures here too. The most important thing, though, is that unlike some Polish people I've seen believe, the equality of nobility and religions in PLC is a myth or at least it is a myth from what I read. It may be unprecedentedly "equal" compared to other multiethnic states, but other states never claimed to be "federations", or "Democracies of nobles". Other states never proclaimed religious freedom too and Warsaw compact was unprecedented. The truth perhaps is that the proponents of such federations throughout history always assumed a Polish domination there, even if subconsciously. I see no reason that Pilsudski was any different in this respect. --Irpen 01:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You may be right, but since we're speculating here, why not go a bit further. If the federation succeeded, probably we would not have WW2 and probably not Soviet Union. Even if dominated by Poland in the federation, I expect Ukraine would be better off than under totalitarian regimes. Piłsudski's idea was to counterbalance the power of German and Russian empires, but obviously he failed. --Lysy ^(talk) 08:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

As to Kazak's arguments (mind if I join you?), they are bizarre indeed. For instance, the destruction of the Saxon Square Orthodox church was not a matter of Piłsudski's nationalism or socialism as he had nothing to do with that. That building (the highest in Warsaw at that time!), along with the monument to Poles killed for loyalty to their monarch and several other signs of Russian rule, was seen as a symbol of Russian oppression. It was visible from almost all parts of the city and was built by the city (large contributions imposed on it by the occupants) for the Russian garrison. And after it was gone, it was decided to dismantle the church. While the decision might seem controversial to some, it was made by the authorities of Warsaw, not by Piłsudski (note that, unlike USSR, Poland was a democracy and not every single thing was decided by the Chief of State, especially after he withdrew to his reffuge in Józefów after the Polish-Bolshevik War). Also note that there were also other Orthodox churches built for the Russian garrisons of Warsaw that were dismantled after they became deserted (most Russians withdrew from Warsaw along with the Russian army in 1915), while several others were left in place (there are three of them still standing, despite the fact that there are barely any Orthodox people in Warsaw nowadays).

As to what Irpen wrote above, Piłsudski's idea was not a multinational state but rather a federation. Also, note that the border treaty with Ukraine was respected by Piłsudski even after Dmowski's negotiators at the Riga talks threw the Ukrainian cause out of the window. And that the border on the Zbruch river was kept, despite the fact that the Russians offered Poland much more territory there. Also, we can only speculate what would've happened with Petlura's Ukraine after the war as in fact it lasted only for several weeks before the allied armies were pushed back. During the war of 1920 the Ukrainian Army was indeed subdued militarily, but this is rather natural. Especially that it was severely understrenght (all six Ukrainian divisions were en cadre and numbered more or less the same as an average Polish infantry division of the time) and fully equipped by Poland. However, it was not dominated by Poland politically in any way. Note that there was no Polish administration there, not even in the front area (which was quite uncommon back then and is even now; usually allied armies have their military administration near the front). So, all in all, if there was no Polish political hegemony there during the war, why should we assume there would be some after the war? And how are such assumptions any more reasonable than assumptions to the contrary?

BTW, how about moving this discussion to Talk:Józef Piłsudski? Halibutt 03:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand that the stated form of the state was a federation but I am sure that what was had in mind was a Polish dominated federation as I explained above. As for Ukrainian events, I am talking not about joint operation with Petliura's which I find strange to call "allies" but so be it if this is used in Polish books (collaborators seem more exact to me). What I meant, are events that happened before Petliura was subdued and had to sell out the the aspirations of Ukrainians in what is now Western Ukraine for Pilsudski's help in installing himself in Kiev. From the article linked above (sorry for the Russian):

В сентябре 1919 года войска украинской Директории попали на Подолье в так называемый «треугольник смерти». Они были зажаты между красными русскими Ленина и Троцкого на северо-востоке, белыми русскими Деникина на юго-востоке и поляками на западе. Смерть смотрела в глаза. И не только людям — всему только что рожденному государству. Поэтому, верховный атаман Симон Петлюра просто вынужден был или согласиться на предложенный Пилсудским союз, или фактически капитулировать перед большевиками, как сделали тогда или через год-два Владимир Винниченко и Михаил Грушевский. Решение это — очень болезненное. Польская шляхта была историческим врагом украинского народа. Кровоточила свежая рана ЗУНР — именно в это время пилсудчики распинали украинскую Восточную Галичину. Но все же Петлюра согласился на мир и союз, признав украинско-польской границей будущую границу советско-польскую. Следует отметить, что при этом Пилсудский получал меньше земель, нежели ему предложил Ленин, и в придачу еще и войну с огромной Россией. Надднепрянцы же фактически бросали на произвол судьбы в беде своих братьев-галичан. Но Петлюра решил использовать последний шанс сохранить державу — в союзе с поляками. Попробовал. Было не суждено.

P.S. I have no objection to moving the discussion to Pilsudski's talk. --Irpen 04:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty to migrate our last two comments to Talk:Międzymorze and reply there. Halibutt 16:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Irpen

Irpen you should get another Bohdan order for helping new users like myself. Thank you for your comment and look forward to working on these projects--Riurik 23:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Brutality of Poles 1918

I've not forgotten to look for the brutality of Polish against Ukrainians in 1918. I've looked up several potential sources, but so far found nothing notable. It may be because all these sources were of Polish origin. One of them menioned that the early fights were desperate and resulted in later hatred. However I was not able to find anything more specific, particularly anything that would imply that Poles were more brutal than Ukrainians. Have you had any success on this in the meantime ? --Lysy ^(talk) 22:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't checked yet but I remember. Could you take a look at talk:Bukovina, its history and several related paged? --Irpen 22:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have Bukovina on my watchlist, but at the moment: (a) I don't think I'm competent enough to voice my opinion, (b) you know I'm sceptic towards EB and prefer more scholarly appropriate sources. I'll watch for further development and hopefully learn more in the meantime. --Lysy ^(talk) 23:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a book on Romanian history in 19th and 20th centuries (Małgorzata Willaume, "Rumunia", Warszawa 2004, ISBN 8388542745) and searched for the information on Romanian intentions towards Bukovina in 19th century, but did not found anything firm on this (contrary to Transylvania). Maybe it's obvious but it can be difficult to find hard facts on this, other than personal opinions of individual authors. --Lysy ^(talk) 17:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Holodomor

Thanks for the link to the Himka article! The link is especially helpful following the constructive suggestion by Dietwald on Talk:Holodomor: "What SHOULD be done is to expand the discussion on politization. The issue is unduly politicised, which in itself deserver a considerable discussion." [71] I'm also expecting to gather support for writing a much-needed entry on the Soviet famine of 1932-1934. Perhaps such an entry would be a strong candidate for Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week?

You're right about Andrew Alexander. I'm not too optimistic about the Holodomor since he is somewhat on the territorial side. Still, he has demonstrated an interest in adding well-sourced factual content and is relatively civil. We'll see how the discussion goes on the talk page. If it goes well enough, hopefully you will feel inclined to return to the article. Thanks again for the help! 172 20:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. If you get the chance, will you be able to restore the NPOV version of the Holodomor intro? Ultramarine kept on restoring the Andrew Alexander version until I'd used up my three reverts. Interestingly, he does indeed seem to be stalking me. Cold War, for example, was an article that wasn't on his watchlist until yesterday, when he probably found out that the article had been in my recent user contributions history. 172 20:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Also, thanks for the thought-provoking comments on nationalism and education in Ukraine. I'm about to leave my computer so my reply has to be too brief. I'll continue to try to do my best on the Holodomor article. In the meantime, I suppose we'll have to put up with more grandstanding from the usual quarters before much progress can be made. I'll be able to put up with them for at least another week, given that the famine is now such an important topic. Thanks again! 172 21:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Statement of principles

"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred. --Jimbo Wales

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.5.124 (talk • contribs)

I don't mind anons editing. I object to using anonymous accounts for edit warring, that's all. Please edit. This wasn't an edit at all. --Irpen 20:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

First, in my humble opinion, it's wrong to focus on identity of editors (whether it's IP, or AndriyK, or Molobo, or somebody else). It's wrong to harass users by summaries like "I will put aside some time to expand the article to set you an example", "write at least one article if you decided to come back", and especially "seize messing up the texts others write". I see AndriyK's small original edition, and another edition proposed by Mzajac and introduced by AndriyK as as an attempt to introduce unbiased and neutral language into the article. If you even don't let a user to introduce a small edition, it's unethical in the same time to ask him to bring the whole article. And even if he'll never bring a whole article, editing what others wrote toward NPOV is still a plus, and it should be respected.

Second, by objecting "using anonymous accounts for edit warring", you basically acknowledged that (1) there is an editing war, and (2) you are actively participating in it. Moreover, once the edition by Mzajac was introduced I see you as the initiator of the recent edit war. (I don't know what was previously; I'm telling you my view on the current situation). Do you think that having a registered account should give its owner additional rights or power? Do you think that it's ethical for an edit war participant to accuse somebody of being unethical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.5.124 (talk • contribs)

The problem with the conflict between AndriyK's version and the one which was there for months (admitedly written by myself) is that the advantage of the latter is explained in detail at the article's talk. Compromising is good but not for the sake of the compromise itself. Otherwise, we would have to "compromise" Ukrainian articles with the views that, say, the Ukrainian language is the dialect of the Russian or that UPA was a Nazi organization or that Holodomor was caused by bad weather. If someone just makes a random statement at talk, it does not mean that we have to compromise with it. Check recent edits by anon at Orange Revolution. I reverted him without even discussing them. In Khreschatyk the current version is explained and AndriyK failed to provide any explanation to the opposite. His reason is that he doesn't like it. Sorry, that's not good enough to force a compromise. Kuban kazak, doesn't like "I" in Kharkiv. I simply explained to him what's wrong with "O" in modern usage and he withdrew rather than insisting that we look for a compromise with "E". AndriyK just reverts such edits are not worthy of discussion in order to restore to the stable version. He does the same at Russian architecture and a whole bunch of other articles. In fact, for now, that's all he does. I am willing to put aside any issues I have with this editor and discuss things with him based on the merit of his points. He isn't making any points. Just attacks things that he happens to "not like". What should I discuss and compromise then?

Finally, that you edit the articles with ongoing conflicts anonymously is discourteous and unfair. It takes 1 minute to register a throwaway account but that would allow others to talk to you in case of disagreement. It would be best if you put yourself on the equal footing with others and reregister a stable account so that the dialog is possible and you can't pretend to not see what's being said to you. I am talking fairness to others only. But this is only as far as conflicting articles are concerned. Anonymous small corrections are totally all right. But please consider what I've said since you are obviously interested and able to contribute more than that and I know you will. Besides you know that you will. The only reason people actually leave WP is the edit conflicts or sudden sudden changes in life, not the "lack of time". It is too addictive. --Irpen 21:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of the issues you mentioned are well noticable. Personally, I didn't intervene on the Russian Architecture article, probably because while from one side I strictly support user rights to put the POV tag, but from the other, as you pointed out, it's also true that a clear statement on the reasons for the tag should follow. In AndriyK's shoes I would work on making his statement as clear and understandable to all as possible. A simple statement "I like it" probably should follow on the other side by a simple question "Why do you like it?". At best, it may follow by some arguments, but lack of discussion, or discussion over discussion, or discussion over author's identity are all worse. On the Kreschatik article it's a different story, and my 2 cents here I have already brought in. In the end, it's wrong to mix separate issues, and to bring any negative attitude toward an editor from one article to the other.

I apologize if my use of IP addresses created an impression that I am ignoring comments that people left on the discussion page for the particular IP I have used. I hope I read all the comments. And emails too. As you mentioned, some are leaving Wikipedia after a sudden changes in life, but some are aware that a certain negative change in life may come, and are working (not so successful so far) to avoid it. I don't see a point of creating an account, which we know would be essentially fake, for the purpose of few edits. Hope on your understanding on that.

P.S. I looked a little more over the Russian Architecture talk page. AndriyK did clearly state his objectives back in early December. There was a survey later in December, which resulted in 8 vs. 4 in the favor of keeping Kiev Rus architecture as a part of the article. I don't know Wikipedia rules, but in my view POV tag should be a tool for a minority to express disagreement with the majority. The majority's got the article their way, but the minory should have rights at least for a tag (claiming that the view in the article is the view by majority, which is not the same as neutral view). But then, should a view by minority be allowed on Hitler page? Tough question..

As for me personally, I am Ok with Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine are all claiming to be successors of Kiev Rus, including its architecture.

P.P.S. So, I read a few more Wikipedia rules and guidelines. According to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, survey is mentioned as one of the ways to resolve a dispute. Also from there: "Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary". Reading more on the surveys Wikipedia:Straw polls, what I see is "Decisions should be made by consensus rather than a strict majority rule" (good goal, hard to achive; but in the end the rule is the rule), "A straw poll is just a tool for quickly probing opinions", and "A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority". Thus, there was a survey, but consensus has not being achieved. There are other ways mentioned to resolve the dispute: "Informal Mediation", "Discuss with third parties", "Mediation", "Requesting an advocate". As a last resolt, "Arbitration" is mentioned. But as long as the dispute is not resolved, POV tag should stay. It's both majority amd minority who should initiate further steps to resolve the despute.

Yes you are right and check how much time people spent on the issue in response to his tag, checking the academic sources. BTW, tagging was the second thing he did. The first one was moving it to another title Architecture of Rus, that is despite it goes into the Socialist realism times, and we his trademark dirty trick with artificial history to make sure his point is forced upon others. Then he pasted the whole chapter to Architecture of Kievan Rus without any acknowledgement of the authorship, making an impression that he wrote such a superior article. Only after that he placed a tag and it was given a fare amount of thought by the community.

Michael even took an effort to go to the city library and saw that in academia the approach is similar to the one taken in the article. What more you could ask for from the editors who listened to his objections and gave the matter such a thorough study? Third parties mostly agreed as well. If there is a bias all over the world due to a historic influence of the Russian scholarship in the historiography, the way to address it is in the new scholarly works, not in encyclopedia whose aim is to summarize the matter based on the existing knowledge, rather than to "correct" it. This is very similar to Kiev/Kyiv issue. Both are correct, Kiev is primarily used, hence we use Kiev. We mast defer to the mainstream view and mention the minority view, if they are substantial but clearly as minority view, like Holocaust denial in the Holocaust article, or the whether theory in Holodomor or that Russia is not a descendant of Kievan Rus' but of Finno-Ugric tribes in the North, like some fierce Ukrainian nationalists are trying to portray it. --Irpen 02:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"What more you could ask ...?" There is no consensus on the Russian Architecture article, and it's wrong to claim that it exists. AndriyK has never agreed. Can you prove that he is acting in bad faith? Is he actually acting in the bad faith? Other contributors, such as Yakudza, and A.A. supported the objectives in the survey.

In the end, even if somebody is an evil, should or should not we go by the rules? If not, then who are we?

What I am asking is that we go by the rules.

Yes, my point is that he is acting in bad faith here as he has shown in the past he is able to, like frivolous moves of the articles and falsified voting to prevent moving them back. If someone throws a tag, we must study his objections first and address them the best we can. Nothing can prevent a bad-faith user from persisting by just saying "I don't agree". He cannot be allowed to screw the articles just because his views differ from the reality. One thing is ignoring someone's objection. Another thing is to persist with objections that were addressed just to stubbornly make a point. --Irpen 03:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Answered on Russian Architecture talk page, but it becomes not so productive.

Basically, AndriyK brought an objective, which was declined. And now you are saying "dispute closed. bring a fresh objective"? :(

Irpen, you are actually good in cooperating with people. Don't look for fresh objectives. Could you just give a fresh look on AndriyK? Please.

Irpen is not a Saint

Irpen's actions:

• Removed POV tag from Russian Architecture article when AndriyK who put the tag is blocked.
• Claimed that the tag is ridiculous, and consensus has been reached.
• Kept removing the tag for a dozen times and counting.

Saint's actions:

• Wait until AndriyK is unblocked.
• Welcome him back to Wikipedia.
• Remind that there is a POV tag standing on Russian Architecture article, and propose a few alternatives to finally resolve the dispute.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.5.19 (talk • contribs)

Well, not quite like this. That is I am not a saint for sure, but this is not how it was. I don't even remember whether he was blocked when I removed the tag because this was not a thing I was keeping in mind. There was a considerable amount of time (perhaps even a month) when there were enough ArbCom votes to see that he was going to be blocked and the date when the case was closed and the block applied. During that month he was almost inactive, except trolling at Alex's first RfA. If you reread the ArbCom, I did not call for blocking him. I wanted him banned from moving articles (which was done), from substituting the terminology by revert warring rather than proposing and discussing (which was also done) and to restrict his right to revert war (that is, say, 2RR per day rather than 4) which was not done. Stripped of his trolling tools, he might have started to contribute. I removed the tag because I saw the objections answered, no new objections were raised and the tag was there long enough. Besides, his faithful revert war proxy user:Andrew Alexander was around anyway.

I thought of welcoming him because I actually wanted to do it. The reason I didn't was that I thought that it would have just annoyed him. He sees me as a true evil, worse than Ghirla. The latter is just a Russian, it is normal for Russians to be bad in the eyes of a Russophobe. Myself being a Ukrainian and seeing the Ukrainian nationalism as repugnant at the same time, amounts in the eyes of some as a treason (I see any other nationalism repugnant as well). It's like Vlasovets versus a German, who was more hated at the time of the war? You can see even from talk:Khreschatyk, that I offered him to work things out and this was one of the countless times. He chose to bite a hand I stretched to him every time. I am not an ill-tempered person and I hold no grudge for his badmouthing me at en- and ua-wikis as well as at the outside forums and his emails to others. But if he sees me as such and I "welcome him back", he would just get mad because he won't beleive in my sincerety.

Anyway, if he starts writing articles, and I see how I can help, I will be around. If he just goes around spitting, reverting and deleting, I can't do much about that, can I? Besides, I had enough of his attitude and I have no intention to talk to him, unless absolutely necessary because every time it provokes another set of outbursts. --Irpen 09:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, about the Vlasovets and German. I must stress that being a Kuban Cossack, having a Volhynian wife and being Russo-centric bites hard. You see a minority of people in Ukraine (or in the Ukrainian diaspora) tend to think of Kuban as being an ethnic Ukrainian territory and its people being Russified and opressed. However my political view and historical account (and as is the rest of the Kuban for whom I can safetely speak) does not coincide with this "skazka" that he read somewhere. Of course he hates me just as well. Btw I should add that my wife's family back in Rivne are all going to vote for Vitrenko in the elections, which of course would conflict with another image of Volhynia being a nationalist haven, but then if you have events like these contributing [72], [73] I doubt there would be any nationalists left within a few years (and having lived there I can see how these words are gaining truth). Which will of course annoy a person with Svidomyi mentality, but then truth hurts. Любо братцы любо...--Kuban Cossack 20:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Kuban kazak, will all due respect to your wife's family (I know nothing about them), that they would be voting for Vitrenko speaks much of their lack of political literacy. I mean if their church was shut down and given to the rivaling faction and UNA/UNSO paramilitants helped that happen, I could see why they overreact in such a way. But Vitrenko is a total nut-case not worthy even of discussion on what's wrong with her program. This is as if you tell me that you vote for Zhirik (and if you do, please don't tell me about that). Anyway, let's get back to editing. --Irpen 21:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There voting for her not because what other choice is there? PR? Maybe, but again Yanukovich has lost his momentum that I once respected him for (particulary at Severodonetsk congress). Now he is playing all of the strings at once. Definetely not NSNU or BYuT, they had enough adventures for their old age during the past 1.5 years. Everybody else will never make a majority to make a difference to the future of the country. Vitrenko on the other hand has a clear programme (which other parties clearely don't) yes it is ambitios and yes it is extreamely overslanted, but then desperate time do call for desperate discisions, at least so far she did keep her word to the public and I do respect her for that. (BTW all this logic is not mine but my wife's who is telling me all this for the whole past year). Me I only vote for KPRF, and boycott presidential elections, although I will support Lukashenko if he runs for Russian president, but you are right, back to editing. Have a look at some of my new works with the Azerbaijani and Armenian colleagues (despite the friction they exhibit towards each other). Baku Metro and Yerevan Metro. --Kuban Cossack 21:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW have you seen this? --Latinus 19:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Amusing, huh? --Irpen 19:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What amuses you?--AndriyK 19:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

We are all learning., which is good. With that tag on Russian Architecture, he did mention on the talk page that the consensus has not been reached. And that's what the situation is. His objections were discussed, but neither they were satisfied nor he withdrew them. The dispute is still there. Claiming that it's not only make it worse.

I brought the welcomimg issue only as an example. As you are saying, you considered it, which is good. The bigger issue that you are editing the same articles. You need to deal with each other.

If he sees you as a true evil, then it cannot get worse. It can only get better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.5.124 (talk • contribs)

Anonymous, you don't need to tell me how to be nice. Modesty aside, most people don't consider me ill-tempered, either in life or at Wikipedia. I will deal with AndriyK's edits based on their merit, not on what I think about him. So far, there were no edits. Just reverts and I explained what was wrong with the versions he was reverting to and he gave no answer. Once he makes a first new edit, I will deal with it totally based on that edit's own merit. --Irpen 21:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the reason to blame me for Rusophobia? Can you give examples of any my rusophobic edits, comparable to Ukrainophobic or Belarusophobic edits of yours and your friends?--AndriyK 08:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sure I can find specific edits of yours but your crusade by itself, pretty much outlined at your arbitration, speaks much already. I never made a single Ukrainophobic edit. Moreover, the curious and impossible combination of accusations I've heard towards myself (like Ukrainian nationalism, Ukrainophobia, Russian nationalism, Russophobia, etc.) just convince me that I am doing the right thing. That my view that Ukrainian nationalism is repugnant (like any other BTW) annoys Ukrainian nationalists is not surprising. You've been told by several compatriots of ours (including the anonymous editor here) that you are mistaken in calling me all those names. That you, nevertheless, remain unconvinced is telling.

I suggest you go to Talk:Russian architecture and outline your specific objections to justify your tag and not in a general rant-like form, but with a specific point by point list. Otherwise, please don't complain if it is removed as unexplained.

You were extremely rude in the past and such things, you know, stick to memory. In any case, as I wrote earlier, when I deal with any specific article disagreements with you I am putting this all aside. Please start writing. It's about time. --Irpen 08:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

most people don't consider me ill-tempered, either in life or at Wikipedia

This is because you so rancorous and revergeful that the people afraid to say you what they think.

Nobody would like to repeate my fate at Wikipedia and, I'm sure, there were similar examples in the real life.--AndriyK 08:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't prove anything to you regarding the real life. All I am saying is that's how that is. I have no revengeful passions against you whatever you think. If you can't take my word for it, I can't do much about it, can I. Now, please edit Wikipedia. --Irpen 09:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I never made a single Ukrainophobic edit.

You apparently have mamory problems. I have to remind you [this one]. Here is something from your Belarusophobic friend: " The so-called Belarusian".--AndriyK 09:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You are lying and anyone can check it. Sasha earlier presented you the analysis of this [74]. To remind you, that text was not written by me. I simply restored it after your repeated blanking because we cannot afford blankings in Ukraine-related pages: there are too few contributors. In the end of the day, it was me who rewrote that phrase while you were just repeatedly blanking it running your traditional revert war. That reminds me to restore other stuff from that article you and your rv war proxy blanked. I will get to that ASAP. --Irpen 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, the curious and impossible combination of accusations I've heard towards myself (like Ukrainian nationalism, Ukrainophobia, Russian nationalism, Russophobia, etc.) just convince me that I am doing the right thing

No, this is because you hate both Ukrainians and Russians (as well as Poles, Romanians etc.). This is where you differ from Ghirla. He is in permanent conflict with nearly all East- and Central- Europeans, but he loves Russia and writes excelent articles about Russian History. You do nothing but provoking conflicts between wikipedians. My relations with some Russian wikipedians would be much better if you did not urge them "to go into the edit war" against me. This is the reson why I consider you much more evil then Ghirla, not because your Ukrainian background.

(Still, I liked your analogy between Nazism and Russian chauvinism and between yourself and Vlasovets ;))--AndriyK 09:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK, you just try to offend me in the worst possible way. It won't work. It worked in the beginning, but I developed the immunity to your offensive language. Don't waste your time making a fool of yourself again. Besides, it may get you in trouble some day. Your last arbitration was not prompted by your rudeness but by gross disruption of Wikipedia through the move fraud, followed by vote fraud and combined by relentless edit warring over anachronistic terminology substitution caused by your Russophobic desire to purge any Russian names from Ukraine related article even at cost of introducing anachronisms. However, while we were at it, the evidence of your rudeness only made the case convincing in the eyes of the arbitrators that, at Wikipedia, you are nothing but a troll with an agenda. Since your return, you resumed exactly what you were doing. I suggest you reconsider this.

Start writing articles and we will discuss them if I disagree with something in them. Bring up your objections civilly if you disagree with what I write in articles. Do not troll the talk pages with new outbursts. Finish writing about Vasyl Stus. Finish Polkovnyk. Write Povazhny kozak or write whatever you want. Put your agenda, whatever it is, aside and you will find a totally different attitude from everyone. That said, I will not be responding to any more of your offenses. Have a nice weekend. --Irpen 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I would started to do it months ago, if you would not follow every my edit and mess it up.

You see, there are a lot of clever, qualified and nice people at this wiki. They can correct my edits, if I make mistakes, or criticise/discuss my edits at the talk.

On the other hand, there are more than million articles, most of them could be improved. So you can find enough things to do. Why among million of the articles you chose those that I created or edited recently?

Please find another victim of your persistance, so that I could write articles instead of wasting time for pointless discussions.

Please, think about it.

Have a nice weekend too.--AndriyK 19:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK, I do not follow you. I have better things to do. I simply concentrate on Ukraine (my homeland) and its history at Wikipedia as you also seem to be. That's why I initiated the Ukraine portal and do the best I can to have Ukraine covered. Your edits happened to be falling on my watchlist and I reacted to them based purely on the edits, not on who it was. Now, lets return to editing. Again, I have no intention to have your past and present offences anywhere in a way to resolve any specific edit disputes. --Irpen

Are there no other Ukraine related articles you can work on?--AndriyK 19:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I choose the article that interest me most. I honestly don't care about chasing you or anyone else. If you think otherwise, file the RfC or an ArbCom because Wikistalking is considered a serious offense. File a case and see how it goes. Better yet, return to article's improvement. --Irpen 19:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there another way (except RfC or ArbCom) to get rid of your chase?--AndriyK 20:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I am not chasing you. I do not care about you. I care about articles that have reasons for me to care for. --Irpen 20:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Irpen: This was too far from article discussion.

Why you did not care for these articles during several years you are there, but you start care just I have edited/created them?--AndriyK 20:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of Ukraine-related articles are and were on my watchlist. Will you please stop pestering me with questions? --Irpen 21:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK: It's a pointless discussion. He does care about articles, regardless who created or edited them. It's a public project.

Let's move forward. It looks like we don't have anything better to do. :(

Here we go again, speak for yourself. How many articles have you written wholly and originally (trolling like Russian Architecture or the attack on Ukrainian and Belarusian languages do not count)? How many stubs have you expanded into fully-respected articles. How many images have you uploaded? Where is the long awaited Drogobych Oblast and Moldavian ASSR [75]? Irpen actually writes articles as opposed to you trolling on them. --Kuban Cossack 17:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Kuban kazak, this discussion is pointless. Let's put a line here. --Irpen 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Kiev Expedition

Hi Irpen, I'm surprised that you reverted my move. You participated in the discussion on the board, and you didn't voice any objections to the name I proposed. What don't you like about the title? Appleseed (Talk) 00:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am just writing a note at the article's talk. Give me 5 mins. Let's continue the discussion there. --Irpen 00:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to let you know that a week has passed without any comments, so I have moved the article. Appleseed (Talk) 19:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Res to talk:Soviet partisan

Please let me know which articles (and preferably which edits) do you want me to look over, and if the stuff was pasted, where from. I don't have time to stalk Molobo and check on his every edit. As for that pic, I know you had good intentions and in that particular case others overreacted way to strongly - and when Ghirla joined the outcome was a mess. Happens - and I think we have it fixed somewhat (although the photo issue will not be resolved until we have an article about London victory parade and why Polish forces in the West could not take part in it). As for tags, in that particular case I think 1 of them was not needed, but there were six facts that I really wanted to see referenced. Yes, tagging creates more work - but useful work. In other news, I can check the English spellings in Davies WERS book you requested, but plese let me know exactly what names (index? page nr?) you want me to look at, so when I go to the library I can do it as quickly as possible.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Khreschatyk

Irpen, may I ask why you insist on your version of the article? I know, you started the article, and it was DYK, but the particular paragraph in question doesn't look like been initially written neutrally. Previously, there was an edit war about the paragraph; as a result a quite reasonable version by Michael gained support, the version written better than yours. Now, after a month since the conflict, you are bringing the issue again, providing not a single additional argument, nothing at the talk page, and yet insisting on your version of the paragraph. You don't like a shorter version of tne paragraph, you don't like a longer version of the paragraph (listing all the forces), it seems like you only want to see your version of the paragraph. Or, am I missing something? --Anonymous, 19:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Short version is too abstract, long version is too long and no need to explain them. Irpen's version is just right.--Kuban Cossack 20:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Irpen's version has minor problems like typos and duplicate links to the same page (Kiev offense), and one significant proplem as it's biased in describing differently Ukrainian forces vs. other forces. Michael's version, and the version with listing all forces are both describing all forces in pair. This is what makes these versions superior compare to Irpen's version.--Anonymous 20:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How is it biased? Different Ukrainian grupirovki and Bolshevik, German, and Polish forces. Do the Ukrainian grupirovki even deserve to be called "Ukrainian" considering that there is little to bite on when one says they represented the Ukrainian population. It is a fact that Ukrainians fought in ALL of the armies and militias listed above. So in that case the term several short lived Ukrainian states is fully justified in dealing with those times. --Kuban Cossack 21:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

134, compromise is a good thing but there must be some reason under each of the opposing version between which we seek a compromise. My version is explained at article's talk. AndriyK's version is not explained at talk despite my persistent calls to him. A while ago he said that "short-lived is scornful". To this I responded and others agreed that this is just BS. It's purely factual and not scornful. He came up with no other reasons. Michael, being a nice guy, offered a compromise just for the sake of accomodating AndriyK. I disagree with such motivation. Compromise should be made for accomodating between two reasonable versions, not two or more people. We've got no explanation whatsoverer from AndriyK on his persistence (exact same situation in Russian architecture). As such, there is nothing to compromise with so far.

Typos? Correct them by all means. Twice connected to Kiev Offensive? Because we are talking about two parts of it: victorious Polish part with the parade (linked to the K. O. section about Polish victories) and Poles defeated part (linked to another section). --Irpen 22:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, you see Michael's version as a compromise. And in fact it was some sort of compromise. But what you are completety ignoring is that Michael's version is better than yours. Why? I personally explained it at the article talk page [76], and I wrote it above. You are not listing the forces in pair. Bolshevik forces also acted under umbrella of different short-lived republics, like Donetsk-Krivorozh Socialist Republic, and similar. They took Kiev a few times, and were driven out a few times. You put it all under Bolshevik's name. Then what's wrong to put the Ukrainian forces similarly? I've never seen your answer to this simple question. Or, as Kuban Cossack says "short version is too abstract, long version is too long, ... Irpen's version is just right". This is a way better explanation compare to critisized by you "I like it", don't you think? :)

Kuban kazak, these short-lived Ukrainian republic forces were Ukrainian because they represented Ukrianian states, that is the states which named themselves as Ukrainian national states. Similarly, Bolsheviks named themselves Bolsheviks, and we call them so, dispite some of them (actually, not so many at that time) being by nationality Ukrainians. Do you want to change "Bolshevik forces" to "predominantly Russian Bolshevik forces"? I don't think it would be a good idea, as the forces were driven by the common idea, not common nationality, but if you insist on national clafirication it may be added. --Anonymous 00:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Although Bolshevik states did operate under a wide range of individual republics, they were nevertheless ultimatemately answering to the SNK, hence the Bolshevik Umbrella is suitable to be used in all articles. Ukrainian on the other hand is more abstract, not because of nationality wise, but because they all stood for different ideals of Ukrainian future. In that case we might want to put Pilsudski's puppet Petlyura under Polish forces? Irpen's version is correct and stable with no questions. --Kuban Cossack 00:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Independent Ukrainian state was the common driving idea of these Ukrainian states. Unfortunately, they did disagree on details. --Anonymous, 01:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately or unfortunately is a discussion for political forums not wiki. However even you refer to them as these states so what is wrong with the umbrella that Irpen has been using ever since the start. --Kuban Cossack 01:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of the Lower Dnieper

It seems that in the discussion you are using as an argument the fact that AndriyK has contributed less to the articles in comparison to your contributions. While it's correct, hope you would agree that switching from a subject to personalities is not so civil. KPbIC 04:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems wrong. Please reread what I said. --Irpen 05:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My concerns came from the following, which as it seems has nothing to do with "liberate vs. take" question discussed in the talk:

• "I am still waiting for AndriyK doing the first non-revert edit for weeks or so. Probably, I am out of luck. --Irpen 19:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)"
• "I am saddened that AndriyK still does nothing but POV-pushing revert wars. Please write something rather than damage the work of others. --Irpen 18:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)"

If I misinterpreted something, I appologise. KPbIC 07:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you misinterpreted which is easy if you take to phrases out of context of an entire discussion. --Irpen 01:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

History of Russo-Turkish wars

I have restored the article History of Russo-Turkish wars. If you do not like the content, please go through the AfD process. -- Petri Krohn 10:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a straw poll going on now. Let's see and discuss it there. My goal is to preserve and not remove the information. Please continue at the article's talk. --Irpen 21:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This [77] is acceptable, maybe even good! Let's keep it that way :-) -- Petri Krohn 16:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheism POV?

I have removed the article from our attention list, as there have been almost no edits or discussions there for the past few weeks. I am not much familiar with the article or the sources, but as you seem to be unhappy about it, may I suggest that yous start by writing a review of the article on the talk page (if you don't want to edit it). I'd like for the attention tab at WP:PWNB to contain only articles which are in current revert wars and other grave problems.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if you didn't read an article, a single look at it is sufficient. --Irpen 05:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me at first glance. Please show me I am mistaken. On the recent EB note, yes, I didn't notice it was a EB quote, but for me it just go to show how little attention EB and other encyclopedias pay to being neutral.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that EB has also a NPOV policy which it states at the web-site and is written by respected scholars who care to use the prevailing terminology. The words like "occupation" and "liberation" are not a problem per se. As per the prevailing view, the '39 Nazi was occupation as well as '39 Soviet, 43-45 Soviet was liberation and the Holocaust was a Genocide. EB is written by respected scholars based on the mainstream view and with the NPOV in mind. As such, the terminology it uses is a good indication of what we can use in WP. --Irpen 16:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that EB is perfect when it comes to NPOV; they make erros in POV just as they do in content. Eventually Wiki will be much more NPOV that Britannica.

On a related note, as a token of my goodwill, I have created the article about Stanisław Grabski. He can definetly claim to be one of the most nationalist, untolerant and pro-polonization peaople out there, and he certainly contributed significantly to what was wrong withthe Second Polish Republic. I hope this article shows you that we don't try to 'hide' our bad sides and claim that all Poles and Polish deeds are perfect.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I sincerely doubt that anything is perfect when it comes to NPOV. NPOV in WP is the product of the cooperative work of the reasonable editors with elimination of the input of the trollish ones. NPOV in EB (and any respected scholarly work) is the product of high reputation and topical grasp by the world's top scholars who are aware of the state of the art in the field and are required to write reflecting this state of the art, rather their own views. I bet if Davies was writing an PL article for EB it would be much less polonophile than his "God's Playground". Additionally, EB's articles get peer-reviewed and they sure get some feedback after the publication to take into account in the next update. Doesn't make it perfect but EB's usage is important since it surely reflects the widely accepted usage.

Speaking again of the attitude words, they are usable in Wikipedia when something's fitting towards the general definition is generally accepted, such as that the "Holocaust was a Genocide", "creationism is unscientific" (doesn't make it wrong), "'39 and '41 were occupations" and "44 was liberation", etc. If some fringe nationalist, be it Polish, Russian or Ukrainian, purges the liberation from the battle of Dnieper (or purges the occupation from the PSC, replacing it with liberation) it's no different then calling some event with the same word just for the POV reason.[78] NPOV isn't the same as a ban to use any word that implies any attitude at all (occupation, liberation, genocide, mass murder, salvation, etc). Otherwise, many articles would be gone.

As for your "goodwill gesture", everyone does those things. Besides I've always considered you (and some others, I hope Sylwia will be back as well) as moderate editors rather than some other others. Regards, --Irpen 03:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) If some fringe nationalist, be it Polish(...) purges the liberation You believe this is a fringe nationalist opinion in Poland? :) --Molobo 16:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be careful with overestimating EB NPOVedness. For example, many EB articles are written by staff, not scholars, and I am not sure if all are peer reviewed. In addition, articles are updated from time to time (same problems with who updates them and reviews updates), and there are known cases of 'old POV' (from British imperial era and such) surviving till modern edition. Off topic: would you have any material related to Adam Kisiel?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is perfect. EB may err too. But much less likely than many other places. --Irpen 05:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Russian architecture 3

I'm afraid our mutual friend has a sockpuppet. Could you investigate this curious affair? Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to check. It was 99.99% User:NikoSilver, who forgot to log in. He changed his edit on Telex' talk page: [79]. --Pan Gerwazy 12:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Your ecent edit at Requests for comment/Irpen

Please note that you are not permitted to edit comments of the users who criticize you at your RfC page. Your recent edit [80] is illegal.--AndriyK 09:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK, your engaging into a debate into the RfC main page was illegal rather than bringing the page in compliance with the RfC rules.[81] That you are not interested in following the rules but only in your POV-pushing by all costs circumventing the poicies, wikilawyering without success and using any dirty trick possible is neither new nor surprising. --Irpen 21:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Ambassadors and envoys from Russia to Poland (1763-1794)

I'd appreciate your help with NPOVing this and possibly formulating an NPOVed DYK hook.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Conditional vote

Irpen, could you please explain what a "conditional vote" is exactly? Even more important, could you point to some Wikipedia policy that even mentions such votes, especially in connection with RM surveys? To be even more specific, why not simply vote "oppose" if you are against some move, period.

"Conditional support" might be a valid vote choice when voting for an FA article, when one demands some changes before the article is acceptable. But in an RM case there are only two possible, clear outcomes. There is no need to make things more complicated.

Anyway, your attempt to try to link various issues muddies the waters, and introduces unnecessary controversy. If you really think that there is a global problem with naming articles related to Polish history, consider making some general proposal somewhere on how things should be corrected.Balcer 17:22, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, this is exactly what I tried many times at the Polish board when I proposed to de-massacre the article titles. I was disapointed to see that most editors who responded were in favor of double standard. If we are now adding the invasioned titles on top of the massacred ones, I would like to seek feedback from the community on how wide and consistent this is going to be. If we are going only to selectively pick the invasions of Poland and pass on the invasions by Poland, while I expect several known to me editors to want just that, I will not support such a move. If we are going to move in general to even more POVing the article titles, fine with me, as long as we are doing it regardless of the role of the one particular country. --Irpen 17:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you avoid the hyperbole, please? Right now, there is not a single article named "Invasion of Poland" on Wikipedia (imagine that!). Furthermore, only one article is under consideration for a move to that title. No other articles have been proposed for similar moves, hence your fears that "we are going only to selectively pick the invasions of Poland" are exaggerated to say the least.

Also, I oppose your idea of choosing certain words and making them unusable in article titles. Sure, "massacre" can be a controversial word, but there are clear cases in history where it applies. We should not rule it out on principle.

Anyway, as far as I can see it, there is only one reasonable thing to do here. Change your vote to support (since you yourself stated you actually like the proposed name), and then propose a move of the articles that you find objectionable. Do not make the outcome of one RM vote dependent on another one. Seems obvious to me, but of course you can do whatever you like with this. Balcer 17:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Upcoming Independence Day

::August 24th, 2006

Happy Independence Day - Ukraine!

З Днем Незалежності України!

--Riurik 04:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

File:Maidan Fireworks.jpg

Thanks, Riurik! --Irpen 05:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Merger

I merged List of Polish Martyrdom sites to World War II atrocities in Poland. Also, just out of curiosity, why do you think that Massacre of Lwów professors is an inappropriate title? What would you suggest instead? Balcer 18:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC) "Killing of Lwow professors" is the first name that comes to mind. And all those other massacres titles can be demassacred without a slightest loss of clarity. Examples of names that could be used are:

• Anti-Polish events in Volhynia and Galicia (1943-1944)
• Katyn incident
• Koniuchy incidident

This will not preclude the referenced usage of the terms like "massacre" and even "genocide" inside the article but titles would be more appropriate. --Irpen 19:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

But, you have still not answered my question. What is wrong with Massacre of Lwów professors? Why do you object to it? Balcer 19:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Because I object to stong terms in titles as they prejudge the discussions between the references in the text on whether the events qualify to be called as such. --Irpen 19:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

But in this particular case, do you think massacre is an incorrect word to describe what happened?

Also, it is simply incorrect to say that Koniuchy incident is more clear than Koniuchy Massacre. After all, an incident can be almost anything (even Gulf of Tonkin Incident), whereas the word massacre is quite specific. Balcer 19:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The title is POV, if you ask me. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:10, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it's POV because it ignores the Nazi viewpoint that these killings were justifiable? Balcer 19:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's POV because it prejudges that this particular event was a massacre. Not every death is a murder, not every murder of several people is a massacre or a mass murder and not every mass murder is a Genocide. Whether the event qualifies is best resolved by the sources cited in the articles anot not by the editor who takes it upon himself to decide on his own via creating an article under a specific name (or a page move). --Irpen 19:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make it Wikipedia policy to avoid using strong words in article titles, you are welcome to try. As it stands, they are used frequently, and even have their own lists (see List of massacres). So, you really don't have an argument if you are arguing against these titles in general terms, and should advance specific objections.

Thus, what is your specific objection to Massacre of Lwów professors. You don't think it qualifies as a massacre? Why not? Balcer 19:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

To make something like this big into a policy is impossible and you know that. We cannot even make a naming convention on city names. However, within the EE we agreed to common sense rules and rarely have re-eruptions of conflicts regarding the city names. I view this as a common sense rule and I am trying to convince this segment of Wikipedia that such rule is sensible.

Like I am sure that now, when we have a stronger tradition in city naming resolution, to make a solid policy would be easier, same might happen with strong terms in titles if we can show in some months that a large segment of WP abides by it. I object to the word in the title irrespective of what persoanlly I think about which sources (those that claim the massacre and those that deny it) are more credible. This is best left to the reader to judge. --Irpen 19:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

But Massacre of Lwów professors was a Nazi crime. Why should it be that Nazi crimes in Eastern Europe should not be called with strong names, but those in Western Europe can (for example Malmedy massacre?. Balcer 19:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

First, it was not just a Nazi crime. A Ukrainian Nachtigall took part in it. Second, it does not matter whose crime it was. If we manage to make a change in EE and demonstrate that it is working, we would be able to make a case wikiwide. --Irpen 19:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I quite simply do not see why Wikipedia would be better off if all titles for articles about Nazi crimes studiously avoided strong words. This is taking the idea of NPOV too far.

Anyway, as our discussion demonstrates, the issue is a complex one, and would probably require some wider discussion that would formulate a coherent policy. At any rate, it is not only articles about Poland that use what you consider "loaded" terms. This is something that you sometimes forget. (also see Khatyn massacre, Novocherkassk Massacre, Odessa massacre). Comments like: I do not see the current state of affairs when the articles about events when Poland or Poles were victims are titled by loaded terms,... are not very helpful. Balcer 19:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

They reflect the current state of affairs correctly. And I would change the titles of the Novocherkassk and Odessa events too. But we need to get this started if we ever do it. --Irpen 20:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Besides you, who is in favour of such a drastic Wikipedia-wide (or at least EE wide) renaming operation for what must be dozens of articles? Besides, if you want to make an impact, why don't you make a proposal to rename a prominent article describing a major event? Why not start with, say, Srebrenica Massacre? Make a renaming proposal there, and see how much support you will get. Balcer 20:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

"Massacre" is a POV term, as was discussed for instance on the AFD of NKVD massacres of prisoners (link). And Halibutt was quite OK to replace "massacre" by "execution". The move was never done because everyone forgot about it, but the principle was made. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Nikolai Gogol

I'm really not trying to be contentious with this article. The simple fact is that, as it is now, it contains one citation (which I put there), and WP:CITE states that citations should be used "to ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any user" and further, that "[i]f you add any information to an article, particularly if it's contentious or likely to be challenged, you should supply a source. If you don't know how to format the citation, others will fix it for you. Simply provide any information you can." Finally, WP:V states that "[t]he burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain. Editors should therefore provide references. If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." I don't think its out of line to apply that standard to the current content of articles in addition to new content, nor do I think that pointing out the obvious (that the article lacks citations) using a template is particularly objectionable, especially when it may attract the attention of editors who have citations handy. If it will make you happier, I can go through and add {{citation needed}} tags to every claim that needs a citation, but that's going to be a lot messier. -Smahoney 22:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Smahoney, that article was written a while ago and not by me. I picked it up and started to follow from certain stage and I added little info here and there but I did not alter it significantly. When I write things now, I reference them but I cannot get into the head of its original author. The fact is that this is a very well-known and well researched person. He has so much literature about him, that any library, encyclopedia and even google or google books search would provide plenty of info to anyone interested in more than the very basic info currently in the article. OTOH, the article is not bad as it is and it does not benefit from getting uglified by this template. If you really doubt things there, {{fact}} them. I, personally, don't doubt anything that is there to choose what to reference and ideally everything has to be referenced. Everithing in the article is pretty much a common knowledge to anyone who studied the Russian literature a slightest bit. If you insist, tag the statements you doubt and I will reference them but not an entire article.

Finally, getting lectured on what's WP:V and what's WP:Cite is on the verge of the offense. Please be a little more considerate and, best yet, if you conserned about the article, help improve it rather than make it ugly. --Irpen 23:27, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I "lectured" you about WP:V and WP:CITE (and am about to "lecture" you on Wikipedia:Common knowledge) because you seem to either be unaware of them or unconcerned with them. I'm not interested in the slightest who wrote the article or when, and I'm not pointing the responsibility for citing it squarely at you. However, none of that changes the fact that it needs to be properly cited, like all other articles, nor does the fact that the original authors didn't cite it, nor does the fact that it is relatively uncontested (although there is a lot of Gogol scholarship which contests his literary intentions, and elements of his biography). I agree that there are plenty of sources out there, so I don't see what the problem is with providing sources as editors come along who have them, and that is exactly what the {{citation needed}} and {{unsourced}} tags are for: To inform editors that they need to do their duty and provide citations when they have them.

Anyway, like I said, I'm not here to be contentious (although it seems that that's exactly why you're here) - I just want to improve the article, and since I don't myself have the references handy I'm trying to drop a hint to other editors who might (a tactic, I might point out, that has been successful many times before). So, as I more subtly asked before: Which would you prefer: A single {{unsourced}} tag at the beginning of the article or multiple {{citation needed}} tags throughout the article? -Smahoney 02:57, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Smahoney, I am well aware of all or most WP policies. At the same time, whatever position on common knowledge you have, there is such a thing like common sense too. Any number of "citation needed" templates may be added to any article, no matter how well referenced, at any time and by appealing to common sense I mean that whoever contends anything has to be reasonable at the same time. I am not opposed to citing sources and, as you may check, I add plenty of them to things I write. At the same time, I oppose going overboard on anything, including this issue.

By your accusing me in being at Wikipedia for the sake of being contentious you added a completely unsubstantiated and unprovoked insult to an injury I am not going to even discuss this ridiculous accusation. As for your giving me a set of choices between this or that, I am not here to tell you what to do. The tl:unreferenced gives you one hint: "There is currently no consensus about where to place this template; most suggest either the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page." If you choose "throughout the article" solution, again, I am not here to tell you how many tags are reasonable and how many aren't. A committed tagger can easily insert 20 "citation needed" to any paragraph. Do as you please.

As a suggestion, you may consider referencing by yourself some of the statements seem to you as needed a ref, at least those that would take no more than 5 minutes of googling around. You may want to check this thread for a related discussion. --Irpen 04:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

On citizenship

Hi. I didn't quite get why the comment on (dual) citizenship was important. It looked a bit out of place in the discussion of voting rights. Sashazlv 03:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It was out of place indeed. I just by accident found the appropriate paragraph in the constitution and found it ineteresting, especially in connection with the totally irrelevant article's discussion. --Irpen 04:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

User:FrancisTyers

I just noticed that this admin has deleted some important stuff from at least one article I wrote, namely Vadym Hetman. And it seems (s)he was ready to do the same in Pavlo Lazarenko. The alleged reason is that (s)he thinks the stuff isn't properly cited.

I don't understand this strategy. Someone with apparently little knowledge of Ukrainian politics - but with admin powers - runs across an article (which was so hard to write from scratch) and deletes the stuff (s)he doesn't like. Why wasn't factual accuracy disputed first? Sashazlv 04:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I know Francis as a reasonable guy but in any case, his being an admin does not give him an upper hand in content disputes. Raise your objections and he will listen. --Irpen 04:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

We have a policy WP:LIVING that states that uncited negative information about a living person (in this case Pavlo Lazarenko) should be removed on sight not marked by the fact notice. The reason is that a living person can sue Wikipedia and I guess Lazarenko have enough money to hire an Americal lawyer. Thus phrases like According to New York Times (or Spid-Info, or whatever) [ref] the Prosecutors accused Lazarenko are fine, phrases without refs are not. Better find a ref instead of edit war. abakharev 04:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I have put a ref to Pravda.ru, if have something less yellow it is welcome abakharev 04:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Вопрос

Зачем Вы маркируете голоса "против" на белорусском голосовании. У Вас есть конкретный план насчёт "флешмоберов"? Будут ли такие голоса в будущем при подсчёте голосов? Спасибо за внимание. -- 82.209.208.69 19:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Пожалуйста залогиньтесь. Что касается Вашего вопроса, админ, закрывающий голосование, или бюрократ, решает единолично какие голоса не учитывать. Когда очевидный флэш-моб, то это стоит подчеркнуть. --Irpen 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Спасибо за ответ -- 82.209.208.69 20:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, but sorry for the behavior of my stalker who immediately showed up. Funny huh? Don't worry though. --Irpen 22:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Universal (act)

Thanks!! You showed up just in time. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 03:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hero of Ukraine

Incidentally, Zscout has deleted the photo of Yushchenko and Hetman's widow. I don't know the reason. Sashazlv 16:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please ask him at his talk as you wrote the article with him. I will followthrough. Also, pls create an account in commons and authorize your sig there. The tl may get deleted due to overzealous cp paranoia. --Irpen 19:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion

Genocides in history the Soviet Union section has been rewritten by another user. I thought it was creating a fork as it argues the definition of genocide right there and not in the main article, so I reverted to the previous version, however this user disagrees. Take a look as my take on this may be incorrect.--Riurik ^(discuss) 19:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me. I know that user but I still restored to your version. We don't need POV forks and we don't need attempts to resolve so complex issues as Holodomor in two sentences in loosely related articles. Complex issues are to be addressed in their narrow articles and not recarried all over WP. This is classical POV-forking and I agree with your attempt to keep it down. --Irpen 19:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Gediminas

Hi there, I just wanted to explain my point why I did remove (Gedimin) in Battle on the Irpen' River article. In my opinion Gedimin is quite nice recognizable in Gedimin-as, and another adition of the same name in shorter form is a bit clutersome. But it it's just my opinion, if you think it is not, you may put it back to the article. And I just wanted to assure you, that i do not have wish to completely Lithuanise Gediminas by removing other language forms from it's main article. Sorry, if this edit seemed too abrupt for you, jus I'm just tired of this ongoing Polish-Lithuanian "discussion", so looks like I began loosing temper sometimes. This wont happen again.--Lokyz 13:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Irpen

I hope youll cease calling me a stalker. I have no bad intentions against Ghirla and hold him in high esteem for his Russia-related artciels. Yet where spheres of influence clash, I usually have to restore a delicate NPOV, and am happy with the compromise reached on the Muscovite Russia naming issue, though technically All-Russia was formed in the 17th century (at Poland's expense). Hope you understand and take this issue to heart. Regards, Truthseeker 85.5 21:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

PS Please join the discussion at Baranovichi (sic). Proof the above holds.

Ghirla Arbitration Case

Thanks for your improvement there. Are you going to write something yourself, or are you going to emulate De Gaulle (called the "Sphynx" between 1946 and 1958, just check with grafik if you do not understand the comparison) and stay out of this fight and just leave people quoting you. Until, like the Sphynx, you have become indispensable at ArbCom?

It is not a joke, actually - my suggesting you to stay away there. I think that under the present conditions, we are fighting against windmills, because some people are hellbent on having Ghirla banned just long enough (and not one hour more) so as to get him to leave the project altogether. Have a look at this one.--Pan Gerwazy 07:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

He's edited it, and split it up. You will have to read this to see the things that you may be interested in. --Pan Gerwazy 01:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

comment on RFA talk

Hello - I'm sure you'll agree, on consideration, that your lengthy comment on RFA talk, which amounts to a list of complaints about Tony's behavior, has nothing to do with RFA. Please work it out on his user talk page or move it to dispute resolution; do not force it on unrelated community pages. — Dan | talk 07:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. This is very much related to the RfA and the changes proposed there. I propose a way to reach a consensus on these changes and how to calm things through removing a main source of disruption. My comment is basically an outline of the course of events related to the RfA and I think belongs to an RfA talk page. I have no personal issue against Tony and I recognize his committment and input (see links at my entry). As for your proposal to move it to the formal venue (ArbCom, I assume), I want to avoid it at all cost. Thanks for understanding. --Irpen 08:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

"Removing a main source of disruption" cannot be accomplished by discussing it further at RFA talk. It can be accomplished with an Arbcom case. Don't replace your screed at RFA talk; its sole relevance to RFA lies in the fact that the actions of Tony's with which you take issue occurred there. This belongs at dispute resolution; you're free to continue avoiding that, so long as your dispute does not spread further into public venues of discussion. — Dan | talk 08:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well in reply to Irpen, dispute resolution doesn't start with arbitration. I placed this comment on your talk page in order to initiate dialog so we could work out why you keep reverting my edits on a certain process page. The reasons you give don't make sense to me and I would like to discuss that so that I can understand your actions better. But looking now I see that you instead removed my comment and placed a long discussion of my actions on a discussion page without informing me. This doesn't seem like a sensible way to respond to a request for discussion. I'm sorry if I offended you by referring to your actions as edit warring. I retract that. Could we please now engage in a discussion of your actions? --Tony Sidaway 17:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The reason why Irpen reverted your edits is plain and simple: because a single man cannot operate such a sweeping change in policy with at least some consensus. And given the reaction to Carnildo's RFA, the least one can say is that consensus ain't there. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

East-West dissimilarity in Ukraine

You cannot name people who have opinions different from yours as radicals, simple because their opinions are different. Nobody nominated you to be in the middle. Please, don't move the discussion from the subject to personalities. --KPbIC 00:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I recognize and accept the POVs that are different from mine and resolved hundreds of articles with my good-faith opponents. I do not throw out the label "radical" liberally. What was happening lately, was a bunch of instances where you pushed views radically different from the mainstream in the country whose opinion you claim to represent as well as from the positions widely accepted internationally. That's exactly why such views did not find any backing in those instances. I said so because your latest action is part of a consistent pattern. I am not switching anything to your personality. I am only discussing your actions related to the issue at hand, that is an AfD nomination being in line with hectic attempts to achieve the deletion of the tl "Hero-Cities", or removal of material from Ukrainization, which ended so bitterly by misterious intervention cowardly called in by an on-looker whose hand I seem to have recognized. As for me being in the middle or not, I just happen to see that things I wrote, and this article is a good example, are agreeble to many (not all of course) but sometimes disagreeble for the editors with POV's in directly opposite ends of the continuous POV spectrum (such spectrum for Ukraine is an oversimplification somewhat, I admit). That puts me in the center. At least that's where I see myself. --Irpen 01:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

And this is funny part "I resolved hundreds of articles with good-faith opponents". So, if you resolved something, your opponent was good-faith opponent, and if you failed to resolve then... let me guess... your opponent was bad-faith opponent, wasn't he? My point is: "Don't mix your POV and NPOV". You are a good editor overall, but there are small specific problems. Actually, I was one of endorsers of the summary of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Irpen. Any luck to see your response to that? --KPbIC 00:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit conflict] No, it does not mean that all conflicts that I did not resolve where with bad faith editors. Sometimes, good-faith people do not manage to resolve their disagreements. I only said that I resolved hundreds of conflicts with good-faith editors. The rest is your own inferrence. You said that I mix my POV with NPOV. If I did, I would never come to an agreement with people who come to articles and whose own POV is different from mine. As for the response, there will be one, I've even written a draft at some point but never finished. I just happened to be busy with some more pressing things. There is no urgency with that one. I will specifically request the RfC not removed until I am done with it if someone moves it to an archive. --Irpen 01:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

With respect to the Ukrainian topics, I don't see you as an editor in the middle. In my opinion, you are often taking an extreme position as a proponent of Russian language in Ukraine (ex:Ukrainization), and sometimes anti-Ukrainian position (ex: Historical regions of Ukraine) This is a position, and there is nothing wrong with having a position. But it's not a middle position, it's a position.

My editing to the Ukrainization article have nothing to do with my being or not a proponent of Russian in Ukraine (which I am not, but that's a side issue). I see no need to repeat myself. I said everything at the article talk and I am not yet in the mood of editing it now after the recent disruption.

With the template on Historic regions, my only edit to it was anglicization and removal of regions whose inclusion in the template was in good faith disputed at talk. If you describe changing the geographical names in the articles in English Wikipedia from the names known only to Ukrainians to the names widely used in English an anti-Ukrainian action, this seems to me again rather an extreme statement. As for some regions, I am still not clear on what to do them and talk page shows that there is no consensus among other editors too. The second least contoversial solution (the least one would have been to look for the solution at the template's talk without adding it anywhere yet) would have been to place the template that would have included only names of the undisputable regions to those regions only. But for that people would have needed to agree first at template's talk. True enough, you did not insist on adding the tl to the disputable regions article's but you insisted on keeping the names of such regions within the tl while others were fiercely opposing and myself having no formed opinion on that stage. There was an edit war over the tl content of which I stayed out not because I endorsed one version (I would have argued for it or even might have reverted to it) but because I had no opinion on whether it should include certain regions or not (and I am speaking not of Mars and Zanzibar). Note, that the anglicization issue over which I did have an opinion seemed to have settled by then. KK was clearly trolling and I advised him several times to cool it [82][83][84] There was no agreement emerging at the time and the inclusion of the template that was under the edit war would have been disruptive for the totally innocent articles, some of them well-written. I explained myself earlier and in sufficient detail here. --Irpen

With the Hero Cities template, I don't know whether you are aware of not, but many user templates have been removed based on T1 criteria, which is "divisive and inflammatory templates". In my opinion, the Hero Cities template falls under the criteria, and it does not really bring any significant information, and it does not serve any navigational purpose, as navigational templates suppose to. Kiev has been categorized under Eurovision host cities, and Holy cities. The first category was removed; the second one Ghirla is trying to remove. The category "Hero cities", and the template especially, is of no value than the other mentioned. An attempt to overstate the value of "hero city" label is a POV.

You can't argue the userspace tl arguments to the mainspace tl dispute. This disagreement is markedly different from the UA regions tl dispute because, unlike the latter one, there is no dispute here about the tl's content. So, you can't really argue about the tl itself but only about its inclusion. In my opinion the inclusion should be decided based on how significant is the fact that Kiev was awarded the Hero City status for the city. People disagree on that and you made no attempt to raise the issue at the article's talk or at the tl's talk but removed many times, sometimes with misleading edit summaries like "misc" and "rm minor" --Irpen

T1 criteria applies to all templates. Choosing subgroups to which it applies, and to which it doesn't is an obvious rule manipulation. --KPbIC 22:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The template is encyclopedic and informative. Whether it is divisive or not is purely a matter of opinion and can only be checked by how many people find it as such. The theory of evolution seems also divisive to some. As long as people who find something divisive are an insignificant fringe group, they can't be let define the overall standards. --Irpen 19:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

With Ukrainization, your response to the block was significant. You aggregated two cases, it's ok with me, but I didn't like the part in which you began to characterize me, claming that overall you were not particularly pleased with me. Fine, but that's something I don't want to endorse. Baharev comment was acceptable, except with his view on tagging; otherwise I would support his statement.

I don't think I said anything wrong about you there and I did not attack you in any way. Moreover, I made myself clear to you earleir about the things you do I find questionable. I see no need to go over this again. I am dissatisfied with the some of the responses and I will post a reply there when I have time. --Irpen

Initially, I suspected, Bakharev told to Blnguyen to look into this issue, based on some timing issues, and common Australian origin. But given Bakharev's comment, I don't have any other suspects. I partially blame myself, I should not have reverted it that much. And you too. I wish to find time to rewrite that article. --KPbIC 02:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There were little reverts and there was certianly not an edit war despite one "good friend" of myself have likely presented it as such in a private letter and the well-intentioned but clueless Blnguen interfered without any real need and without studying it carefully enough. As I said, I am too displeased with these events and, while I will eventually return to the article, I plan to develop it after I spend some time on other things.

I would like to add that explaining my actions to you after your mischaracterising them, is really not what I like to spend time on. A while ago I was providing similar explanations to the attacks of user:Ukrained until I decided to ignore his baseless accusations as not worthy to spend time on. I am doing an exception here, but I really have better things to do with my time. If you have questions about my particular action, I advise you to spend some time to study all the circumstances carefully. I know you are good at that, perhaps you like it. I have better things to do than responding to your or Ukrained accusations. --Irpen 07:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice if you could save yours and my time, and avoid any personal attacks in the first place. This is what is putting both of us into the circles over the past. State your arguments on a subject, not on personalities. As simple as that. Here are the things to avoid:

• Your very first reasoning for keeping the article at AfD talk: "POV attempt of deletion driven by the nominator's seeing Wikipedia as a tool to advance his political agenda..." [85]
• Your "valuable" comment at the AfD talk page: "I have doubts you will draw any conclusions..." [86]
• Additional reasoning at the AfD talk: "That radicals attack the article..." [87]

Sorry, I could not help but notice the trend in your simultaneous attack on several articles and templates by making claims that look to me both radical and politically moticated. I also could not help notice that when you did not get it your way, you did not learn anything and returned with the same action to the new place. This made me think, that your actions are both parts of one agenda and that you did not learn anything from their not getting any support. I should have said, though, "Seems to be driven..." as I am not infallible, of course. --Irpen 19:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And if you want to keep your ethics up to high standards, then it would be nice to stop bothering editors with requests to "re-evaluate" their votes [88] --KPbIC 22:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with me contacting an editor the way I contacted him. I am pleased that you spend so much of your valuable time digging up my past edits, especially from many months ago. I find it charming that this is all you can find to question. I have likely made some real mistakes, unlike the one above you dug out and ridiculously cited. Go dig for more! --Irpen 19:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Interest

You may be interested in the conversation here [89] Regards Giano | talk 10:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Eastern betrayal

What's wrong with the article? I plan also to start articles Northern betrayal, Southern betrayal and Internal betrayal - note, all about Poland.--Nixer 12:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Nixer, I said everything there is to it at the article's talk. Please do something productive instead of waisting yours and other people's time. --Irpen 17:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Kubiyovych

Dear Irpen: It is some time since I began contributing to the Wikipedia and we collaborated together on our Kostomarov piece (before I registered), and I was somewhat surprised to meet you again in Volodymyr Kubiyovych. But here we are. I appreciate your additions to the article. However, I think that you underestimate the limited tactical nature of Kubiyovych's collaboration with the Germans and are in too much of a hurry to write him off as a Nazi, or something like one. Now, I admit that am not an expert on Kubiyovych, or even on the Second World War, but from what I have read of his writings and about him, he seems to have been no fascist. Certainly, his memoirs read very well and he comes across in them as a civilized man. In these memoirs, he compares himself to the Soviet Ukrainian academics who were evacuated to Ufa during the war and, of course, collaborated with Stalin's regime. He implies by this, I think, that they both did what little they could for the Ukrainian people in those terrible days "when evil was most free."

As to the citations on K's moderate position on Ukrainian-Polish relations during the war, and his saving Jews during the war, these come from I. Pidkova and R. Shust, Dovidnyk z istorii Ukrainy, 2nd ed. (K, 2002), article on Kubiyovych, which is available on line and could be linked to this article. But I do not know how to do this and it would be good if someone could do it for me.

Finally, I have again smoothed out the English in the article and tried to "encyclopedize" the language, to use an expression that you once taught me with regard to Kostomarov, and of which, I think, Kubiyovych would approve..

Best wishes... Mike Stoyik 16:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Mike, thanks for your message. I agree with you partially. I will respond at the talk page of the article in question. I apreciate your input though. Two small pieces of advise unrelated to it. Please put something at your user page, eg. a Babel template to make it non-red. Always use edit summaries in your edits. This helps other editors interested in the same articles. More later at talk:Kubiyovych. --Irpen 17:56, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom New anti-Semitism

Hey Irpen. Just in case you weren't aware it was this post of mine to AN/I that triggered a larger awareness of what was going on with regards to the NAS article and thus lead within a day or so of other people getting involved to the ArbCom request. The main issue has decreased in proportion to the increase in awareness of the issue -- I guess editors are being more self-conscious with regards to how their actions can be perceived. If you go back in the archived of that article's talk page and content edit history to before September 8th, you'll see a distinctly different situation that what is there now. --Ben Houston 19:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure you've seen this related story. The whole area is so tricky because there is anti-semitism in some cases and a perception of anti-semitism, fueled in part by the promotion of saying that anti-semitism is rampant and hidden, in others. Brian Klug says that the more inclusive definitions of NAS promote hostility as a reaction to perceptions of McCarthyism thus the inclusive definitions of NAS from the perspective of those believing those definitions and interpreting the world accordingly becomes self fulfilling. It has some parallels to a paranoid schizophrenic who believes that everyone is part of a conspiracy to get him because of whatever when it is really his own behavior and aggressiveness that make it a necessity for others to intervene -- his belief in a conspiracy against him becomes self fulfilling. But one has to be aware of the Martha Mitchell effect. Its a complicated area. --Ben Houston 20:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Leaving my comment in limbo

Uh, Irpen, what're you doing to me, deleting the comment I responded to?[90] Didn't you get an edit conflict? Bishonen | talk 23:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC).

I did but I thought I merged everything. I am sorry. --Irpen 23:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Fixed now. Sorry again! --Irpen 23:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Bishonen | talk 23:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC).

Please stop

I think your level of aggression toward Tony Sidaway has grown a bit more intense than is appropriate for Wikipedia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It was not an aggression but perhaps I really should stop reacting to him or react less, at least. He really caused too much grief lately and not just to myself. I should not fall on the same path. Thanks for reminding me. I will go edit some articles now. I think I am better at it :). Thanks again, --Irpen 02:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and welcome. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano

Your removal of my comment from Giano's talk page is okay, and I appreciate your opinion. I think your judgement on this matter is okay. --Tony Sidaway 05:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

From Kuban...

As I have been absent for over three weeks there might have been instances where I could have missed something serious, what is going on with our images on the commons? What other issues were there? --Kuban Cossack 15:52, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Treaty of Preobrasjensku

The place sounds Russian... any ideas? All I get are wiki mirror hits.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

AN

Please see here. Tyrenius 21:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Soviet regalia

hello. do you know if the Order of Victory exist today??

It does not. I mean those issued still exist in family collections and museums but they aren't awarded for a very long time.

secondly, you know what are the two symbols on the left side in his jacket? http://www.awards-orel.ru/img/baluevskiy.jpg Superzohar 16:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't. --Irpen 05:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The left diamond-shaped one is certainly the symbol of the Military Academia he has graduated from. The second one I do not know abakharev 05:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Best interests

I request we all leave Tony Sidaway alone for the time being. He is indeed trying to take a limited break so let's let him do so. Lets just all go about our business and not further flame the situation. I would really appreciate it if you could comply with this polite request. Thanks.--MONGO 22:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Mongo, I am also all for peace. I never said anything to Tony once he announced a Wikibreak. This is his return and new wave of utter defiance is what made me speak out. If he stays out and does nothing, I won't tell a word to him. If he takes it upon himself to teach others what to do, I think others have a right to respond. --Irpen 22:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration case

An arbitration case has been submitted to review the actions surround the recent Giano case on AN. I've listed you as an involved party, and you may wish to view the case here. --InkSplotch 18:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MacGyverMagic - Mgm|^(talk) 22:07, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Friendly images suggestion

Note that the Library of Congress source link for the Image:Red Army fighter save us.jpg you uploaded has expired. Unfortunately, when you search the Library of Congress websites, the search results and links to them are kept for only a finite time. So, the only way to supply information about the image in a permanent way is to cut and paste the image reference numbers. This takes only seconds, but is a sure way to help find the image source in the future, if needed to verify the license. For an example, take a look at Image:Niels Bohr Date Unverified LOC.jpg, Balcer 07:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Saakashvili

Which strong statements are u talking about? Sosomk 02:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The unreferenced charazterizations of the politician, favorable or unfavorable are unacceptable. 172 requested them referenced or removed. I agree with him. --Irpen 02:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:Holowko

Irpen, I don't expect you to find the original Polish newspaper. What I do expect is that you will create a proper cite.php ref footnote, with as much info as you can gather from Mirchiuk book. I was able to find out the names of three of four journals he quotes, the last one is in Jewish and I am not sure how to proceed in this case. PS. As I wrote on talk, please update the info with dates and if possible pages of the journals.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks to you too. Always ready for cooperation.--Kober 10:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Fisss

In fact an admin blocked me instead of Fisss three days ago for 48 hours. I know no way how to make him to discuss his changes.--Nixer 18:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Nixer, your main problem is lack of patience. Be cool. --Irpen 18:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Space trade

Can you please restore the article which I was working on and which was deleted out of process by sysop TheProject. He advocated the action that the article is crystall ball, but in my view the topic is entirely valid (just as space colonization). The article was based on citations from a reputable research and I planned to add some more sources. Besides it is a major topic in science fiction.--Nixer 11:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

• I have restored it as User:Nixer/Space trade abakharev 12:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Help

Hi Irpen. Can I ask you to partially protect the Georgia (country) page because of repeated vandalism and offending POV pushing by a bunch of IPs? Thanks, --Kober 18:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. --Kober 04:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Map

Thanks. I've added citations to the map's image page. The map is unfortunately Mercator projection, which causes some distortion and may make Sviatoslav's empire look unrealistically big. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

RfB With A Smile :)

Contacting arbitrators

You, or anyone else, is free to contact the arbitration committee. The wholesale way is to mail to the arbcom-l list, arbcom-l@Wikipedia.org Fred Bauder 11:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Retagged Images

Thank you for retagging these images with evidence they are PD. --Spartaz 06:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:8mart-1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:8mart-1.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:45, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support. Results are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 21:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Continued at User_talk:Irpen/archived_closed_issues_02