User talk:Irpen/archived closed issues 04

Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II

Hi Irpen,

Though it was no longer relevant to my RfA I would like to respond to some of the the comments you added to the discussion (and then removed).

As to the first three edits of mine you listed as evidence of my POV pushing: all of those were taken from said paper by Yehuda Bauer. Let me just copy and paste what Bauer writes about Ukraine if that's what's necessary:

"It is true even in, say, the Ukraine, where the Germans were originally enthusiastically welcomed by most people, though even there there was an important though unquantifiable pro-Soviet minority as early as 1941. Ukrainians in large numbers participated in the murder of the Jews, volunteered for pro-German police, collaborated with the German administration – but soon deep disenchantment took over. The Germans did not permit any kind of Ukrainian autonomy, treated Ukrainians as lesser beings, and then deported hundreds of thousands of them as forced laborers. The mood changed rapidly. Also, the fact that large numbers of Ukrainians were serving in the Red Army made their relatives under German rule tend more and more towards the Soviets. When the choice was between rule by Germans or by Ukrainian communists, the majority of Ukrainians in the end chose the Soviets. The Red Army was welcomed as liberators, except in Volhynia and parts of Eastern Galicia, where the armed anti-Soviet OUN underground maintained a foothold until about 1950."

Concerning my edit related to German-Ukrainian sexual relations I would like to ask you if you even read my edit summary. I was simply reverting a removal of that questionable content which was reasoned with the claim that the quotations were a copyright violation. I was not the one who added the content, I just feel that removal of content like that should be discussed on the talk page and not done on grounds that are obviously wrong. I would also like to know when I was uncivil as you claim in the RfA. And my calls for you to calm were because you were snapping at somebody just because they were mentioning a fact that you seemingly just didn't want mentioned.

As I have mentioned dozens of times probably I agree that this article is a mess and that I'm not siding with any socks or trolls as you claim.--Carabinieri 16:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Carabinieri. before contributing controversial material, especially to the article like this one, one should always familiarize oneself with the subject a little more closely than read a single paper, particularly of the scholar whose main speciality is not the subject of the article. I cannot vouch for or against Bauer scholarly credentials overall but the claims he makes in the citations you provide contradict the basic facts one can find in widely published numbers on how many Ukrainians fought the Nazis in the Red Army, how many evacuated and contributing in the home front, how many were murdered under evacuation, how many villages were burned and how many were taken to slave labour and how many fought the Nazis in the Soviet partisan units. One can have a very clear picture of the extent of the collaboration by comparing these numbers with the numbers of people who volunteered for Polizei, division SS Galizia and even UPA (note too that the latter was not purely a collaborative force and had a history of both collaboration and military confrontation with the Nazis). I can add countless stories I've heard from witnesses and survivors of that horrific time, my relatives and not, but this is not the place for that. But to anyone familiar with the history in a least bit this quote you were pushing into the article that "most Ukrainians were enthusiastic about the Nazi's except for a small pro-Soviet minority" is an outright nonsense.

As for your returning of the disgusting pictures and even more disgusting claims added by a sock that the Ukrainian women were just eager to give Nazis the sexual pleasure, this goes beyond pale, I said all there is to it at the article's talk and I do not care what excuse you used to return that crap. Copyrighted or not, that stuff did not belong there and you knew it full well as well as that there was nothing more to be "discussed on the talk page" on this horrendous slander before removing it. You revert warred on the side of the confirmed socks who created the article purely to troll and grind an axe of ethnic hatred and this is all I was saying.

Finally, as to your behavior at AfD, your calls to "calm down" and "be civil" was clearly provoking and unwarranted. Nowhere I made a single uncivil remark and as such your calls were merely condescending and uncalled for. --Irpen 22:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.

If the information I added to the article is truly wrong, then please excuse my lack of knowledge on this topic. When I first saw this article, I was shocked, it was terrible. I thought the best way to help would be to find one or two reliable sources on the internet (the paper by Bauer and this infoukes website, whose reliability was, however, soon questioned on the talk page, so I stopped using that one) and add information to them to the article, even if it's not much.

As far as my re-adding of the images goes: the reason for their removal was obviously phony, so I reverted that edit, there is not much more to be said about this.

My calls for you to calm down on that AfD discussion were not meant to be condescending at all. Again, if I misinterpreted your comments, I'm sorry, but they seemed pretty rude to me, but I guess that's one of the dangers of communicating over the internet, people can't see each other's facial expressions, hear their tone of voice, etc, so sometimes confusions like this arise.

Look Irpen, overall I'm pretty much tired of this discussion. Looking through some of your contributions I really respect the work you've done on Wikipedia, let's just get back to that.--Carabinieri 22:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I said it all about the image adding, no matter what was the reason for it. Here and here there is an entire set of my contributions to the AfD discussions. Please point a single entry that, as you claim, may seem "rude" with or without "seeing facial expression and hearing the tone of voice". Truth is there is none.

In any case, I am happy to accept the olive branch. My most frequent objection to anyone's adminning is lack of interest in the content creation. This clearly does not apply to you and whatever your particular position was in that article, I think you will make a fine admin. Happy edits. --Irpen 00:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Kiev Images

I am currently planning a trip to Kiev in May (I live in Chicago, USA). I have evolved much as a photographer in the recent years, and plan on making one of the main focuses of my trip photography of Kiev. I will be compiling a list of places that I want to photograph. Leave a note on my page, and let me know if you have any specific requests. (Example of my recent photography from Belize). -asmadeus 20:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Added a note to the top of my Kiev album for photos taken back in 2001 giving permission to be used on wikipedia under cc-by-sa tag as you suggested. Thank you for that!

Any reason why not all images are displayed in the Gallery (missing Image: tag) on National Art Museum of Ukraine? Are you just waiting to confirm them? For example - I'm positive that Image:Vasylkivsky_cossacks_in_steppe.jpg is in the museum - my tour book shows the same image for the museum. The rest I can't confirm (so far). -asmadeus

Yes, the syntax error. I fixed it. There are more images to upload and add to the gallery from the list of sources in the end of the article. I think we should remove those we can't confirm. Cheers, --Irpen 18:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 27 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ukrainian Autonomous Orthodox Church, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 12:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Infamous "Death Threat"

Regarding the Death threat that Ghirlandajo is purported to have made against one of the most prolific and bemedalled (sic) members of WP's contributors out of Poland. See talk Alytus. Do you have any knowledge of this accusation or where it stems from? The accuser himself is not going to provide this information, and although I'm virtually sure it is because it never happened, I'm trying to be fair and get to the bottom of this. Thanks. Dr. Dan 17:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is that if these accusations against Ghirla were ever made, those are ridiculous and do not merit a response. --Irpen 17:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the accusation was made (although no evidence has been provided to substantiate the claim). And this kind of thing cannot remain unchallenged or ignored. Sorry to bother you with it, but I hoped you might have an inkling of what it was all about. Maybe someone else might know. Thanks. Dr. Dan 17:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree such attack on editors is not acceptable. It should be investigated if such "threat" was ever made. M.K. 12:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Vlad

Thanks for putting in a word. I appreciate the effort -- I have a hunch he's more likely to listen to you than anything I could say. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right in this. This is exactly why I am trying to convince this user to cool it a little even though I understand his frustration. --Irpen 06:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for advice

Thanks Irpen. I know they work in groups in order to win revert wars and stuff. Anyway, that's so irrelevant.

Could you advise me how to push through my mediation case on Boris Stomakhin. Biophys has eliminated all the sources and has article blocked. Only one mediator approache my case. I need a second one. Vlad fedorov 09:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Old bad habits

Old habits die hard. Sorry. Vlad fedorov 18:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Orange Revolution peer review

Wow, this is sure not what I expected... Looks like you're the only one who reviewed it. Sigh. — Alex^(T|C|E) 05:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, sadly the world does not care much about Ukraine. Either Klitschko's, or Ruslana or Andriy Shevchenko are better known worldwide than the OR but imagine how even less would we have been known without those celebrities plus the OR? Anyway, I think we should take an effort in referencing the OR better. I am mostly satisfied by it, that is given its current size. It can be expmanded and be made better that way, but for the size that is now, it is IMO, reasonably neutral and comprehensive. That is withstood the 2+ year time test without major changes after the last expansion by Michael and myself is the proof of that. If we just find more in-line refs, we could push it to the GA status. --Irpen 05:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Zaporizhian Cossacks

Could you please, if possible, pay attention to the problem of constant erasing of alternate (ukrainian) point of view in the articles Zaporizhian Sich andZaporizhian Host. Or do you think that picture should be one sided? Ans-mo 11:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, review this user's contribs, just look at the propaganda infested statement such as this: [1]. The sources that he uses are also excellent, with feaces like this [2]. --Kuban Cossack 22:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Where are you? The user continues his assaults. --Kuban Cossack 12:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Whatever much I would love to have 48 hours from midnight to midnight, I cannot be everywhere, sorry. With the crucial Time of Troubles article being numbed, a certain editor recruiting help against his content opponents and seeking assistance from the medium we used to criticize together and the usual suspects popping up from there with nonsense statements, I simply had no time for this. With a dozen of sem-finished articles never submitted and continued attempts of vigorous nationalist POV-pushing taking even a new route, I can't now promise how soon I will get to the article you ask me. Sorry, buddy :(. But, I will still be around :) --Irpen 19:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Desysop this, desysop that

Always with the de-sysoping, you! I know, I know, when your only tool is a hammer, all your problems look like nails, but c'mon Irpen, there's more to life than tilting at adminmills. There are plenty of avenues of conflict resolution available to people who invest the effort. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 22:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

"When your only tool is a hammer...", right! But the hammer here is the block button. And don't you tell me about "investing the effort." Go write some articles, like I do, and we can then discuss investing efforts. It is much more fulfilling but somewhat more difficult than running around telling others what to do, blocking on the whim thus making oneself feel important or plotting another act behind the curtains (yes, you understood me correctly.) Desysopping is an extreme measure but it is an extremely sparse one and I have seen only one undeserved desysopping to this date. Whimsical blocking of established editors occurs much more frequently and by whimsical I mean just those, unilateral, spiteful, vengeful, or just "happy to show who is the boss" blocks. Any user may deserve a block but failure to confer at ANI in advance of the potentially controversial block (note at ANI, not there, you know) has always been disastrous. "Cool-off blocks" have always been disastrous.

Repeated bad judgment blockers is a huge burden as they harm editors to an unconscionable degree, radicalize them, turn them away or simply make them behave like assholes. The more committed the editor, the more good content s/he brought to the project, the cleaner was his/her block log, the more devastating the effects of such blocks are to them.

But this was about bad judgment blockers. The wrongly motivated "I am sooo important" blockers is even a bigger problem. Finally, unethical behavior has been the worst of those all. Those are much more grave dangers for the projects than vandals of the worst kind and not because vandals are better people but because this project learned to successfully deal with Vandalism. This project is only starting to successfully deal with the abusers. It's taking much slower, but I see some progress lately. --Irpen 23:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

AZP

I wonder if you could help me with one thing. I created a page 57 mm AZP S-60 and I would need help from a Russian speaker with the abbreviation "AZP". I believe that it stands for "automatic anti-aircraft gun" (автоматическое зенитное ________) Could you help me correct and complement this? Many thanks in advance. --MoRsE 18:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See article. And you are very welcome. --Irpen 18:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I owe you one :) --MoRsE 07:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Bronze Soldier

Hi there! We need a correct architectural classification. Can you come up with a more appropriate classification than Stalinist architecture. I thought "socialist realism" may sometimes be part of that style, especially since the monuent was erected under Joseph Stalin in 1947. -- Camptown 09:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO Socialist realism would fit but we better ask an architectural expert. But it is definitely not Stalinist neo-classicism commonly associated with the the term. --Irpen 09:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that one Swede and one Finn have to alone defend both the Russian and the neutral point-of-view in this article, againt a horde of agressive and hostile POV pushers from Estonia? Up to now there has been virtually no participation from Russia. -- Petri Krohn 08:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Shame, I agree. I will see what I can do and thanks a lot for heads up. --Irpen 17:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Did you see this?

[3] Bishonen | talk 20:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

Kyiv/Kiev

THe Kiev article has both names, why shouldn't Kiev Metro? — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It may. Let's discuss it at article's talk. --Irpen 22:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, go ahead and voice your opinion there. — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why I even bother... — Alex^(U|C|E) 23:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

C Праздником!

File:Red-flag-on-Reichstag, another angle, no smoke..jpg

НАШЕ ДЕЛО ПРАВОЕ — МЫ ПОБЕДИЛИ
-Kuban Cossack

Thanks!

Thanks for the award (very unexpected :-) ) and C Днем Перемоги/C Днём Победы! — Alex^(U|C|E) 03:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Beatles fab four

Hi, Irpen. You know I'm a new user here and I'm not sure I'm going to be a constant one. Just a toy on holidays. I hope there is some there exists some institute of judges in wiki. You look like one of them. Because of that constant cheater DLX I had to slightly change my name. See User talk:Sandstein. I believe his complaints are mostly out of context. You saw yesterday one example. Look at the original discussion in the BS page. You see the topic is highly controversial and maybe I wasn't that cool. But I believe something something should be done with those aggressive user like DLX. Can you express your opinion? Beatle Fab Four 19:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not a judge, LOL, but I will take a look. My advise to you is to stay cool no matter what. --Irpen 20:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still fighting. Take a look. Talk:Bronze Soldier of Tallinn#For some who try to forget and rewrite the history

LOVE AND PEACE 85.140.211.220 00:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW. That Sandstein temporarily blocked M.V.E.i. who expressed his opinion too. MAKE LOVE NOT WAR 85.140.211.220 01:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

They try to raise their heads again. Unbelievable. Take a look.

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block evasion of Beatle Fab Four. Beatle Fab Four 22:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the Baltics

It seems that all articles on the history of the Baltic States are versions of what I call the Baltic occupation myth: 50% political bias, 50% half-truths and exaggeration. The situation is not getting any better. The last chapter in this story was the deletion of "Republic of Estonia (1990-1991)", achieved by editors who's only previous contributions had been (one sided edits) to the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn.

Is there anything that can be done about the issue? Should we just publicly announce that Wikipedia is a collection of lies, and maybe stop contributing to it?

Some options:

1. Set up a project to handle articles with problems caused be ethnic and national disputes. If we could somehow get Asians and Africans to contribute on European disputes and vise versa, we could get a more balanced result. Or, is the English language Wikipedia so much influenced by the Anglo-Saxon NATO agenda that it should in fact be called Natopedia?
2. Create two alternate versions of history. I do not really care what the articles are called, as long as they get the story right and acknowledge the existence of an alternate view. We could have History of Estonia (truth) and History of Estonia (Soviet lie).

The first question is however to decide how to discuss “tactics”, without this turning into a shouting match against nationalists. The Baltic noticeboard will not do.

-- Petri Krohn 23:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Petri, this problem is as old as the Wikipedia is. There is no single way to solve this once and forever. Forking is certainly not the reasonable option. What is needed is diligence, persistence, and good-faith sourced edits. You know, the usual stuff. I will try to help within the time I have these days. Sorry for being of little help :(. --Irpen 00:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Bohdan Khmelnytsky article

There is some controversy over the content of the article, I was wondering if you have an opinion on the subject? Thanks in advance.--Hillock65 17:27, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I am pleased you contacted me on this matter. I will post my thoughts at the article's talk but a general comment is that this one same argument needs to be carried at only one of the two pages (rather the uprising than the bio article, if you ask me) and to avoid forking lots of info should be moved from the bio article to the uprising one. --Irpen 00:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This was exactly my argument: the same stuff is forked from Uprising into Bio. Besides, there is some doubt in regards to the validity of some of the sources. As a counterbalance I tried to post Subtelny's note on casualties - it gets thrown out because they don't like it. You can read my suggestions at the discussion page. For the time being I am staying away from it all, I have no desire for revert wars. --Hillock65 02:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving Abu badali has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali. You have expressed an interest in this before, so please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Workshop.

Thanks, - Jord 16:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Russians in Ukraine

I need your help. --Kuban Cossack 14:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Khmelnytsky Uprising

I am surpsised you are not there. For once I thought we would be on the proverbial same side of the barricade... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:12, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Evidence phase

Hello Irpen. If you intend to present evidence on the Piotrus RFAR, could you please do so soon? Thank you. Picaroon (Talk) 17:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:PD-UA-exempt

Hi there, I noticed you edited the Template:PD-UA-exempt awhile back. You are welcome to contribute on a related Rfc page here, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/FC Vorskla Poltava image. Much appreciated, --Palffy 21:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements

Hey again, can you explain what you meant by Please consider moving some (definitely not all though) to Board two but totally up to you.? Thanks, --Palffy 21:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the top of the page, there is an explanation there about two boards and a rough guideline on how to loosely decide on which one to choose for a particular article. All major league players surely pass a WP:Notability test, so the articles were rightfully created and your work is appreciated. The board, however, serves to prompt interested editors to add articles to their watchlist (at least that's why I created it.) So, if sufficient number of editors who watch the board can be expected to watchlist the article, it is board one. The rest goes by default to board two. The deciding factor on what qualifies for the board one are (IMO) the combination of importance of the topic in general and the degree of its relevance to Ukraine. Here are some examples in terms of sports (below are strictly my personal assessment and your mileage may vary)

Even very important articles unrelated, or almost unrelated, to Ukraine (don't belong to any of these boards) would be for instance the foreign sports club where the Ukrainian player happens to play (again, might depend on the player, you know what I mean.)

The article may be loosely related to Ukraine despite the topic's overall importance (board two), like important tournament series where Ukrainian participants consistently do well. Or the article may be fully related to Ukraine but the topic is not likely to interest sufficient number of editors to watch it (relatively little known player from the Ukrainian club.)

Finally important sports people (Viktor Aleksandrovich Maslov, Oleg Oshenkov), clubs, organizations, series, unquestionably go to board 1. I think it is just as well if we keep all of those articles you posted at board 1. I just wanted to prompt your attention to the board two in case you find some of the articles more fitting there. Never mind and thanks again. Any chance we get these two red links blue? --Irpen 08:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Pechersk School International

Could you possibly give a better prod reason than obvious--I can think of a few, we want to set a good example. But considering its troubled history, maybe AfD. Up to you. DGG 02:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is up to you now since you removed the prod. As for the reasons, I don't know where to start and "obvious" applies exactly. Additionally, it is a recreation as it has been deleted earlier. I wash my hands off it. --Irpen 02:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Maslov dab

Done. Of course, disambiguation should be done by patronymic whenever possible, but for cases when patronymic is hard to find disambiguation by occupation will suffice. Anyway, I moved the racer to Viktor Maslov (racer) and redirected Viktor Maslov to Maslov disambiguation page, to which I added a few more Viktors, including the Dynamo head coach. All we need now is an article about him :)

Let me know if you need anything else or if you have questions. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Guberniya

I sure have a lot of interest in sorting this out (it is somewhat of a mess, as you rightfully noted), but unfortunately what I don't have is the time. As far as guberniya goes, the article was left at this title as "guberniya" is a loanword, but since it is not really well-known to Anglophones, a well-fitting translation ("Governorate") was used to title the articles on actual guberniyas. All those articles are supposed to have a link to "guberniya" somewhere in the lead, so it is absolutely clear to readers that both terms refer to the same thing. I am not saying this is the best way to handle the situation, but so far it has worked reasonably well. It's fairly easy to fix, though—we can just redirect "guberniya" to governorate, where it would be included as a section, or split existing governorate into governorate (Arab countries), governorate (Russia) (to which "guberniya" would redirect), and governorate (Germany) (or whatever a better term for this one would be).

As for "namestnichestvo", fixing that requires research and time committment which I currently cannot afford. Sorry! Note, however, that even when "namestnichestvo" is pretty much the same as "guberniya", it is a different term, so it would not be incorrect to translate is as "viceroyalty" instead of "governorate".

Finally, "General Governorship" (генерал-губернаторство) was a unit that comprised several governorates and/or oblasts. I am, however, not sure what you mean by Little Russia Governorate and Little Russia Governorship General being different—I don't recall hearing the latter name (but I could just be a bit rusty on that topic :)).

Sorry for not being of more help.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I googled a little and those two were untis that existed at different times. --Irpen 18:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Little Russia Governorate existed in 1764–1781 and in 1796–1802, but it was called a "guberniya" during both of these periods. Which of these entities (if not both of them) were a part of a larger (Little Russia) General Governorship, I cannot say at this time without checking more sources.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

annexation

You replaced "annexed" with "gained" more than one time, without any explanation on the talk page. Could you please explaine your reason on the article talk page?--AndriyK 18:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks for asking. --Irpen 18:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edits on Annexation were reverted by Philip Baird Shearer. He criticized the phrase "In international relations the term annexation is usually applied when the emphasis is placed on the fact that territorial possession is achieved by force and unilaterally rather than through treaties or negotiations." If you think that you are right there, please prove this at Talk:Annexation. Otherwise, "gained" has to be replaced with "annexed" in Little Russia.--AndriyK 17:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You reverted Annexation for second time, without answering Philip Baird Shearer's objections on the talk page. Please note, that edit warring is not a legal way to dispute resolution. Please use the talk if you have solid arguments.--AndriyK 09:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

AndriyK, it's nice to find you concerned about "legal way of dispute resolution" all of a sudden. If genuine, this is a huge step and I am looking forward towards working with reformed AndriyK on the articles. However, the entry above is misplaced/ I used the talk page, I explained myself in edit summaries, and, most importantly, if you have an article specific comment, post them at the article's rather than my talk so that other concerned editors will see the discussion. Best regards, --Irpen 20:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I posted my comments to the article talk pages and still am waiting for your answer.--AndriyK 17:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I remind you once more: I am still waiting for your answer on Talk:Little Russia and Talk:Annexation.--AndriyK 08:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I answered at talk:annexation and in the edit summaries. Respond there please. --Irpen 08:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

You did not answer to my comments|.--AndriyK 09:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Little Russia

Just wanted to express my compliments on your recent editing efforts at Little Russia. Good work. --Lysy^talk 06:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Irpen 06:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Any suggestions?

I was wondering about what you thought about it and whether I should report it? About this[4] (especially the last sentence in that diff). Any suggestions on the course of action? Thanks--Hillock65 19:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think these comments are unhelpful. I will comment there to such degree but note that much worse stuff has been said at the similarly disgusting uk-wiki board amusingly called "Ksenofobii - NI!" and no one was admonished. I stopped responding to attacks posted there and now I don't even bother to go there after the incident that you are aware. To your question on course of action my advise is ignore it. But I will try to talk reason to the user. --Irpen 20:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I hope you see the difference between "come and help with article XXX" and "come and help me put user YYY in his right place". I am afraid we are talking about two different things.--Hillock65 20:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I understand what you mean. However, the uk-board in question was filled with personal attacks against the users labeled anti-Ukrainian. Lengthy discussions on how bad is this or that user were quite hateful. Or perhaps it was not this board but some other page related to it. Its talk maybe. I won't remember. I would have gone there and shown you the exact page if you have a difficulty to find it, but I gave myself a pledge to not ever go to that wiki anymore to avoid the accumulation of stress as the community seems to be unwilling to adequately address the incidents of grievous abuse. So, you will have to find it yourself. --Irpen 20:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, without trying to sound too philosophical, everything happens for a reason. I happen to share your negative view on that message board and even nominated it for delition at the beginning of the year. That motion was soundly defeated and the board stayed, because there is a reason for it, even if you don't share their sentiments. In my view, it is juvinile and amateurish but I understand that's how people in that community express their frustrution and anger for being labelled nationalist and hounded for their political views. If you think you were labelled unjustly anti-Ukrainian, think maybe someone else was unjustly labelled nationalist here, and maybe even by you too. I happen also to share that same frustration that you have with uk-wiki, except my frustration is with this one, which I see inherently anti-Ukrainian. Ukrainian editors with whatever views they have had were virtually driven from this encyclopedia and that board is the childish way to vent their anger and frustration. However juvenile it is, this is the way they express their frustration, at least I am happy no one is recruiting revenge squads against certain users like in the example above. As I understand AndriyK was banned among other things for the very same reason. Somehow, rabid russian nationalists are tolerated way better than Ukrainian ones, even though some of them are just as bad, if not worse. If you think I am wrong, look at Kazak's history of edits in Ukrainian articles. Again, there is a difference between calling someone names and recruiting others to get someone. That is the perceived double standard in this encyclopedia, and mutual animosity and distrust will continue as long as one side will always blame the other one. --Hillock65 21:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

First, about trying to recruit outside support in revert wars, it simply does not work. I mean it may work for a day or two, perhaps a week even, but few of the recruited users actually stay and those who do were likely to come here anyway. A relative small minority of Ukrainian (or Russian or Polish or other E. European) public can really contribute to en-wiki as this requires individuals with a huge interest, involvement, good internet access, relative well-being in RL (one is unlikely to be able to commit time to the project when one really struggles to put bread on the table, has to battle health problems and other real life disasters), good English, etc., etc., etc. As you see, this limits the pool of potential contributors to a very small segment and posting calls at internet forums will unlikely affect the number of the users who will stay.

About nationalists, all nationalists have a hard time at Wikipedia and most long-term users are those with moderate views. Strongly nationalist editors find themselves in trouble soon enough and I am familiar with several instances of Russian nationalist users ending up banned or having left due to "frustration". Wikipedia is a more welcome place to moderate editors, be them Ukraino-, Russo- or Polonophile. Contrary to your assertion, there are several actively working Ukrainian editors right now and they manage to not run into any trouble. And there are also users who manage to get in trouble all the time. Now, to the user in question, I would agree that he is somewhat exceptional in that he may be called a Russian nationalist indeed and he gets in trouble only on the very rare occasions. However, the important distinction is that the user's activity in Wikipedia goes by far beyond picking and fighting the nationalist crusades and running endless revert wars. User contributes a whole lot of content to the project and some topics of his interest and giant contributions have no relation to the nationalism whatsoever. There is another thing, though, which makes this user different from his opponents he mentions in the link you provide. In the UA-RU conflicts where the user is involved he does not scatter the general hatred towards the Ukrainians, something that his opponents do all the time in their talk page entries and edit summaries.

I agree that when sides blame each other all the time, mutual animosity and distrust is inevitable. Point is that only a small part of each "side" play this game, and the rest manage to get along without developing the hatred and distrust. --Irpen 22:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well since this discussion began about me, can I just add a few points to dear Hillock. First of all in that comment I never mentioned about Ukrainians in general, nor did I ever say that all Ukrainians show bad habits, I named those that I know are a disruption to wikipedia. Secondly, if you are so keen to discuss me, then I must say, from day one when you showed up, I was not impressed with your approach, and when Ghirla offered me to comment on ru-wiki about the trouble with uk-wiki I simply let the Russian wikipedia know about what is going on in en-wiki. Finally the comment dates after the article was locked (something I was aware off, as I requested that Bakharev lock the article) so seeing its last sentence as a call to arms for Russian wikipedians looses all its value. Its intention was for others to join the talk page of the article after my failed attempt to put some sense into you, and as illustrated by the examples your stubborn attitude was what caused the tone of the comment to be the way it is. I cannot be blamed for your personal insecurities on the topic, its your attitude that caused it to be the way it is and it certainly not helped us out of the deadlock in the discussion. You are totally uncompromising and also simply put, подлый (I can't even translate that on top of my head). And yes, I care about wikipedia and its articles, I don't want to see that article locked, but if the dispute is to be solved, one has to be eager to make concessions in favour of consensus, my experience with you clearly show that you are not prepared to make either concessions or even want to have consensus, you want the article to look like you envisioned it and that is it. Unfortunately, wikipedia does not work that way. You can't have everything your way (as Irpen said most leave out of frustration, or get blocked) and you must learn that if you want to have a successful career as a wikipedian.

On a personal note, next time, instead of pointing fingers at others have a look in the mirror. Last but not least, I said that before I will say it again, my wife is Ukrainian, western Ukrainian. --Kuban Cossack 00:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Irpen. I'd like to thank you for your support of my RfA. It was closed at surprising 75/0/0, so I'm an admin now. MaxSem 22:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For reverting vandalism on my user page. Thanks! :-) — Alex(U|C|E) 23:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Cooperation proposal

I thought we could try to resurrect the spirit of understanding that we seemed to reach there once, and try collaborating on some article. Perhaps Khmelnytsky Uprising would be a nice candidate? Together with Bohdan article, it seems to be a topic many editors we know of - including Hillock and Ghirla, both of whom I saw active at them at one point of time - seem to agree on (with rough regards to POV), and edit without stepping on each another toes.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Developing these articles would be a good idea. First thing, IMO, would be to defork lots of historiography from Khmelnytsky's bio article. Please take a look at this discussion on the issue. I asked Hillock to move around a lot of useful info he added to BKh article because, as an author, he is in the best position to do it. He did not object but did not express a full agreement either. He just said that this should be looked at later. Maybe now since the uprising's week-long conflicts about casualties seems to be getting resolved is a good time to move on to the next steps. You may want to comment at Hillock's talk to continue that discussion. --Irpen 02:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have agreed up with you on that at that very section. Somebody just needs to do it... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  08:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering

Don't you think your talk page is a bit long? :-) Almost kills my browser every time I go here. — Alex^(U|C|E) 05:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I know, have been lazy but will do now. --Irpen 05:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, laziness. Happens to everybody. I've been feeling like a WikiBreak lately. — Alex^(U|C|E) 06:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you feel like map-drawing, please take a look at Hillock's talk. There is a link to a map there and what can be made sourced to it would be maps of short-lived post-revolutionary pro-Soviet republics in modern-day Ukraine. --Irpen 06:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a look. — Alex^(U|C|E) 00:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It might take me a while to get around to it, though. My life's a bit hectic at this moment, I haven't been able to commit to any project for a while. But I'll try. — Alex^(U|C|E) 00:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Little Russia

Hi Irpen, it would have if you had submitted it on the 24th of May, since on the 19th it was about 2.8k and on the 24th it was about 14k. Basically if it was x5 in the last five days, then yeah, but in this case it was too late. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Too bad. In my experience exposing my work at DYK is the best way to attract copyediting by native speakers. Besides, this underrepresented part of the world could use some advertisement at the main page to attract more editors. But rules are rules. I should have known better. --Irpen 06:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Image question

Could you please take a look at this image? Can it be improved by photoshopping or whatever since it seems hazy. Maybe you would find it more convenient to proceed from the image's original source (listed) out of which the image is cropped. I know jpegcrop.exe for a good cropping tool and I use it but I know next to nothing about any other image processing issues. My grade in the school's drawing class was mostly a solid D. --Irpen 05:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, since it's a scanned image, making it look sharp and good from its existing state would be very difficult. It would be much easier to just draw the map over. I looked at the original image, and it's also fuzzy. The question is, do you want me to draw the whole map (is it important enough?) or just that fragment? — Alex^(U|C|E) 06:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As for this map, I'll draw it, too. But I can't promise anything in the next few days, school is almost out, and things are getting a bit chaotic here. :-) — Alex^(U|C|E) 07:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

As for the 16-th century map, redrawing it would probably be a bad idea. Its value for te article largely lies in its historicity, so if we can't improve the existing one, leaving it as is would be a better solution than replacing the historic map with the one drawn by a Wikipedian. As for 1918 events map, we do not need to redraw it. We can use it as is for the war aticle and the FU rationale. But it cannot be used as a fairuse in Odessa and Krivoy Rog Soviet republics. So, just drawing these republics' maps using the 1918 map as a source would be helpful. Thanks a lot, --Irpen 20:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 3 June, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Polish-Ukrainian Peace Force Battalion, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Sean William @ 15:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

On June 4, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pinsk massacre, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks again Irpen, and hopefully more fruitful multinational collaborations are on the way? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Lexis-Nexis

Hi, Irpen! I hope you don't mind if I ask you for a favor—could you, please, look up in Lexis-Nexis what spelling is the most common for the President of Tatarstan Mintimer Shaymiyev? The variants I'm interested are "Shaymiyev", "Shaymiev", "Shaimiev", and "Şäymiev". This is not urgent. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Please join

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-10 Podilsko-Voskresenska Line. --Kuban Cossack 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Прапор УНР

Шановий Irpen, прапор УНР було завантажено Вами. Зараз цей прапор змiнено користувачем Alex K. Який з них таки вiрний? --RoteArmee 18:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

RFC on Petri Krohn

You seem to be otherwise engaged, but since you have been involved in discussions concerning edits by both Digwuren and Petri, and Digwuren seems to have notified mainly Baltic contributors, can I draw your attention to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Petri Krohn where you could probably voice an opinion, relevant to the problem at hand. The RFC was put up rather irregularly, so please do not be angry with me if it is already deleted by the time you get there. --Pan Gerwazy 09:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Commons:User talk:Irpen

Hi, please see the message I left you there.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Transliteration policy

As a member of WikiProject Ukraine, you are invited to participate in the discussion about transliteration of Ukrainian words. I would appreciate your participation. Discussion is located here. Thank you. — Alex^(U|C|E) 17:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Moscow Declaration

Please see Talk:Moscow Declaration#United Nations --Philip Baird Shearer 17:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

request to move to kyiv

Hello,

I have set up a request to move the page Kiev to Kyiv.

I have outlined four key reasons for doing so in the discussion section of the page.

Looking through the archives, I saw that you had contributed to this page earlier. I would like to hear what you have to say on this topic.

Thank you

Horlo 02:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)Horlo

Dear Holro, while I appreciate that you decided to use the proper process to achieve the change you want to achieve, it upsets me a whole lot that you show no interest to improve the wikipedia by adding content to any articles or starting new ones. Perhaps, a thought to consider. As for your proposal, I am sorry to upset you, but it will fail because it contradicts the Wikipedia's naming policy. Best regards, --Irpen

Pryvit

Hey, I've been keeping a lower profile, mostly to concentrate on real-life things, but it's good to see you continuing to edit, and to apply your moderating influence. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2007-07-30 05:40 Z

Thanks. Some see my influence as not moderating :(. Anyway, good to see you too! --Irpen 07:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Support

Could I get your support on this Category:Musicians born in Ukraine, has been nominated for deletion. The discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007_July_31#Category:Musicians_born_in_Ukraine. The discussion was opened on July 31, and will probably close in two days, so if you wish to make a case for retaining the category, Thanks --Bandurist 04:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bandurist. Frankly, I do not see much sense in this category. It is hard to define what constitutes Ukraine as a place of birth in historical sense, while the borders are very well defined for the last 50+ years. Secondly, I think, a Ukrainian musician is the one who played the Ukrainian music regardless of the ethnicity or the place of birth. A hypothetic Eurodance star whose career has occurred in Germany should not be a part of the Ukrainian music article whether s/he was born in Ukraine or not. Of course, I will not vote for the deletion, especially after you asked for support. But I am not convinced the category is needed. Thanks, --Irpen 06:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Makarov (diambiquation)

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Makarov (diambiquation), by JohnI (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Makarov (diambiquation) fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Housekeeping. Non-controversial maintenance task performing a non-controversial page move like reversing a redirect.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Makarov (diambiquation), please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 15:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

There is some sockpuppetry occuring at Talk:Kiev. Six different IPs hold the same arguments with little to no other contributions to any other article. There are also registered users with little to no other contributions at any other article with the same arguments. I haven't figured out how to worke that damned sockpuppetry reporting page, but do you know how to file reports on there? Reginmund 20:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I will look into it. --Irpen 20:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Award

I have proposed an award at the Ukraine Wikiproject - You appear to be a member of the project and I would like some feedback from you - thanks // Finns

Archiving the History of Russia's talk

Sorry, I reverted your archiving as the discussion there seemed relevant. I am sure you've done it with best intentions, but those issues are tto recent to be archived yet. As for the off-topic discussion, I moved it to my talk where it can be continued if parties have an interest in that. Regards, --Irpen 20:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussions are for the most part old - spotlight left a while ago, and the fact tag template has been resolved on user talk pages - if someone wants to bring it up again they can. And stop calling it the "off-topic" discussion - you made the comment on the talk page, I responded on the talk page, there's nothing off-topic in that. However, the discussion is over - as it was just a reminder that telling an editor essentially that they are stuck up and don't listen to anyone (seriously now - "do as you please. There's nothing new in that"?) isn't needed.--danielfolsom 20:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not object to the second archiving you as you preserved the recent entries, unlike the first time. --Irpen 20:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks. I'll buy the second round. Mandsford 11:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, please read

I also belive that this image: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AntiRussianPoster.jpg has place to be in the section of Ukraine after the collapse of the Soviet Union in the Russians in Ukraine article, nevertheless, just like to you, the user Hillock removes it all the time. I hope you could again support the idea on the talk page of the article. Sorry i couldnt support the idea then when you brought it up in the first place, but i was blocked at that time. M.V.E.i. 21:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

About moving the list to a seperate page

I dont mind to it actually, but i think it should be sorted in an ABC way or somthing like that. Anyway, now it looks exellent to. M.V.E.i. 21:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment

Thank you for your comment on my RfA, which was successful. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Question

Can Hillock NPOV anything he wants? I really dont understand what "neutrality" has to do with an argumant about puting or not puting a picture. And can he put it after by complete majority it was desided that this image should stay? Check his talk page, he was offered "meditation" because he has a similar fight on a different topic. Hope you also remember his fights with Kuban kazak a few month ago? When Kuban kazak added linked importent information, and Hillock added information about Ukrainians and how they co-suffered when Kuban tryed to explain him the article is not about Ukrainians. M.V.E.i. 18:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't make this section

See? he maid this section, i just chenged "Russian extrimists" to "Pro-Russians", so it would sound more objecive. M.V.E.i. 19:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary of yours about terrorists? Slow down. Discuss content and not Hillock. --Irpen 19:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

But how are they radical? They make demostrations yeah, but that's not a crime. Evey political ideology eventualy has demonstrations. And i really belive Timoshebko and Yushinko are extrimists and terrorists. I mean, taking the Rada by force after loosing the election?? But nevertheless, i dont add the name "criminals" and others they desurve into articles. M.V.E.i. 19:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Eating patterns

Are you following my edits around? Digwuren 05:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

RfAr link

Please check the link in the second-last paragraph of your arbitration request ("complaint by the blocking admin"). I think you may have inadvertently copied the wrong diff there. Newyorkbrad 18:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I did indeed. Corrected now, thanks for pointing this out to me. --Irpen 18:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Support

Hope i could get your support here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#The_new_image

and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:World_War_II#The_new_image

Because i belive that you will agree with me that having the Normandi battle picture in the size of two, and not having a picture of the Stalingrad battle in a world war two image is absurd. M.V.E.i. 11:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

president of Ukraine

About Ukraine, then we should delete the word "President" in the boxes of those three guys' articles... --Damifb 18:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If we can find were to move this info, yes. Delete, no. Ukraine is too sparcely covered on wiki to delete a valid info. Maybe we need another article. Like Least of political leaders of Ukraine. Just thinking out loud. I simply don't have time to fix every problem. --Irpen 18:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I meant removing just the word "President". The article already exists: List of national leaders of Ukraine, I just created it. Regards. --Damifb 18:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Good thinking! Thanks! Also, note, that leaders of the Western Ukrainian People's Republic should be added there too. Cheers, --Irpen 18:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Good team work! Now we have a decent article. --Damifb 18:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR report

For what little it is worth, I had another look at your report and I now agree that a block was warranted. I'm still learning the ropes (so to speak) so please drop me a note if you see me messing up somewhere else. I'm very sorry for the time that my duff decision wasted. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

All right. Thanks for being gracious :). Mistakes happen and making a mistake and not to block is always better than to block by mistake. So, when in doubt you made a right decision. --Irpen 06:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Essay on how 3RR hurts the project and a proposal to fix it.

Hi! I would appreciate it, if you could give me your thoughts on this essay: Accusations of collaboration: 3RR hurts Wikipedia --Alexia Death the Grey 09:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Kiev

I moved your comments to Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Kiev, and responded to both you and the filer. You are correct in noting that, unless everyone involved in the dispute is involved in the mediation, any resolution will not stick and hence the mediation would have been a waste of time. Cheers, Daniel 03:55, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Orange Revolution

Hey, wanna resume attempts at getting the Orange Revolution article the GA/FA status? Maybe even a second attempt at a peer review? :-) — Alex^(U|C|E) 04:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea. I will go over it one more time. Thanks, --Irpen 04:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you're fast. :-) By the way, I think you should participate in the Kiev mediation. My comments are on the talk page over there. — Alex^(U|C|E) 04:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I wrote what I have to say on the mediation already. --Irpen 04:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well okay, it's up to you, but I feel you'd have a few good points to make if you joined. — Alex^(U|C|E) 04:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made my points and will make them again if the new RM procedure starts. Mediation is not part of it and is started as a desperate attempt of a commited WP:SPA to try a new way to impose his view on the WP since all he tried before - failed. The article's name will not be non-compliant to the WP:NC and seeking for a new venue to protract this nonsense is not making the proposed name any more complaint. If he wants to change the convention, this would be another matter but it belongs to WP:NCGN talk page. --Irpen 04:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I just felt that I needed to join the mediation because it might turn into participants trying to discredit each other. Anyway, just a suggestion. We'll see what happens. By the way, Happy Independence Day! — Alex^(U|C|E) 04:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah! Thanks! Forgot to blank my userepage this time with a last-year's greeting. --Irpen 04:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Bettacommand

I see that Bettacommand is trying to regain his admin status. After disgraceful his block of you. and part in blocking me (memory refresher here [5]) you may,like me, have something to say on the subject. I'm not sure where is the best place t say it though. Giano 11:31, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Your quote has been removed from the userpage

I should be grateful if you would avoid, as far as possible, interacting with User:Hillock65 in future, and consider the consequences of some of your postings - even if you feel that they are not contentious. Happy editing. LessHeard vanU 21:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort in resolving this matter. It is my intention to continue keeping the amount of my interaction with the said user to a bare minimum. Please judge the content of my postings from the postings themselves, not cherry-picked quotes. I gave a diff several times. Also, you must admit the irony of him claiming of wanting to have nothing to do with me and putting the out of context quote by myself on the top of his user page. I said everything there is to it already at ANI. If you want to study the matter in full, I would appreciate your feedback. If you are not interested, it is just as well. --Irpen 03:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Thanks, Irpen. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Anytime. Who knew that certain self-professed wp-defenders would side with trolls of the worst kind. --Irpen 08:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Kyiv mediation

Hello,

If you do not want to enter mediation, fine.

If you do not agree with me, fine.

However, do not spend all of your comments on a Request for Mediation page calling me names, and being generally uncivil.

Thanks, Horlo 00:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Horlo, I was not uncivil. I suggest you devote some of your endless energy to the content creation. I have no intention to continue this argument for now. --Irpen 04:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

HelloLviv center image

I dont agree with your removal of the image of the vandalising of the Russian Culture Centre in Lviv. I returned it because i belive that this image adds to the article. M.V.E.i. 20:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

MVEi, please use article's talk for the article-related issues and use meaningful section titles for your messages. "Hello" is not exactly meaningful, is it? --Irpen 20:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok yet you ignored what i wrote. This image shows anti Russian actions. And i also think that in the "Radical" pro-russian movements the image of an anti-NATO demonstration is totally, out of theme. There is nothing radical in opposing NATO. I think it's normal. M.V.E.i. 15:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage! — Alex^(U|C|E) 06:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

apology

Sorry if I offended you per this [6]. What do you want removed? Ostap R —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ostap R (talk • contribs) 03:38, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Ostap, you did not offend me as I don't take offense of most anything onwiki. The only time I remember seeing myself offended was when a sock with an ax to grind against my country produced this repugnant masterpiece and some clueless users, including several experienced ones, revert-warred and blocked on the sock's side, the affair having ended with this crap still beautifying the WP. I only ensured that the masterpiece is at least tagged accordingly. You can see my messages at the article's talk as well as my exchange somewhere at this very page with Carabineri. So, no, you did not offend me. I just think your userpage was divisive. Your last moderation was more than enough. Thank you very much. --Irpen 03:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I see and I am glad you werent offended. I removed the divisive things. And that Ukrainian German collaboration article is worthless trash. Ostap R 03:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, we happen to agree on more than one thing already :) I would just add that in addition to being useless, it is also offensive trash. The way out of this mess is a new article titled with smth like Ukraine in the World War Two. Then whatever is encyclopedic in this pile of garbage can be included and the rest trashed. After that, if there is an interested user with time, the new objective article on collaboration may be branched out of the history article. I thought of starting an article about the War but never got to it. --Irpen 04:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the past versions of that article and I am surprised that that filth lasted as long as it did. Ostap R 09:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007

I just think the article has a lot of unnecessary information that needs to be removed. That's why I placed the cleanup tag. If nobody gets around to cleaning it up I'll take care of it a bit later. Any thoughts on what has to be removed? — Alex^(U|C|E) 07:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's take it to the article's talk. --Irpen 08:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I did when I tagged the article. Nobody replied there yet. — Alex^(U|C|E) 08:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your advice on AN/I

I just wanted to drop you a note to say I think your right in your advice about actual content addition. I have lately added content to more than the Josh Woodward article, but not much more. I think it often feels to me like Polbot can add so much more content than I ever could (her edit count, in a couple months, has surpassed mine of four years.) I'm more effective as an organizer and cleaner than as a writer, I think, and it takes less work. But there are side effects, as you note, including subtle aspects of community relations. Anyway, thanks for your observations.

By the way, I have a vague memory that we've been in conflict in the past, although I don't remember what it was about. (Knowing me, it was probably image deletion.) If I'm not confusing you with someone else, then thanks also for responding to my question with respect and humanity. All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Kiev Expedition (1018)

It seems we have found the Russian text which is being used a reference. Could you please check that is has been correctly translated and interpreted? If not, please suggest what the correct form should be. Balcer 03:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Image upload

Sir, I am having problems uploading images. You have helped me before, so would you mind uploading this image? It should be public domain, as he died in 1919. Could you also upload this one, as he died in 1927, so it should be public domain also. Ostap 02:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ostap, I will gladly help you. Right now I am in the middle of an extensive article rewrite. Once I am done, I will upload your images within few hours. Regards, --Irpen 02:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Renaming Kiev/Kyiv

Since you have a lot of experience with this issue, could you identify your current thoughts on renaming? As you know I am re-opening the discussion with the express purpose of finding a consensus, whatever that might become. In shutting off discussion yesterday you quoted WP:NC, however it would be very helpful to me if you could be more specific as to whether you thought it still applied, which part, and why. For example, under naming conventions, there is a section titled city names, which states "Convention: In general, there are no special naming conventions for cities, unless multiple cities with the same name exist." 199.125.109.78 04:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for setting up the archive, however the requested move still needs to be advertised on the Talk:Kiev page. 199.125.109.35 21:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The move survey was closed as per this comment of closing admin. There is nothing to advertise. --Irpen 22:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

That was a previous move request that was being closed. I re-opened it with reasons the second time. It is still open and will remain open at least until September 15, 2007. It appears that there was one RM three years ago and none that were fully discussed since then. 199.125.109.19 09:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Fedorovych

I'd warily suggest you to disambiguate Poland into Crown of the Polish Kingdom that is more apropriate, for the time of the events. To my knowledge Grand Duchy of Lithuania had nothing to do with Crown's actions there, because of popular feeling that those lands were unjust stolen from Duchy, so they were not eager to help Poles. Crown and Lithuania, despite existing Commonwealth, often did not have common policy on many things. Smolensk war, to my knowledge, was fought mostly with Grand Duchy forces, but I'm not absolute sure about this.--Lokyz 12:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I did not ask/want for your opinion on leaving. It's between me and him. I could not care less about Fedorovych. Renata 19:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Lokyz, I totally agree with you on both counts. It was not me who pushed Lithuania into Fedorovych. I did use Crown of the Polish Kingdom as a dab for Poland but some two editors kept persisting with the commonwealth. Same later there, where I cite F's universals asking commoners to rise against Poles (no judgments, so he said), some come and substitute it for "Commonwealth", thus not only putting words to F's mouth that he never said, but also completely distorting his meaning. I also agree re Smolensk.

Renata, sorry, but I left you a very polite message. Some people should be left alone to take pride in their defiant position and enjoy their friends' support. It is best to provide them with environment they want in this case, --Irpen 02:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah Commonwealth - a common overgeneralization. I'm too tired to explain these common mistakes originating from 19th century romantic literature, because nobody seems to even listen, they "know" better.--Lokyz 22:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ukraine article

What is the reason for your deletion of the Euro 2012 logo picture from Modern history? I see only one legitimate reason, that you will substitute it with an image that better illustrates the event in your opinion. Until you do that, revert the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sylius (talk • contribs) 16:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you know...

On 8 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chortkiv offensive, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Allen3 ^talk 11:07, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren arbitration case

Hi. A concern is being expressed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Workshop about the length of time before evidence presentations are completed. Since you filed the case, can you advise if you anticipate presenting further evidence or proposals. If so, it probably makes sense for you to do so soon so that the case can proceed. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 02:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Gare(y)ev

I replied at User talk:Untifler#Makhmut Gareev. Thanks for asking!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Gniła Lipa

Hello, you have been very helpful in the past, so I have a question. I was looking to start the article on the Battle of Gniła Lipa, from the Ukrainian-Polish War infobox. I am having trouble finding any sources on the Polish/Ukrainian battle in English that refer to it by this name, or spelled Gnila for that matter. Is this battle known by any other names in the English language? Ostap 04:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that whoever created this infobox meant the river Hnyla Lypa (Гнила Липа). You are probably better off trying to find something in Ukrainian or in Polish.

Don't hold your hopes too high though. Much of the Wikipedia's military history of Ukraine of that time is written by two Polish editors who place too much of their trust into Polish sources. In addition to obvious biases which typical for any national historiography, such sources sometimes tend to divide wars into "battles" quite unconventionally producing "battles" mentioned nowhere else. I mean the events around these places certainly took place but whether they qualify to be called battles is highly questionable. As a result we sometimes get a full-blown "battle" article about a fight over a single house (with the battlebox and other bells and whistles) or an obscure village not mentioned in any major book about the war. Some editors divide wars into battles in such a way as to produce as many as possible battleboxes that would state the result "XXX-country victory". In US electoral politics the artificial division designed to produce as many desirable local outcomes as possible is called Gerrymandering. In Wikipedia this should be ideally addressed by WP:AfD this process is rather broken and is easy to derail.

In general, complex events in Wikipedia are best addressed by going from big to small. If you want to enhance the coverage of UPW, it is best to start from the main Polish-Ukrainian War article which has a lot of room for improvement. Once it gets too detailed, some material may be spun off into separate articles. There is a decent number of Ukrainian sources about that war and if you are interested in this topic, I recommend to start from the war article. Good luck! --Irpen 05:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. The article on Гнила Липа transliterated "Hnyla Lypa" redirects to Hnila Lypa. Which is the correct way to transliterate "Hnyla" or "Hnila"? I thought of moving the article but then remembered I should ask. Ostap 05:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the river is in UA, so this is a no brainer as there cannot be an established English name for such an obscure river. However, you won't be able to move it yourself to Hnyla Lypa in this particular case since the target redirect has a history. I suggest you informally mention the need for a name change at the article's talk page and if there are no objections (and I can't imagine any), we may ask an admin to be moved per no contest. In a highly unlikely case that someone would fight over the name, the formal WP:RM request will have to be submitted. But I believe this will be resolved peacefully. --Irpen 05:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Note

I've rolled back your recent edits to WP:ANI because you removed a lot of other posts when doing so. If you're going to reply to multiple threads, don't do it all at once and lead to an edit conflict.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Strange. I did not get an edit conflict message. Looks like a glitch. --Irpen 06:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Київ

Of course I plan to add content and not get in arguments. I just wanted to give my position and move on. I am curious as to how you think it should be written? Ostap 01:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical Russian Leadership

Hi, Irpen. Could I please ask you to weigh in over here? Thanks. Biruitorul 14:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Irpen, Thank you for removing the sock puppet tag from my page. By the way, I also find you very annoying, but I don't go saying so on your talk page. Thanks, Horlo 16:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't? Hm. Never mind. But in any case I am OK with you saying it so. --Irpen 07:11, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit war

Noticed you are having the same problem I was (someone editing the main page article). I highly recommend simply reporting them to WP:3RR as being disruptive (note that it does NOT require 3 reverts to get someone banned if they are clearly being disruptive). I realize that it is time-sensitive as the article is on the main page, but WP:3RR requests are usually handled within 10-20 minutes. Just a bit of friendly advice. Take it for what it is worth — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Green Ukraine

Hello, would it be alright to add Green Ukraine to the {{Ukrainian historical regions}} template? I don't see how any one would dispute this, but after looking at the talk page I thought I would ask. Thank you, Ostap 03:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I think not for the very reasons that you saw at the template's talk page. For the very same reasons, I would oppose adding tl:Russian historic regions to Vylkove and Putyvl Raion. Let's not produce contentious points. IMO, such template was not a very good idea. Categories and main text do the trick just fine. --Irpen 03:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but it seems that the fact that they tried to form their own state would qualify them as a historical Ukrainian area. I have another question. The spelling of the article on Hryhory Loboda does not match the transliteration in the template. Which transliteration is preferred? Ostap 03:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I am no expert but I recommend asking Michael Zajac. --Irpen 03:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

Since you live in Ukraine, i would like to ask you a question. You can find it here :-) Thank you. M.V.E.i. 09:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Problem.

Somewhere at home I have a "Panorama", onboard magazine of a Ukrainian airline, which has "Kiev" on page 3 where they present themseleves, and Kyiv everywhere else, but all those are addresses (museums, restaurants, shops). Usable, now that even the airways are called to testify? It is a 2007 copy (it has a Georgian warrior dancer on the cover).

Now for the worst: I will not be here much in the next few days. My mother is very, very ill in hospital at the seaside. Please watch out for anything "brudno" ... Thanks! --Pan Gerwazy 12:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Cossacks

Why is it a false assertion? I was under the imprssion that it was Peter the I who introduced the term Russia in the 1720's. Bandurist 06:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the myths spread by some nationalist historians. Take a look at the Etymology of Rus and derivatives as well as the Britannica's article on Muscovy and Ivan III. --Irpen 06:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I just added a lot of info on the kuban cossacks talk page, and will add census info tonight or tomorrow. I wonder what your thoughts will be...bestFaustian 19:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi...Could you please weight in on the Kuban Cossacks diuscussion in light of the evidence I presented? On this topic Kuban Kazak seems knowledgeable, but is about as objective as an OUN member would be on the behavior of UPA. I value your objectivity and would like to hear what you have to say...Faustian 13:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I need a little time for reading this all. I won't be editing the article reverting either party until I do. Thanks for the heads up. --Irpen 16:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Occupation of Baltic states

Irpen, 6 references have been given already in the lead paragraph. I hope you are not going to start disputing this article as well. Martintg 07:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Since you are an expert

On Soviet history(no I am not joking, but writing seriously) I would like you to look at this piece of information I consider manipulation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morgenthau_Plan At the Tehran Conference in late 1943, Stalin had proposed that at least 50,000 and perhaps 100,000 German officers should be executed. Roosevelt's son, Elliot, enthusiastically agreed. The President remarked that perhaps 49,000 should be enough [25] When Churchill became enraged at these comments, Stalin quickly assured him that they were joking [26] Roosevelt was presumably joking, but at the Yalta Conference the President said that he was feeling "very much more bloodthirsty towards Germany" than earlier and indicated that he hoped Stalin would again "propose a toast to the execution of 50,000 officers of the German army" [27] This smells to me of some manipulation, I would suppose they were talking about execution of war criminals, or the event even didn't take place. Could you check that part of the article and its sources or have any info on the event ? The whole article is accusatory and POV but this particular sentence seems to me like a very bad piece of propaganda.--Molobo 01:47, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have annoyed dear Molobo when correcting his misleading edits in another article. Oh well, cant be helped. For an online source that relates to the event referred to here; you can if you so wish goto page 571 of Conferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945. Cheers --Stor stark7 ^Talk 00:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Adam Lazarowicz DYK

Thanks for the note, Irpen. I'm glad my well meaning but ignorant intervention was of some assistance! I've transferred Adam Lazarowicz to the DYK template, so if none of the other DYK editors objects, it should be featured on the main page within a few hours. Regards, Espresso Addict 04:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lodz liberation3.jpg

Is this PD or non-free?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:03, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

PD. I added the "Historic" tag only in case the image gets attacked. --Irpen 05:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it adds categories which increase the likelyhood of that :( -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:07, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Seat distribution

Please source it! --Irpen 19:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to work in steps because of edit conflicts. The longer I take to make an edit, the more work I'll lose. — Alex Khristov 19:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Just let's finish the sourced exit poll data first. And number of seats is not needed yet. There are too early. --Irpen 19:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. The Ukrainian news sites are slow for me, probably because everybody's checking them. — Alex Khristov 19:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wanna get an ITN entry for the main page ready? Something along the lines of "According to exit polls, five parties passed the 3% threshold". — Alex Khristov 19:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You may use [7] if you want for the wikinews. --Irpen 20:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There is still the 2% error margin, might give them a chance. I'll hold off on that. — Alex Khristov 20:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

---

Results too shocking... Can't handle it anymore... Must... Go... To... Bed... — Alex Khristov 07:50, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And I thought you would take over updating the preliminary results. CEC web-site is so slow but proUA updates even sooner then CEC itself. --Irpen

Sorry, can't. I've got school tomorrow, and if I stay up any longer I'll end up sleeping in my classes. I live on the west coast, and it is getting late here. — Alex Khristov 07:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Gentlemen for your great work updating the election page. Anyway, how come the Ukrainskaya Pravda is publishing election results before the Central Election Commission? --Camptown 20:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That's easy. there is a journalist in CEC who phones in data to the newspaper and whoever updates the site first, depends each time. --Irpen 21:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Projected seats

I am not the one who put them in the article. I did a small research in the net for that and I didn't find something. I was about to ask for citation. -- Magioladitis 19:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Let' find the source asap. I left a message at the article's talk. --Irpen 19:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

question

Sorry to bother you again, but I have encountered a small problem. The articles on Konstanty Ostrogski and the article on his son, Konstanty Wasyl Ostrogski. The problem is that in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine article "Ostrozky, Kostiantyn" (I know its on the younger one because of the birth date) gives this as his picture[8]. You notice that this same picture is given to the father on the wikipedia article. Which person is this? I am guessing that it is the son, but I figured you would know. Ostap 04:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow! We cross-posted. I will be back with an answer soon. --Irpen 04:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Is that what happened? Thanks for the award! Its quite a wiki-honor. Ostap 04:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about E of UA image but I made sure articles are illustrated in accordance with http://www.art.lutsk.ua/art/ostrog/index%20grafika.shtml were I found the original one. --Irpen 05:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Strange, that gallery seems to have the same image that is in question (towards the bottom), but if I am looking correctly it doesn't actually say which Ostrozky it is. This is quite strange. Thanks for your help, Ostap 05:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Bishonen

Given taht the incdent being discussed happened after Tony Sidaway removed content from a third party's talk page, is removing the section really the best course of action? Things seemed to be settling down in any case, this action is just likely to make things more controversial it seems to me. Bish is capable of looking after herself (or has a city destroying monster to do the dirty work on her behalf). David Underdown 17:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Bish is being taunted and I removed provocation. She is perfectly capable of seeing from history what was going on and restore the thread if she thinks that it is useful. I simply wanted to spare her from getting bickered at if she chooses to remove that stuff herself. H's original post and continued taunting was counterproductive. Digwuren's intrusion there following my edit (he is stalking me everywhere) was even more provocative and had no intention other than causing the distress. Note, that not the thread's originator restored that stuff but a user who has no business in this matter, at Bish's talk, but with the arm-long record of disruptive conduct. --Irpen 18:25, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

But as I say, that was precisely Tony's rational for his edits (albeit with the extra flavouring of personal attacks), which lead to Bish's post on Tony's, talkpage, which.... 1==2 has not got his head round why the nature of Bish's response was, perhaps, justified in this instance, but was I think beginning to understand have initially queried Bish in good faith so far as I can tell. David Underdown 18:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

History of the Jews in Russia and the Soviet Union

• Why did you Revert to this Ugly and Un-Wikipedian title?
• Jewish history (Russia and the Soviet Union) I think is much better.

The former even carries the subtext that the Jews did not "belong" there. --Ludvikus 12:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Jewish history (Russia and the Soviet Union)

This is so much better. I'm so disappointed that one editor does not see this - and has Reverted w/o discussion. --Ludvikus 12:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Why must you imply that Jews did not belong in Russia?

How about History of the Jews on Earth? (After all Jews do not belong on this Planet)?

I do not understand at all where you're coming from. --Ludvikus 12:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Your recent work elsewhere was good, and I've just acknowledged that. So I'm surprised that you've still not responded to my query above. There I think youve reverted my improvement without discussion or justification. --Ludvikus 01:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I simply did not have time to reply to you yet. I will do so soon. Sorry, --Irpen 01:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Kyiv Consensus

Irpen, there is no consensus about the naming of Kyiv. Please stop reverting my change, especially as you have decided to not participate in either the mediation or the discussion on the issue. Thanks, Horlo 17:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of Kyiv, please read this, especially where they say "use Kyiv for the capital of Ukraine". Ostap 19:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in. Ostap, that submission guide is specific to one particular Harvard institute, which studies Ukraine. The multitude of other Harvard institutions and journals have no such guideline for the use of "Kyiv", and their editors would change the spelling to what is found in their general style guides and dictionaries: "Kiev". It's nice to see this being adopted, but the very specific nature of this reference merely draws attention to the fact that "Kyiv" is the minority usage. —Michael Z. 2007-10-08 22:38 Z

I understand that the guide is specific to the division that studies Ukraine, but I think you are not giving it the respect it deserves. I figured that if there was one group of world class, academic Ukraine scholars who would actually have an interest in getting it "most correct" it would be them. I guess this means if you want to get your work published by the specific Ukrainian research institute, dedicated to accurate and up to date studies of Ukraine, at the top university on the earth you will have to change your usage to Kyiv. Ostap 00:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Eastern Promises

Girl in the movie, minor role, says she's from Ukraine. What village, what town? Irpen. Jd2718 01:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, there is a town of Irpin ([Ирпень, Irpen] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)) located on the eponymous river that literally flows upwards and I took the name of the river for my Wikipedia nick long time ago :).

In fact, I have a picture of the river at my userpage to make guessing for anyone interested easier. I have some wonderful childhood memories connected with this historic river in the heart of Ukraine. --Irpen 02:09, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop this potential revert war. There is no consensus, there is a discussion. Again, if you do not wish to participate in the discussion, please refrain from simply editing this one point. Thanks, Horlo 05:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

File:Qxz-ad8.gif @ Template:Wikipedia ads

For future reference, a polite "please delete your hard work because I don't like it" request will do. No need to go in search of drama on the administrators noticeboard when the issue has nothing to do with administrators. Thanks – Gurch 13:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Gurch, I don't want to "delete your hard work". As for the IRC banner, it's not that I "don't like it" but that I find it divisive. I wanted the community feedback on that and sought it at WP:AN. Sorry, if you feel offended in any way. This had nothing to do with you but solely with the content of this banner. I will remember to contact you first if I ever have an issue with the banners you created. Regards, --Irpen 01:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Irpen

Dear Irpen. Thanks for your generous assistance and wise counsel. I have been sticking to content editing to see how that works, and it seems to have been the right thing, and so I've decided finally not to leave wiki ... at least not for a good wee bit. Do let me know if I can ever help you with anything. Best regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Deacon, I am so pleased that you decided to return! While it might have been difficult for you to put the sad event of your abusive block behind, I congratulate you with being able to do that. Please don't allow such nonsense to affect your wiki-life. Cheers, --Irpen 02:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

Regarding your removal of my pictoral links to P.P. and one of his most revered colleagues at Talk: Jozef Pilsudski (49 Recent referenced information removal), I lightly protest. First because a newcomer to the matter may not know who they are, and I'm sure they are not ashamed of these pictures (after all they posted them on Wikipedia). In fact P.P. strikes me as being rather proud in that particular attire. P.P. has also been kind enough to remind me that a picture is worth a thousand words in the past. And while I do respect you personally, please respect my freedom of expression on talk pages. I would hate for someone to mistakenly misconstrue my links as disrespectful. I enjoy the picture quite a bit, it is a good reference, and a picture is indeed worth a thousand words. At least sometimes. Best. Dr. Dan 01:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dan, why not link their names to their accounts? This would resolve the possibility of any newcomer's confusion while links to pics may be taken as an attempt to ridicule users even if no such intention was implied. Best, --Irpen 01:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, why would anyone come to such a conclusion when both contributors have shown me nothing but the utmost courtesy? Dr. Dan 02:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Because they have not. --Irpen 02:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

On the "the" in the English language

• The Kiev/Kyiv issue is about the correct way to transliterate and spell the name of a city from another language. The article issue is not about spelling, rather proper grammar. Syntax and the rules of grammar are defined by various rules, unlike the spelling of cities from other languages. There is no grammatical reason to have an article in front of the name of Ukraine. As far as the offensiveness, I personally am not offended by it, though I will sometimes point out to people that it is no longer proper. But I have a Russian nationalist who calls me a "Little Russian from the Ukraine". That's offensive. Ostap 08:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

It is offensive especially since it is said with an intention to offend. But Kiev/Kyiv is not about "the correct way to transliterate and spell the name of a city from another language". Not all city names used in English are transliterations from the local language. Kiev happens to be such name. --Irpen 08:23, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

regardless, kyiv/kiev has no relation to the rules of grammar and linguistics. Article usage does. Ostap 08:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt any linguist would be able to explain why it should be The Gambia but Ukraine. Probably just because it happens to be so. But I have no idea to tell for sure. But it seems like in English the prevailing usage largely defines the correctness, including the grammar as we see from this example. --Irpen 08:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

For the Gambia it would be good to know the etymology, perhaps that is a factor. For Ukraine, it is not. Kyiv/kiev is a style issue, this is not. I see no reason for the article. But I guess I am not an expert. Ostap 08:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

On second thought, I am definately no expert or linguist. I better stop commenting on linguistics before I make myself look really stupid. But there is no grammatical reason for the article. And just Ukraine is more common. Ostap 08:57, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

There are important grammatical rules regarding this article. However, in at least one instance is simply a matter of what the often discredited Marxists call practice and most of us, and Wittgenstein, call usage. Regarding Ukraine, the fact is that the name was "The Ukraine" until the fall of its communist regime when Ukraine, through its appropriate agency styled itself simply "Ukraine." --Ludvikus 13:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)