User talk:Irpen/archived closed issues 05

O Canada

Strange request time: can you make this article into a nice stub at uk:О, Канада? I ask you this since I found the Ukrainian lyrics at [1] and it should give you a head start. TIA. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Zachs, good to hear from you! Will do when I can but let me know if this is urgent. --Irpen 05:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Russian colonialism

You may be didn't know, but for over 2 years I've been fighting tons of bullshit in -phob- article. I was never successful in deletion of idiotic articles, kind of chiroptophobia, murophobia, etc.) The only thing worked was actually writing a reasonably sensible article myself (fear of bats, fear of mice, etc.), redirecting these pseudomedical neologisms there and keeping bullshit out of them. Applying to your case, you will never delete the title, because the term became fashionable, and you will never reach any reasonable agreement about how thin the term "colony" may be stretched. And you will never prove that the life in an oppressed "colony" of Malorossia was way better than, say, in Gzhel (btw, look into it; needs an eye) or in mines and plants of Demidov. So I would suggest to write a sensible article on the policies of tsarist government on the peripheries and painlessly kill this one. `'mikka 02:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

But that article would have nothing to do with this one. Neither it will have its name. I will prod it then. --Irpen 03:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapol'skiy

Thanks for the support :). You needn't worry about such petty behaviour, though. For my part, seeing such as those, I'm just smiling. Let him make a spectacle of himself. :)

On the more to-the-business note, would you keep an eye on the Talk:Polonization, too? I admit I expected somewhat better of Piotrus, as a presumably intellectually honest person, than to go into sophistics instead of just presenting some good specialist refutations either of the DZ view of the 19th cent. in Belarusian lands, or at least the view of the 19th cent. as detailed as DZ's and differing in the key aspect. If there actually is one, of course. Yury Tarasievich 10:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to add, now that I've found even F.K.Dmochowski (see Talk:Polonization), I don't see why anything directly relevant of my first entry should be twisted like it was. (Some of the text on Academy was redundant, that's true). What do you think? Yury Tarasievich 10:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Polonization

The section is still incomplete - we should expand (with modern reliable sources!) on how it did work, indeed. But it is very relevant to note that the process was counteracted by others, and that much of what supported Polonization in other eras (i.e. Polish state and its support for it) did not exist in that era.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please may I suggest discussing changes you want to do to that article first on talk?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, I am half-way done. Sorry other things sometimes deflect me on and off. But when I hit that save instead of the preview button, nothing can prevent you from correcting me. In the meanwhile, you may want to study sources, I am suing. One is D-Z, the other two are the academic articles (you brought one of them yourself).[2] [3] While I am still editing, you may spend some time reading. Actually, they both support D-Z despite you presented one of them as countering him. Anyway, let me please finish integrating their material in the text. --Irpen 03:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is more neutral and expanded now. You did a much better job then Yuri presenting the facts in a more neutral manner (with all due respect for Yuri, he doesn't have neither your experience nor nowledge of English, I am afraid - although I hope he will stick around and get experience). Please update your references per my comment. And please don't remove relevant information: you cannot talk about peace without mentioning war, heat without cold, etc. - and you cannot speak about polonization without mentioning the very significant 'depolonization' countertrends in the 19th and 20th centuries.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Tour book on Kiev from 1900!!!

I just discovered this book through google books (not sure if you've seen it already), but it's absolutely amazing!!! It's been out of copyright and the entire thing is available in PDF! Published in 1900 it goes over a really old history of Kiev, not to mention the then considered "current events" and places. The book is in old russian and contains some excellent sketches of places (which are all out of copyright as well). Old Kiev Tour Book. -asmadeus 14:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, just reminded me. From "attic", I've dug out the remains of "Illustrated history of Ukraine" (pub. c.1912-1913, pages after 480 are missing). Lots of interesting illustrations (hetmans, bishops, cossacks), which are of little value to me directly, as I'm more into Belarusian history. If there's a specific interest in some topics, let me know, as I can't just scan everything outright. Yury Tarasievich 07:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Asmadeus, I bookmarked the book. Will print all of it when I have time. Would not be easy to OCR, I guess.

Yuriy, I think you mean the Hrushevsky's book LCCN 62-57565. This is indeed a rarity to have in home library. Some versions are available online. This is one of such web-sites. Is it this the book? Thanks a lot for your offer anyway. Even if this is not the one, I can't make you do all the work of scanning the whole book. Please stay in touch. --Irpen 09:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this book, only this is its Russian translation, which was published about 1 year later. The illustrations are all with descriptions, too. Like I said, my book looks like it endured some, so no titlepages to go with it, and it "ends" at p.480 (national Renessaince chapter, paragraph 117, portrait of Skovoroda). The quality of illustrations and print is quite outstanding, anyway. Most of the modern books look like ..., compared. Yury Tarasievich 10:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have no use for it, and decide to put it up on eBay, I'll bid ;) -asmadeus 17:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Red Army Atrocities

Zdorovenki buly. Since you have already looked at this in the past (seeing your name appear on the talk page), perhaps you could have a look at this Red_Army_atrocities and particularly the last Treuenbrietzen addition? I do not know how good your German or Italian is, however. I know that we normally work on the basis of "two wrongs do not make a right" - but this is going a bit far, I think. Znovy dzhakuyu! --Pan Gerwazy 10:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that you are very busy, and since people keep adding new chapters there - let me ewplain that this request for comment was about the Treuenbrietzen problem. And nothing else. Though it is funny that one of the guys in German wiki pushing for the falsification on Ehrenburg (combinng a statement from 1942 with one from 1945 and leaving out "leave the women and children alone" to prove that someone advocates wholesale raping IS a falsification) to be included in the article is someone you and I probably know from other debates ([4]).

Actually, I think it is not a coincidence. These guys first push their POV in German wikipedia, and when being corrected there, they come to the English wiki, confident that people here will not be so at home with these sources. --Pan Gerwazy 15:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this article is such a mess and what it needs is a total cleanup and rewrite, not a correction or two. Luckily, most editors who are here for a while do not expect much from the articles whose title include strong terms like "invasion", "occupation", "massacre" and now "atrocities". While those are all valid topics and the articles on them could be written, Wikilife is such that most of them get created as ax grinding exercises to set the stage to air some political grievances of certain users. So, I mostly stay away from those articles except those where the topic is really something else and they need both the renaming and editing, like several invasion and occupation articles.

The point is that if the article is really about an encyclopedic event or a history period, I treat is as such (as if its title is neutral, like "History of...") and edit its content while, at the same time, trying also to convince my opponents to rename it. If, however, not only the title but the very subject of an article is likely to make it a magnet for POV-pushing, I usually do not edit it at all as this is a fruitless exercise. Sorry for not being of help. --Irpen 19:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For making me spend so much time on Soviet invasion of Poland (1939). If it were not for your edits, I'd have never put enough effort into making this article GA/A class. Keep it up and I am sure we will see it on FAC in the near future :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, this is one step too far. You used to avoid needlessly inflaming matters which this post is nothing but. --Irpen 20:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why, Irpen? I trully find your actions motivate me to work harder on Wikipedia. I did not plan to spend any time today editing Soviet invasion, alas, you have made me change my plans, and the article is now even larger, with more refs and pictures. And it is you who motivated me to do so - so I am thanking you for that, even if that wasn't exactly your intention.--<;sub> Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I will not feed you anymore. --Irpen 21:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, whenever you attempt to disrupt an article pushing your POV, you are feeding me. I look forward to the day you truly stop.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Disrupt? I would have said "Shame, Piotrus", but I have doubts you have any. Now please stop harassing me. The next harassment entry here will be just reverted. --Irpen 21:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, please help me with tendentious editing by Piotrus

I have created a small subsection in Institute of National Remembrance dedicated to criticism of IPN by russian sources. Piotrus deleted at once that section without any dispute and marked his deletion as follows "16:49, 24 April 2007 Piotrus (Talk | contribs) (10,195 bytes) (rv - per Internet brigades, Russian newspapers are not reliable when describing Polish-Russian relations, this is unnecessary detail)"

Please note that now Piotrus references to Internet brigades articles - completly conspiracy theory and original research article, to justify his tendentious editing. Vlad fedorov 17:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Project endorsements for Errabee

You may want to modify your statement on Errabee's RfA to clarify or give links to where the votes were held, I went to the Russian History talk page and main page and came up cold. Others may as well. Just a suggestion. I think it quite interesting that projects chose to do this even after Kelly seemed to have stopped asking for it. ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

To start with, I don't care what Kelly does or does not and I do not plan to comment any further on this. Demanding project endorsement is plain nonsense but demanding content writing from admins who want to engage in non-technical tasks, and especially, deal with live editors makes perfect sense. There is no such thing as an official project endorsement. There is such thing as having many members of the project(s) clearly supporting the candidate. This is what is happening here. Finally, I expect the promotion denied no matter what the vote count is by 'crats as per Carnildo's and Danny's precedents. This may be rather devastating from the candidate but, hopefully, not in this case since he seems to be warned and the whimsical denial won't be a surprise for him. Happy edits, --Irpen 20:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. You stated on the RfA that this candidate has endorsements from projects. I went to try to find them, and failed. All I'm saying is that if there are project endorsements, would you be kind enough to provide a link to them for the benefit of other readers? Or were you saying something else entirely? Perhaps I am confused by your wording. (perhaps also I should have not even added the last sentence in my original comment... please feel free to disregard it) ++Lar: t/c 02:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the RfAdm, I clarified the statement after your very first message at my talk. HTH, --Irpen 02:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I missed that you changed it as your reply here didn't mention that. A few words changed and it is all very clear now... you're saying that the comments of project members at the RfA are themselves the "endorsement"... I didn't get that from your original wording. An entirely novel theory, and perhaps one that will put paid to this quixotic quest for project endorsements... well done. I do disagree with you on the merits of the candidate, the stance on fair use is very concerning to me, but I think that you made an excellent point with that endorsement statement, now that I get it. :) ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Velykyy Bychkiv

Hey Irpen, you have any sources that state the current demographics of Velykyy Bychkiv? For example, how many Jews live there today? Khoikhoi 04:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I will see what I can find. The 2001 Ukrainian Census web-page in Ukrainian is much more complete than the English version. And they are all rather unfriendly to navigate for a novice. Will post in a day or two. Cheers, --Irpen 04:19, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi, I just wanted to leave a personal message that I greatly appreciated your comments in my RfA. It was an unconventional bid, and as such I was prepared that it might not succeed. In fact, I was surprised to see that many people support me. Thanks again, and don't worry about me. Errabee 18:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we crossed paths as I saw that while previewing the message I was about to leave you. You will see it shortly. --Irpen 18:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

How very nice of you, that's really something to cheer people up. That's one of the points in which I should improve: helping others to get out of a rough spot. Errabee 18:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Orange Revolution references

Hey, about those references... Can you convert all the non-specific references at the bottom into specific ones? (As in, specific references link to sentences they relate to.) I can't help much with that, since I don't know which reference relates to which sentence. Thanks. — Alex^(U|C|E) 21:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Will try, but as a side project. Little by little. Thanks, --Irpen 01:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Just as long as it will get done in about four days. :-) I'm sorry that I can't help. — Alex^(U|C|E) 04:37, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Four days may be too tight. --Irpen 04:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just worried about the article having failed GA status, that's all... — Alex^(U|C|E) 04:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I would not worry about labels too much, unless those a FA. GA does not mean anything. There are plenty of crap GA articles, much worse than OR. Also, I am aware of the OR's deficiencies and referencing is the main one since we wrote most of it before the current much higher referencing standards emerged. --Irpen 04:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons

I completely agree, but I think it is completely outrageous to block me indefinitely. I needed to edit in Commons today as I spotted an error from the bot User:CommonsDelinker, and wanted to bring it to its owner's attention, and was (still am) very much annoyed when I couldn't edit. I solved it by tracking the operator here on en:wiki, but that's besides the point. Still, I'd better handle this alone, or I'd get all of you in trouble as well. And finally:

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you for all those times you've stood by me! Errabee 20:35, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Babi Yar

Irpen,

would you mind terribly taking at look at this edit. The two sources disagree, and the new one is far more reliable, but some verification from a Ukrainian speaker would be good. thumb|150px|left||Here is the original document in Ukrainian (I can see from my broken Russian that neither version is perfect). As far as "zhid," we are talking about German translated into Ukrainian in Kiev in 1941. The translators could have been Kiev natives, Ukrainians from further west, or Germans. My intention is to stick to my guns, I don't like feeling bullied, and I am reasonably certain I have the better version. But if I am completely off, please stop me! Thanks, Jd2718 00:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I will look. Please allow me a little time to sort out too much. --Irpen 00:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Use of templates

You have reverted warnings to Petri Krohn with the summary of "improper inflammatory entries, templates are to communicate with newbies". I recall you have expressed such a stance before, but I can't find the diff right now.

Update: the diff is here. Digwuren 09:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that warning templates are there mainly to avoid breaches of civility, and for that purpose, are worded with particular care on neutral wording. I do not recall the "newbie" clause in the relevant policy, but I might just not have found it.

Can you direct me at the appropriate policy? Digwuren 03:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Commons sense is your friend here. The goal of such communication is to convince the person in question to do or not do something. This is more likely to be achieved by talking nicely than planting templates. Especially inflammatory is planting the Vandalism templates at the talk page of the users whose edits do not qualify to be called such according to WP:VAND. As a rule of thumb, established users never vandalize, that is act with the goal "deliberately to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" which is the very definition of Vandalism. Every vandal should be banned on the spot and what you have here really is the allegation of the WP:NPOV violation. NPOV is much more subtle policy and should be discussed with care with the strawman V-word not ever invoked. --Irpen 03:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the template choice might have been the best possible. I used WP:TW's "factual errors" option and was somewhat surprised myself that it explicitly considered deliberate introduction of factual errors into vandalism in the manner it did.

Still, given that warnings are also a part of official communication protocol, which policy document recommends against their usage and for manually composing warnings to the same effect? Digwuren 03:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Following the commons sense and a seeming consensus of the community on the issue is a very sound way to go. It would be a big mistake to "manually compose warnings" when you have a conflict with an established users. Instead of warning, seek common ground when you have conflicts. You will be surprised how much more results you would achieve. --Irpen 03:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So ... no WP:POLICY? Digwuren 05:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:DICK is not a policy, so you are right. No policy, just common sense. Just to add to that, I know a couple of RfAdm failed because users were found to use such tricks. Many times the community made it clear that this is unacceptable at WP:ANI and elsewhere. If you think it will help you make friends or help Wikipedia, carry on but I usually remove such entries when I see them as this is clearly baiting that can bring nothing but inflaming the conflicts further. --Irpen 06:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Another useful reading on the matter is Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. While essay and not a policy, it accurately reflects the community sentiment from what I can tell. Also, see {{templater}}. --Irpen 06:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"When I see them". Should I ask, how come you saw this particular one almost instantly? Digwuren 07:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Petri's page is on why watchlist because we talked in the past. When I saw in my watchlist the edit to his page whose summary included "Warning" and "TW" I thought that this is likely WP:DTTR. That's how I found it. --Irpen 07:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You must check your watchlist rather sporadically, then. Somehow, you missed Alexia Death's warning (which you removed along with mine), which had stood on the page for a day and a half. Digwuren 07:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't get what is that you want to say. Anyway, --Irpen 07:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I pesronaly am a newbie and did not know anything about templating regulars, I figured this to be a standard policy. Id have apreciated a note about this. This however does not excuse you from unilateral removal of other peoples substantiated warnings.--Alexia Death 10:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction: non-substantiated. Moreover, vandalism accusations in contravention of WP:VAND may be considered a personal attack. --Irpen 14:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It's funny that you would bring up. As you can see from [5] the warning issued by Alexia Death concerned personal attacks, made on Talk:Ethnocracy. It doesn't mention vandalism anywhere. Digwuren 15:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, yours does but both were unhelpful. Anyway, what matters is you talk to people in human language if you want to edit articles with them and you use templates if you want to inflame the dispute further. Give it a good thought and move on. --Irpen 15:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have reverted your removal of these warnings. As can be seen here, Petri Krohn himself does not share your disdain of template-based warnings. Digwuren 12:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply about my conduct motives

Sorry Irpen, but you are wrong. First of all, I don't "force my opponents", I "call my fellow editors for reasonable cooperation". Secondly, this is NOT a waste of time. Waste of time is forcing your fellow editors to reread thousands of words of flamewar, which HAVE been read many times, and also addressed several times aswell.

Problem is that people are talking and talking and talking. But not listening. They are fighting instead of cooperating.

Your problem is that you cannot grasp the idea of the article, instead you see some other idea which isn't REALLY the purpose of the article. And so, you are not able to provide productive ideas how to improve the article. Please read my latest posts to talk page, and think about them.

Also why I ask short and well formed list? To avoid long discussion breaking up again, which is very tiring to read. Most people read only first three sentences from the block, and then hit "reply" to flame agains the opinion. Suva 08:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

GAR is that-a-way!

If you have a grudge against Denial of Soviet occupation, either take the matter to a good article review, or leave a note with the GA reviewer - me. Don't take it out on the article writers. I expect a note on my talk page explaining your stance on the matter. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 23:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The article in the state you reviewed it is junk and you arranging promoting each other's article over IRC is plain obvious. And please do not tell me that you have not done it. --Irpen 23:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't make me re-read the IRC conversation. Ctrl+F "let's pass each other's articles" isn't picking anything up =/ Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 05:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what is Ctrl F but I am glad you confirmed that this was indeed the IRC deal. I will ask for the logs and get back to you with exact details if you insist. --Irpen 05:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I do insist. I also insist that if you can not back up your accusations of inappropriate conduct within a reasonable timeframe, you will explicitly withdraw the accusations and apologise. Can you do that? Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 06:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm attaching a value to "reasonable timeframe". This reasonable timeframe will be 24 hours. Your earliest insinuation of impropriety I can find happened in [6], dated 24 September 2007 21:36 UTC. Counting 24 hours from that, and rounding upwards for your benefit, your deadline is 25 September 2007, 22:00 UTC. You are hereby directed to present evidence of such accusations by that deadline, or to withdraw the accusations, crossing them out in all places you've made them on Wikipedia, and apologise. If you will not comply, you will be in obvious violation of the fundamental Wikipedia policies of WP:CIV and WP:NPA, and I believe the Arbitration Committee, as well as any uninvolved administrator, will agree. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 16:33, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's be specific. I stated that mutual promotion of two articles was an IRC deal. H20 seems to confirm. Are you saying this was not done over IRC? --Irpen 06:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not confirming, I'm denying. Ctrl+F is a keyboard shortcut that can be used to find text on a page (or in an IRC conversation) - I was basically saying that we never agreed to pass each other's articles. In any case, the article meets GA status - who cares if I passed it or if someone else did... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 06:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

At this time, I see no reason to comment further on this issue, other than to reiterate that nothing inappropriate happened in connection with these reviews. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 06:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

H2O, "the article meets GA status". The article is a piece of junk and I hear Digwuren was told so in no unclear terms over IRC the day before. Unsatisifed by the first "review", you probably were not online at the time, he waited for another day to get you involved into this nonsense. If you keep denying the impropriety of what happened over IRC and insist on this being brought to full light, we can hopefully do it together. --Irpen 07:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I insist on you bringing all and any accusations you can back up with evidence to full light. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 16:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A question. Do I have yours and H2O's permission to post the full IRC log? If yes, we can sort it out quickly. --Irpen 16:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You can not hide behind that excuse. You do not get any personal permission. However, if inappropriateness happened, you do not need a personal permission to present the appropriate evidence.

I would suggest that you hurry, as less than 3 hours from the original 24 have left. Διγυρεν_{Εμπροσ!} 19:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren, you are not ArbCom or Jimbo to set any deadlines to me so I can just tell you bug off. But since you seemed to have been persisting I inquired and obtained the relevant IRC log. I absolutely confirm that what I said was indeed what happened and if you are willing to make it part of the ArbCom, I would welcome that. I would post the log excerpts to the ArbCom and email the full log to arbitrators. So, go ahead and please do not cross post your responses to multiple pages. Keep it at the article's talk. --Irpen 21:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Deadlines? This reminds me of Talk:History of Belarus and Bonny's clownish "attempts" at mediation. You may want to check the archives to refresh your memory and have a good laugh. Hilarious. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know any of the editors involved, I reached this page through Dihydrogen Monoxide's RfA. It seems clear to me that the above is a serious accusation, and a similarly serious violation of policy if it remains unsubstantiated. Is this discussion proceeding elsewhere? If not, an uninvolved administrator should be contacted to review this situation and consider action. Avruch 23:40, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see talk:Denial of Soviet occupation, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren/Evidence#Evidence presented by Bishonen, User talk:LaraLove#The Good Article brouhaha, User talk:Bishonen#Re:Summary of IRC chatlog, H2O's RfA and its talk and perhaps some other pages that slipped out of my view. The issue has become a part of the ongoing Digwuren's ArbCom. Nevertheless, you are free to contact anyone you wish, an administrator or not. It is always best to first familiarize yourself with the situation before opining about the "consideration of action". Happy edits. --Irpen 23:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing me in the right direction. Its tough when the debate gets fragmented, and I'm still pretty new. No offence or pre-judgement was intended. Thanks again, Avruch 00:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Possible solution to occupation/liberation POVs

Hi Irpen,

I was thinking that Wikipedia:Content_forking#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV could provide a solution to this content dispute. My reading of the above is that it is perfectly legitimate to have two articles covering the same period from different POVs as long as that POV is clearly stated, and it cross reference other articles of alternate view points, for example Soviet occupation of the Latvia Republic and Soviet Liberation of the Latvian SSR could quite happily coexist, if we clear state that this article A is the POV of B while article C is the viewpoint of D, while not making any explicit judgement. What do you think? Martintg 00:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It is possible to have such articles but devoted to the discussions of the term and its applicability. Such articles would be categorized in category:Political terms rather than Category:History of... If you were paying attention, I was proposing Vecrumba to spin off all the material in support of the Occupation-POV into an Occupation of Latvia (term) or better yet, Occupation of Baltic states (term) articles. However, articles about the historic events themselves, and the articles in disputes are unquestionably such articles, should be titled without POV-terms. I've been proposing this for a very long time. --Irpen 01:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in the guidelines that it must be related to term, simply that the article concerns a point of view, we have Atheism/Criticism of atheism, Capitalism/Communism and Biblical literalism/Biblical criticism are all valid viewpoint articles. Soviet Occupation/Denial of Soviet occupation and Occupied Latvia/Latvian SSR would also be valid viewpoint articles. Martintg 01:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Atheism is the article that describes the concept of the world-view. It does not claim to describe the world. Similarly, the occupation article should not claim to describe history. The term "occupation" in the sourced form can be used in the history article text with the proper annotation but not slapped into the title or the category where such annotation is impossible, unless the term itself is the subject of the article. --Irpen 01:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

article

hello, here is an article that greatly needs your attention: Ukrainian nationalism. Ostap 02:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! The article needs to be announced at P:UKR/NEW. --Irpen 03:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama - a bomb ticking away (Was:Khatyn)

In my view (funny expression to use here: "in my view"!), "Freedom of panorama" was a term used by German journalists to avoid the repercussions of copy right on all sorts of things standing outside in the open air, in "public space". They appealed to people's natural feelings for freedom when they are outside state or other control, and won, more or less, the legal argument. Though there may be countries who follow German law to the letter on this, I am sure most countries' judges would never have stood for allowing people to freely use photographs of things of art still under copyright just because they happen to be in a space where everybody is allowed to be. Oh, and this raises the first question concerning Khatyn: "do people have to pay an entrance fee to enter this place?" If yes, you can probably forget about freedom of panorama.

Many countries have wrestled with the principle that "people should be allowed to do what they want in public space" versus the other principle "even after being paid, artists remain the holders of an intellectual right to their creation". Now, it is often claimed (and I remember an intervention on a Russian forum here, since when I had a look at the law) that "Belgium has no freedom of panorama" but that is in fact wrong. It is just that Belgian law is restrictive to the extreme: panorama means panorama, as soon as the object under copyright is obviously the subject of the publication (even though something else may be more prominent in the picture), copyright law applies and "freedom of panorama" goes out of the window. Let me try to explain: I take a picture of my wife and kids in front of the Brussels Atomium. Result: I am allowed to possess this picture, I may even publish it when someone considers my wife's trip to the Atomium worthy of an article. However, if I now put the very same picture on Wikipedia to illustrate the Atomium, the Atomium has obviously become the subject of the exercise and I am acting against Belgian copyright law. What if I make a picture of the Brussels landscape, incorporating a lot more than the Atomium in the background? I suppose that if the Atomium were incomplete, it would be OK in an article on Brussels, but not in an article on the Atomium. To complicate matters, although the Atomium is on the territory of Brussels-Capital, the "Brussels landscape with Atomium" photograph can only be taken from Flemish soil, and Brussels-Capital and Flanders now have different copyright law (until the EU intervenes to sort out this beautiful mess, of course).

I am sure that any picture taken in Belarus is subject, or at least also subject, to Belarusian law on whatever part of Wikipedia it is published. (though extraterritoriality may be a problem - in the case of the Atomium panorama picture I mentioned above, some countries may say that Flemish law applies, some may say that Brussels law applies, some may even say that both apply at the same time and restrictively and they may make it even more complicated by claiming their own extraterritorial right in a case like that)) Now what about Free Use? US Free Use should be no problem as long as "no freedom of panorama" in Belarus means that copyright law applies - there are enough international treaties on copyright now for us to ignore any additional restrictions prevalent in other countries than Belarus.

Note that you cannot be sure that Belarus WILL constrain "freedom of panorama" in the copyright sphere. A nice example, from something related: when you take a picture of a panorama, sometimes there are people in it, also doing what they want in public space. Both Belgium and the Netherlands have very strict laws on "portrait right" (the right of people to object when pictures taken of them are used or published inappropriately according to them, Bildnisrecht in German). But whereas in Belgium judges have usually used copy right law to interpret portrait right legislation ("people possess the copyright to their face"), in the Netherlands "portrait right" legislation has been defined in the copyright laws since 1912, and portrait right is always specifically named in the laws as an exception to copy right (=the copy right of the person taking the picture is diminished) there is some doubt about international legal consequences. Personally, I think this may possibly have awkward consequences for Wikipedia, since one backup server seems to be situated in the Netherlands, but because this sort of legislation is alien to both Anglosaxon common law and the Code Napoleon (have a look at the limited number of languages linked from Bildnisrecht) this bomb still keeps ticking away... Basically, the problem could be that if international copyright law does NOT apply, all pictures which are in defiance of Dutch portrait law are illegal on Wikipedia, wherever on earth (or moon, of course) they were taken. And even Free Use is impossible, bacause that too falls under copyright.--Pan Gerwazy 10:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There is in fact an article on Freedom of panorama. We also have Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama and Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama. -- Petri Krohn 01:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Which suggests that it is always in function of copyright. Since US Free Use is also a copy right thing, we look on safe ground there, unless the Belarusian law were to specifically enumerate which things are off limits, and claim other reasons for that. The article does not counterdict anything I wrote above, BTW. --Pan Gerwazy 09:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

no comments necessary

when you feel like helping, help. --Kuban Cossack 12:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you and sorry

Thank you for explaining your point, I will be doing my best to create as accurate and as NPOV articles as possible. If you are offended - forgive me please, I am working on improving myself. We are all different, we see world in a different way and this is great. Anyway - please, expand any articles I create, as finding various sources to most of them is extremely difficult, since a lot of Soviet archives are still closed. Greetings Tymek 12:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian military insignia

Unfortunately those images were not made by the Ukrainian government, but by http://www.uniforminsignia.net, which claims copyright on all images on its site. We'll have to make or obtain free images, I'm afraid. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 12:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Exact reproduction of an free image does not create a new copyright. --Irpen 14:32, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you tell me where the original free image is at, so we can determine whether or not these are exact reproductions, or if they've been modified or enhanced somehow? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm restoring the "possible copyvio" tags until the issue is resolved by an administrator. Please do not remove the tags until the issue is resolved, thanks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Your tagging will be reverted as disruption. talk first, tag second. --Irpen 16:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom

You hit the nail on the head.[7] Outstanding job and very well said! I'm amazed that after 24 hours, only one arbiter has thought it worth accepting the case. --B 22:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! What we really need is an efficient community based deadminning and the process of recalling the arbitrators who don't do any work this making the ArbCom so inefective. But any proposal of that or of a reform of the RfA process that I have seen led nowhere. --Irpen 01:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Our many efforts

Just wanted to let you know we are losing the battle about the Korean ranks. ZScout and Viv have now chosen to say that the insignia are stolen and will probably delete all of them. They have chosen to ignore the many statements that I have talked to the military and that a contact in the Navy will even e-mail them if they want. They havent directly called me a liar, but I am thinking it is kind of implied. WP:AGF was thrown out the window it seems. I guess we will have to rebuild the article from scratch once I can get a copy of the insignia directly from the military. Thanks for you help in any event. -OberRanks 13:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alkivar

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Thanks for voting on my RFA! Although ultimately it was unsuccessful, I do appreciate the feedback. I can see why you would be suspect of me given the amount of the disputes I've been in - so I completely understand your point there. I also concede that I am not an article writer - I merely reference articles and add or remove from those articles based on the references I have found. I suppose I can only apologize for being that way if you view that style as "[in]significant" - as personally I believe that ensuring accuracy in articles is just the opposite - crucial - to Wikipedia. However, I completely respect your point of view, and although I will perhaps never gain your approval admin-wise unless I can change what I'm interested in, I see no reason why we can not be wiki-friends, so to speak, in that I look forward toward working with you on Wikipedia.--danielfolsom 22:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

Looks like Petri Krohn as well as Digwuren have received year long bans. Martintg 23:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Answer

Hi! You are right that WP:V and WP:NPOV are different policies. However it's not true that "POV terms can always be sourced" (using reliable sources, that is). So sometimes it's possible to settle some issues bringing up only WP:V which is simpler. For example if there are no nonpartisan sources describing certain events in Moldova as 're-occupation' then it's pretty evident that they shouldn't be described like this in Wikipedia as well. Alæxis_¿question? 19:16, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

IFD

Hi Irpen, you might be interested in discussing Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 October 18#Ukrainian rank insignia, where number of Ukrainian images listed for deletion. Thank you--NAHID 06:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Would those be PD?

You may be interested in [8]. I wonder if they are PD? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:31, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Image tags

With respect to the issue of image tagging, I have already made clear my opinion that the repeated use of the word "vandalism" and the placement of a "vandalism-4 final warning" on this page were inappropriate. Despite this, it would probably be better if you responded to the substance of Betacommand's comments here rather than reverting them again. Perhaps, in spite of the current feelings the two of you have for one another, you can agree on the best way to deal with situations in which Irpen disagrees with Betacommand's tagging of an image. Regards, Newyorkbrad 00:31, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Was there a question? I saw an accusation of vandalism accompanied by a block threat in the form of self-righteous templating, then a second accusation of vandalism despite a clear reminder of its impropriety, and then revert warring over reinserting of his rudeness that I removed. If Betacommand has some questions he can always ask them in the proper form without rudeness, threats and other nonsense. --Irpen 00:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I just want to see a modus operandi for the next time one of Beta's templates hits an image that Irpen cares about, instead of a repetition of today's misuse of templates. Oh well, maybe there isn't one. Newyorkbrad 01:24, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

There is one. Whatever general questions he has, he has to articulate them at talk. And whatever questions he has to me personally, he asks them without templates, vandalism accusations, threats and revert warring at my talk page. Threats look especially grievous, when one takes into account the history of that editor's own conduct before deadminning that included abusive blocking by himself and IRC engineered "clean kills". Also, from what I know, after deadminning he still goes to IRC trying to get his friends to do blocks for him. When one's goal truly is to get some problems resolved one behaves differently. Don't you think? --Irpen 01:35, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Anonimu --Thus Spake Anittas 00:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Geez

With this big of a chip on your shoulder, however do you avoid back pain? A challenge, if you're up to it. In your response to this, see if you can avoid using the letter "A" in any of your dark insinuations of cabalism, conspiracy, and skullduggery. Let's keep this fun! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Chairboy, you are again talking to me with a level of English way above what I am able to comprehend with my en-3. If you want a response, please rephrase yourself in a way that I can understand. --Irpen 00:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Chairboy, sorry waited for some time and I have not got any translation from you of the gibberish you posted. I spent time checking the dictionaries and English lexicography sites hoping they can wizen me up enough to comprehend the meaning of your complicated post. Since my attempts were futile, I conclude there was nothing meaningful. I can figure that there is some challenge there despite I still can't comprehend it. May I in return post a counter-challenge to you, Chairboy? Try to create a Featured Article contributing no letters at all, like you are doing for a long time.

See, I hear the Wikipedia is a good online encyclopedia, and it needs contributors. With no mainspace edits that aren't reverts in months in your contributions log, I see that you are trying to contribute to Wikipedia avoiding all letters altogether. That's of course not mentioning plotting "clean kills" off-line, an important contribution all right. So, when there is an FA coming from your contributions one day, please prod me and I would gladly award you the editor's Barnstar as a show of respect to such work. Happy edits! --Irpen 18:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Irony

You do have to laugh when warning a user who is revert warring over personal attacks on other is considered "offensive nonsense", yet apparently there is nothing wrong with this *Shakes head* Rockpocket 23:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that you found out exactly what your edit asked for. And note, that my selective action was motivated not by endorsement of any sort but a desire to see this nonsense end. --Irpen 00:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And what exactly did Giano's edits ask for? Indulgent excuses? One way for it to end, for good, would be to persuade Giano that petulant outbursts like those that which kicked this episode off are not acceptable among civil editors. Do you really think your actions instilled that message. No, they simply increase the probability it will happen again. People only get so many 24 hr long blocks for incivility before patience begins to wear thin, Giano's block log speaks for itself. Rockpocket 09:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And had Rockpocket bothered to do any research at all, he would have found that this edit [9] kicked it al off. However, Rockpocket is selective on who he likes to get his teeth into. Giano 09:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Kiev

I'll keep an eye on this article from time to time. Interesting case of historiography-wiki style. I'm trying to understand how such trivial and obvious facts can be the cause of such enormous hysteria but I really can't. M0RD00R 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the move (U.S. standards info), I completely scrolled past the rather obvious notice. —PētersV (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Request

As currently worded, the lead in Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth states that only Lithuania distanced itself from this concept. Comments? Novickas 16:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the article's talk page section devoted to the issue. Would you start it and we have this discussed there? --Irpen 16:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

heartfelt

I may have been drunk, but my comments and thanks were heartfelt. 87.78.155.210 00:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image Question

Hello, I have an image question. Image:Mykolajchuk.jpg is being disputed. I took the image from the Ukrainian wikipedia, and it doesn't give any rationale information. Is this image going to be deleted, or is there anything that can be done? Ostap 20:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Ostap 22:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Any ideas

After Bakharev locked Balachka to allow for a discussion to begin, what does Bandurist do? Creates a fork at Cossack Ukrainian. I am running out of options, because if that is how the user solves problems I am seriously considering the extreme of an arbcom, can you get across to him that wikipedia is not a propaganda machine, and the example at hand is 100% evidence of his intention, to make a WP:POINT based on nationalist fringe theories. I don't want to resort to an arbcom, but if he continues the way he is its what he will get. And I don't know what to do with this OR BS, but as he himself said here, my WP:POINT accusation grows in weight. --Kuban Cossack 18:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Kuban, perhaps your use of an offensive ethnic slur provoked him? I think you should refrain from using profanity, thats not what a rational person does. Ostap 19:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Which ethnic slur? I've been called a nationalist, chauvinist, POV-pusher and many more by Bandurist in almost every discussion. I have not even touched Ukrainians in Kuban despite the article being nothing but a collection of OR statements and one big POV, as Bandurist himself said here. I ask Bakharev to lock Balachka so we can start discussing, ask for a third opinion, and am rewarded with another voley of arguments, a creation of a forked article. I am only human and if Bandurist wants an arbcom he will get it. He does not WP:OWN the articles he created. I support my articles with extensive amount of sources. The saddening part is that unlike some users he is certainly not a troll, or a vandal, what he did to Ukrainian music articles go beyond merit. However even if he has objections he can raise them, discuss them, but not just stamp out yelling POV pusher chauvinist and whatever, and create forks like with Balachka and Golovaty. I unlike Bandurist will never jump into an article until I am prepared with sources and myself sure on what would any opposing parties object. For example on writing Ukrainian architecture in my user space (feel free to add on to that btw) have I ever used a Russian transcription for a Ukrainian name there? I could, for as long as its in my userspace it would not matter, however I know the final article cannot have that, so why bother provoking people just to make a WP:POINT? Same with Golovaty, even you acknowledged my arguments were sound. That's the biggest shock, is that he is not a new user, but his behaivour is that of someone who just does not know the wikipedian customs, or again to refuses to follow them. That's why an arbcom is becoming an increasingly likely resolve. I don't want to launch it, yet I feel that its the only option I am left with. --Kuban Cossack 20:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, let me just say this. Kuban kazak was rather eloquent in his exchanges with Bandurist, but he did not use ethnic slurs, at least not that I can remember. At one occasion [10] he reverted Bandurist with the following summary: "as requested cited, and no this was not to anger Bandurist, but give the TRUTH of the issue based on sources, not svidomy fringe theories from which Ukrainians in Kuban was written". Calling Bandurist's source "svidomy fringe theories" could have been avoided with a better term chosen for the debate even though "svidomy" (Ukrainian for "conscious") is still far from being an ethnic slur.

I do think that we have a problem here. Bandurist is getting non-communicative, does not respond to requests and repeatedly creates WP:POINTy POV-forks of the articles which he does not get his way by posting his versions to the articles on the same subjects under the alternative titles (the very definition of WP:POVFORK). But I am torn on what is best to do here and ArbCom is certainly not an option. Despite the issues above, I very much appreciate the commitment of Bandurist, he is a very serious content editor, he fills gaps in Wikipedia where we just have no editors. What we need to do is to find the way to engage him into discussions and to stop taking disagreements of the content personally. I tried talking to him many times and I am at loss on what is best to do. We need to get him to cooperate better with others but we should try our best to not alienate him. --Irpen 20:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic slur or just an offensive, derogatory slur it still has no justification. Perhaps Bandurist would be more enthused about conversation if he wasn't refered to as a "woman on the peak of her period". Ostap 20:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's just rude and unacceptable. I must have missed that edit. But I Ostap, do you seriously think the whole problem we are facing here can be reduced to the fabled rudeness of Kuban kazak? Or is he not called names by his opponents too? If you agree that the problem is more complex than mere civility, you better propose something that would help rather than keep blaming one side. We have a serious complication that we have to find a way to sort out. --Irpen 20:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Why not just compromise? I think Bandurist is discouraged because his work is constantly reverted and none of it is ever included at all. Ostap 20:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

To compromise, editors need to talk and listen. The main problem here is the communication process' being broken down. And it is not just because of KK's comments you pointed out. --Irpen 21:31, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well Irpen, what happens if an editor does not want to talk and listen? Ostap, I made several advances on his talk page over the past few weeks in an effort to diplomatically resolve the disputes, the rebuffs that I got, and the persistant POV-forking, as well as reverts really narrow down the options I have. I don't want the arbcom to block him or even prevent him from editing any articles. No, that I find is immoral. I just need someone to get some sense into him. When a neutral author writes articles he intuitively foresees which statements will be changed. For example have a look at how I wrote the Ukrainians in Kuban section with Faustian. Both me and Faustian have long agreed to dissagree, yet do you see edit wars? Do you see assaults? Do any of statements even smell of ethnic slurism? No, and what happens is that each succesive edit, instead of completly rollbacking the original version takes the existing one and slowly shaves a bit off (or adds counter-arguments) thereby enriching the text and making it more encyclopedic. I actually have high respect for Faustian as an editor. Because both of our aims are in unison to write an article, not a propaganda piece. Its not uncommon that at one point one makes a sacrafice for sake of consensus, I have made countless of those in the past. Because sometimes the nature of the verb in the text is not worth the effort that could be put to good use elsewhere. I mean this is very common sense stuff that a child can understand, but one Ph.D can't. Forget about how much embarassing that would look if I was in his shoes, Bandurist failed to reply to any of my attempts to dicuss. Furthermore I went on to propose a medcab, requested a third opinion. Yet Bandurist persists with his trolling (I see no other sane term to describe this behaivour). Either he is, I am sorry to say this, and hope I am wrong, stupid not to see that such actions will do himself more harm than good, or he has a personal political agenda and will stop at nothing to realising it here. Which is why I ask you Irpen, and Ostap, and anyone else reading this, to talk some sense into him!. Why don't I want an arbcom, because I, like you, know that there good things that he can offer to wikipedia, which is why his departure be it force or not will be a loss. I don't want that to happen. But I feel there are two Bandurists right now, the one that was who enriched wikipedia with many good articles on Ukrainian music, and the one who is pursuing an aggressive nationalist policy and will stop at nothing to achieve it. I don't want to discuss how the first one downgraded into the second one, but I want you to get him back the way he was. If this fails, its an arbcom. Enough is enough. --Kuban Cossack 17:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• As of today, still no changes --Kuban Cossack 10:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

demographics

Hello, this is a different subject. With this edit [11] you said something regarding Russia being "22nd from the top". I assume that you were talking about the death rate information from the chart that I added. I am not sure because you went on to remove some line about heart disease, and not the part I added. But, if you did object to the part about the death rate being "one of the highest in the world", be aware that I only made this edit because user:Miyokan was gracious enough to write that same phrase, word for word [12], in the Ukraine article. Obviously if Ukraine at 21 is "one of the highest death rates in the world" and Russia is 22, then Russia should be considered one of the highest also, right? Ostap 01:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think, Ukraine's being "21st" should not be transformed into "one of the highest in the world" either. Let's correct that too. I would have corrected it myself earlier if only I would notice that. I am rather busy in RL these days and often miss edits that I would have caught normally. Also, I pay a greater than usual attention to Russia right now simply because it is at WP:FAC these days. --Irpen 04:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting and clarifying the article. I think Ukraine should be a featured article someday. Ostap 04:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Who doesn't, Ostap. Bogdan ^що? 05:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Ukraine

Hello Irpen, could I ask for your comment/opinion here. Regards, Bogdan ^що? 00:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Holodomor

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. It would make sense to have the images somewhere in the article, since they convey the severity of what actually happened.

Many of the pictures are from Wikipedia Holodomor articles in other languages, such as Ukrainian Wikipedia article on the Holodomor (some of which have received awards), so it would seem that they should go in the English article, also.

In addition, there are many similar kinds of pictures in the English Holocaust article as well.

WriterHound (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not an editor of the Holocaust article. It's current shape reflects the consensus of the editors who edited it and I cannot comment on that. However, I am an active editor of this article as I wrote a good chunk of it, the topic conserns me personally and I can only comment on the latter. It is always good to have "images somewhere in the article" if the images make an article better and help the reader. I added many images to this article myself. However, grisly images are a double-edged sword. We purpose of this (like any other) article is to inform all interested readers about the topic. With such grisly images the effect would be the opposite as many emotionally sensitive readers would just leave the page. I would not read the page with such images too no matter how sympathetic I am to the victims and in how high a regard I hold them. Therefore, these particular images actually hurt the article. Numbers and events are given very well and referenced anyway. --Irpen (talk) 04:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Anonimu pending case

Yes, I've read it. I'm well aware of the lack of resolution that our decisions have produced; to be quite honest, I'm not particularly fond of hearing what is essentially the same case with slightly different players over and over again.

For what it's worth, the proposed decision re: Macedonia should serve as a fairly good indication of my current thinking regarding such areas of conflict. Kirill 22:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you have better ideas, you will have ample opportunity to present them. (Do, incidentally, keep in mind that the Committee is not authorized to rule on content, or to empower anyone else to rule on content.) Kirill 22:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Anonimu/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 18:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User space

Thanks, Irpen for commenting out the categories and interwiki links on my subuser page. I didn't realize that I had left them in there and I appreciate your having caught it.

I also want to apologize for any uncivility on my part in editing the Holodomor article. Such a horrible tragedy is hard for all of us to deal with and I respect your hard work on the article.

Cheers!
WriterHound (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the gracious note. This is indeed an extremely difficult topic. The tragedy that took so many lives raises many feelings from all sides and it makes it all the more difficult to cover in a balanced way. This is what I am trying to do. --Irpen (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, likewise for your very gracious note as well. Yes, I can really see the need to have a balanced article and for everyone to have respect for both Russians and Ukrainians, since the last thing that we would want to do is to drive a wedge between two neighbors over something that happened 75 years ago. We are all cousins in this world (within 30th cousins by estimates), so it is important that we reconcile the past and move ahead by working together to make the world a better place.

What do you think about this? Maybe it might make sense to put some kind of introductory message at the top of the talk page to this effect, in order to remind people to be good to each other. There is a possibility that such a reminder might help people deal with the whole issue better and to help settle down a little bit before posting.

Cheers,

WriterHound (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Preponderance of evidence

Hi, Irpen. Regarding your question, "What "preponderance " are you talking about. What works on the subject have you read to judge?" -- I take it you refer to my recent edits on the Holodomor article. I was simply referring to the citations already in the text:

• U.S. Commission on the Ukraine Famine, "Findings of the Commission on the Ukraine Famine", Report to Congress, Washington, D.C., April 19, 1988
• US House of Representatives Authorizes Construction of Ukrainian Genocide Monument
• Statement by Pope John Paul II on the 70th anniversary of the Famine
• HR356 "Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the man-made famine that occurred in Ukraine in 1932-1933", United States House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., October 21, 2003

These statements and resolutions—together with the fact that "the parliament of Ukraine and the governments of 26 other countries recognized the famine to be such", mentioned later in the lead—sound like rather strong statements defining the Holodomor as genocide, certainly not something to be characterized as "sometimes", which seems rather dismissive in the context. Without going into a counting game (who said how many times what), I think "oftentimes" is more appropriate there. Any reason why not? Turgidson (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For your comments at my talk page. Well spoken. I'll wrap my head around it. Durova^Charge! 22:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Blanking on User talk:!!

Talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did twice[13][14], is considered bad practice, even if you meant well.--Hu12 (talk) 22:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

What is bad practice is baiting a user who clearly became a subject of admin abuse as acknowledged even by ArbCom and this is what your posts were. They were rightfully removed as I explained to you at your talk. Please leave him alone. --Irpen (talk) 22:33, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement on WP:RFAr

Blocks due to sloppiness never yet made it to ArbCom

You've forgotten about User:!! already? ;-) (Note: I agreed with the spirit of your entire statement.) KTC 13:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not forget the Durova's affair of course. But thanks, I amended my statement to make it clearer of what I meant. --Irpen 20:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Miskin incident

RE: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Swatjester

You mentioned the Miskin incident, can you provide a link and maybe a sentence or two of explanation.

I follow your choices for arbcom with interest, and agree with everything you say, especially about copyright. Travb (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin. Someone already added the link under my vote. Thanks, btw. I am flattered :) --Irpen 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I went ahead and edited it. I remember you from somewhere, I think we argued a year ago about fair use. Not sure. Travb (talk) 01:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use policy?

Can I ask what you were referring to in your vote? I don't recall ever having worked on the fair-use policy, so I just wanted to double-check what I was missing. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean the policy. I mean the interpretation of the fairuse policy with respect to non-free images. The image's being compliant to this policy is a matter of discretion. Two issues come into play (in addition to the copyright law that can never be broken): the fact that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which strives to give the best information on the subject to the readers and the statutory goal of the project to promote free content. The discretionary decision for each fairuse image is made based on the relative weight of these two factor in each individual case. I've seen you involved in the image debates perhaps more than any other user and you were routinely giving to little weigh to the content issue relative to the freedom issue. Both issues are important. But as long as we have a fairuse policy that allows non-free content already much stricter than the copyright law, the weight given to the content in this decision is something you tend to underestimate. This gives me a concern over your commitment to Wikipedia's content. I do not doubt your commitment to the free content concept though. --Irpen 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you give me any kind of example here? Aside from cleaning up image categories, I rarely am involved in image deletion debates and in going through categories, I routinely fix fair use rationale and other mistakes that would lead to images getting deleted instead of choosing to delete them. Are you sure you're thinking of the right person? I have a pretty inclusionist bent. Shell ^babelfish 01:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm not disputing your vote in any manner, I'm just trying to understand what I've been doing that was problematic. Thanks again. Shell ^babelfish 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure in my memories, yes. But since you request me to double check, I will gladly do it for you. I am out of time now but to be fair, I will strike my vote for now until I answer your question. If I end up confirming your suspicion that I confused you with someone, I will give a most sincere apology and leave a message at the talk page of everyone who opposed "per Irpen's concerns" with an explanation that I made a huge mistake. Does it sound good enough? --Irpen 01:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I would sincerely appreciate it if you would double-check. The last image discussion I was involved in, I was arguing for the inclusion of the nobel prize medals -- that was several months back and I've had very little image discussion otherwise, so I'm just totally confused here. Thank you for the consideration! Shell ^babelfish 01:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Not a problem. Just wanted to check and make sure I wasn't doing something incredibly silly and didn't realize it. Thanks for taking the time to look in to things for me! Shell ^babelfish 06:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

AN

I removed the stuff about Durova since it is a definite unsubstantiated claim...please don't reinsert it. Thanks.--MONGO 08:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

"Unsubstantiated claim"? Are you sure you did not confuse the Wikipedia space we are talking about? This is not the article. Anyway, I am not going to revert war with you there. I posted the question to solicit more feedback. Sorry to be blunt, but on the surface, this removals looks plain silly. --Irpen 18:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Allegations

I was wondering if you could tell me why exactly you seem bent on covering up[15] this[16] incident. The register is a very widely read news site, and this will have to be addressed. I'm simply trying to find out why exactly this kind of behaviour is going on; this is supposed to be a community based project, yet it is being treated as a personal fiefdom by some. As I stated in my previous edits(before they were deleted), it is not my intent to cause trouble or harm the project, but I do feel it is only fair that this be addressed. I'm simply looking for an answer. 213.202.157.26 (talk) 09:14, 4 December 2007

My edit was not prompted by attempting to cover anything up. I was highly critical of Durova in this affair if you care to look for discussions. My edits were prompted by the most basic principle. Users cannot be forced to keep anything on their page. User talk page is set for communication, not as a blackboard or a publishing site. If you wish to inform the person about something, you have already done it. Her removal of your post signifies that your communication has been received. There is no other legitimate use of Durova's talk except to communicate. And there is no way to force editors to talk if they choose not to.

Revert warring on other user's talk is harassment. Plain and simple. If you want to spread the knowledge about this incident you are already late for the party. Everyone interested either knows or will know within next 24 hours. If you still think you need to further help spread the information flow, Durova's talk is a wrong place. This is the person who is already aware of this info. I don't recommend you to post it elsewhere on Wikipedia either. As I said, all who want to know will find out anyway. Now, please go away, or, best, create an account and expand some articles. --Irpen 09:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, this is not simply some sort of childish trolling; there has been a very serious charge made against the integrity of the wikipedia project, and I just want an answer as to it's validity. --Bobcat_of_Justice 09:48, 4 December 2007

Well, you are asking a wrong guy. I have no illusions that WP articles have much more integrity than the WP self-appointed "political elite" as it sees itself. Durova is indeed one of the right people to ask these questions but she made it clear that she would not be responding to you. In view of that you have no choice but to leave her alone. I advise you to drop the matter and if you can't, then pursue it elsewhere.

From what I hear, the Wikipedia Review provides a fertile opportunity and venue for Wikipedia critics. They would more than welcome your questions that are not answered here. From within Wikipedia, the criticism of elite is only tolerated from the content editors with sufficient weight. The rest get blocked. You can take this detour as well. After you write 2 Featured Articles, removal of your posts would become a rare exception. Maybe this will even never happen. Good luck. --Irpen 11:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Bit cynical, there. I guess I can't answer about how well or poorly dissent from "little guys" is tolerated, but I think 95% of the little guys are doing fine. The little guys who seem to immediately start up with criticism get blocked because they're assumed to be shadows of previously banned folks. Myself, I think that that's counterproductive. Anyway, you're entirely right. Durova is entitled to use her space as she sees fit, and she's certainly free to not reply to a person. I can't imagine what good, aside from emotional satisfaction, Durova's opponents could gain from insisting. Geogre 11:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually Geogre has put my thoughts better than I would. I agree with what he said more than with what I have said a paragraph above. --Irpen 11:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

AN

I posted a reply at AN. I dorftrottel I talk I 12:53, December 4, 2007

Privet

Spaciba Irpen, I will modify my vote accordingly. Travb (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Your statement at the Matthew Hoffman RfC

FWIW, I believe the town you were thinking of wasn't in the Midwest, it was Coburg, Oregon. The information in the Wikipedia article needs updating, though. It omits the last chapter in the story: at a recent session, the Legislature passed a law that a large chunk of the fines from a speeding ticket goes into the state general fund, & Coburg got out of the speed trap business. -- llywrch 18:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Your question

See this, as one example: "I keep tabs on a well known vandal-warrior (WP:DENY refers). Ive tracked him some years now. He's a habitual reincarnator with several community bans and at least two arbcom bans on his record. He has to be identified without checkuser due to his sock work. I do regularly identify his latest aliases -- about 60 of them so far since 2005. And the first thing he'd do with any evidence I or others published would be to use it to prevent us doing so. I do discuss the evidence in depth with other trusted users - typically crats, and the few admins and editors who also know him well - and I watch till I'm sure, sometimes weeks or months, but no... how a "bad actor" was detected is not always public. For this sneaky vandal and reincarnator, that comes under the heading of "not a suicide pact"." How is this any different from what Durova was doing? Isarig (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom question

Hello, just letting you know I've responded to your questions on my ArbCom candidacy page. I apologize for the delay, as I seemed to have missed them the first time around. Thanks, --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Your ArbCom questions

Sorry for the late responses, but I've put up succint answers to your questions here. If I totally missed the thrust of your comments or you want clarification, holler at me talk page or on the questions page. G'day, David Fuchs ^(talk) 00:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Request

Please take part in the discussion [17].Muscovite99 (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

It's fine, so no worries. Thank you for clarifying. :-) SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You're right

Good call. Durova^Charge! 04:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Irpen 04:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Irritating in a "mosquito bite" kind of way, not in a "hordes of blackflies" kind of way ;) To be honest, as I was "debating" with someone else on wiki-en-l at the same time, perhaps I got the two of you confused...although that discussion is better classified as irritating in the blackflies kind of way. Risker (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for keeping you bussy with the Russians in Ukraine article. I'll try to do those things (refs etc.) myself in the future :) Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That's OK. But please try to use the talk page more aggressively and the main page somewhat less so. For example, I doubt we need details on the votes wins/losses. All they do is emphasize the Yulia's gains. Important and notable, this belongs to other articles. There are specific articles for elections and BYuT. I kept these numbers for now because from my experience you are easily annoyed and this summary again confirmed that. So, to avoid confrontation, I decided to not edit out those "gained x thousand, lost y thousand" for now. Regards, --Irpen 23:48, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss before page moves

I disagree with your assessment of the predominant meaning of "New Russia". Among general sources and among academic sources this term the most commonly refers to Russia in the context of comparing current Russia with the previous government organization in that country. Please discuss before page moves. Greggerr (talk) 07:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss? I merely restored the original redirect. If you were unsatisfied by it and wanted a different articles/redirects combination, you initiate the discussion before implementing your ideas. --Irpen 07:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I must say, you restored it in a strange way. Anyway, please don't revert with summary asking me to provide you an explanation. You revert, you provide an explanation. Greggerr (talk) 08:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I restored it in a regular way by restoring the status quo. My explanation was given. The original redirect takes the reader to a most likely article he would be looking for by entering "New Russia" into a search string. Please use the article's talk to discuss the article-specific matters. --Irpen 08:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I need help

Hello, I have a request for help. I seem to have made a fairly large error. A while back I uploaded this beatiful painting [18] to give an example of Tropinins Ukrainian works. I took it from this [19] site. As I was looking through a Ukrainian culture text book for information on vinok, I saw this painting and realized that the site I took it from has a major problem that I missed. In the version I uploaded, the girl is somehow facing the wrong direction. The correct direction can be found here: [20]. Is there a way for me to correct this here, or do I have to find a correct picture and re-upload it? Is there a way to delete the incorrect image? If you could tell me what to do, I would appreciate it. Thanks, Ostap 08:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ostap: I'm not Irpen, but I fixed the problem. An image could be rotated in any basic graphic editor. A new image could be uploaded over the original by clicking "Upload a new version of this file". Best, Greggerr (talk) 09:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the image again with the one of the same picture with the better resolution and also facing in the correct direction. A beautiful picture indeed. Regards, --Irpen 09:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Your remaining questions...

Have answers :) They were good questions, and therefore hard to give 100% answers to. But I've had a go at some 85 - 90% answers instead :)

Apologies for the time taken. I trust you got the email to keep you informed. But they're there now :)

Best, and thanks for some good thought-provokers!

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Semantron

Hello. Might you be able to offer a bit of a Slavic perspective on this subject? Putting in the equivalent name, at least, would be helpful. Thank you. Biruitorul (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've found the Russian terms but it seems the instrument is now really more of a Balkan/Greek phenomenon, having survived in more remote parts of Russia until the Revolution, so I'll modify according to the new sources I found. Still, there is some material on the bilo/klepalo (eg [21] & [22]). I suppose our real lapse is an article on bell-ringing in Orthodoxy, which we still don't have. Biruitorul (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yevheniya Bosh Bridge, Image:Most bosh.jpg

I am sorry but the picture you have uploaded under the name Yevheniya Bosh Bridge is in fact irrelevant to that bridge. The picture shows a different bridge, the Darnitsa Railroad Bridge destroyed in 1941. The name of Yevheniya Bosh was conferred in 1925 to a different bridge, the Nicholas Chain Bridge (see the article Николаевский цепной мост in the Russian Wikipedia). --Dmitri Lytov (talk) 04:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The Nicholas Bridge is a different one and it has its own picture. Please check again at Kiev Bridges. I think the Image:Most bosh.jpg is not the same pridge as Image:Nicholas_Chain_Bridge_LOC_03819.jpg. Please double check. --Irpen 04:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, the bridge shown at the picture you have uploaded is in fact a different bridge, but it is NOT Yevheniya Bosh bridge. I even probably know the article from where you have taken the picture with wrong caption. The fact that Nicholas Chain Bridge got the name Yevheniya Bosh Bridge in 1925 can be confirmed by various sources: for example, you can download a 1930 Kiev Guide from here: http://interesniy.kiev.ua/new/memoryaboutkiev/8267/kyiv_1930 --Dmitri Lytov (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please double check because the Nicholas bridge did not get any other name. It was blown up by Poles in 1920 and never restored. --Irpen 07:31, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It was blown up by Poles but restored in 1925. Would you please download the book I refer to? If you write to my e-mail address (SOCION AT RAMBLER.RU), I can send you the book. Or, if you like, tomorrow I can send you a great deal of links to publications about the history of Nicholas Chain Bridge. --Dmitri Lytov (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

В любом случае, я потрачу время и постараюсь ответить Вам со ссылками. Если я неправ, то признаю обязательно. --Dmitri Lytov (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Dmitri, thanks for your help. I am very interested to straighten this out. I downloaded the book you linked to and will take a look. From what I've read earlier, the Nicholas bridge was never restored after Poles blew it up. The restoration was considered early but plans were abandoned because the severity of damage made restoration impractical. Thus, the completely new bridge was built in the same place and this was the Bosh bridge. I will look it up and get back to you. I would appreciate your further input. --Irpen 01:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I apologize. I was wrong. For the last week I learnt much more abot Kiev bridges than I knew before :) Within several days I will clean up the traces of my involuntary vandalism. --Dmitri Lytov (talk) 08:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem. But if you learned so much about the topic, maybe you would help us expand the article? :) --Irpen 08:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 3

Thank you for your participation in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate that landed on WP:100, but ultimately was deemed a successful declaration of consensus, and I am now an admin. :) I definitely paid close attention to everything that was said in the debate, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm going to take it slow for now -- I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully investigating the admin tools and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are a few more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status. Have a good holiday season, --Elonka 17:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editor review/Dihydrogen Monoxide 2

Your question has been answered. — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 23:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Buon Natale e buon anno! Giano (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

#admins

In regard to this edit summary, I'd like to point out that the channel probably averages between 30-50 people with the most I've ever seen being 68. --John Reaves 19:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds a reasonable estimate. One also has to apply for access, so it is a private channel, although in practice the application has always been granted (as far as I am aware) for any administrator in good standing. Orderinchaos 09:18, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

For further information, there are 453 nicknames on the access list. John Reaves 11:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

{{KeepLocal}}

Hi, would you oppose a merger or redirection of this template with {{NoCommons}}? The two appear to be functionally equivalent. Regards, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested

In Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Evacuation_of_East_Prussia.--Molobo (talk) 22:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Giano_II. John254 04:39, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

1. That user talk space is not a discussion forum, so using the discussion top and discussion bottom is conterproductive to discussion and to me actually getting to reply.
2. It is absolutly not harrassment to request that a administrator undelete their talk page.
3. I'm not even involved in the IRC crap nor the Request for Arbitration and I'm surprised you found the tone of my original message to be taunting or baiting.

— Save_Us_229 03:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for switching the venue of your posting. I will give it some thought and post a reply later. --Irpen 03:09, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Best wishes!

Sending you my best wishes for the New Year now, as I am leaving for the East of Belgium tomorrow morning. I will be without the Internet for some days (do not really feel like going to an Eupen internet café as the time span is so short). So, s nastupayishchim!--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 20:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

С наступающим!

Вряд ли буду в википедии в ближайшие дни, так что поздравляю щас :) Alæxis_¿question? 20:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

С Новым годом!

DDima wishes you a Happy New Year!
—dima/talk/ 22:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Holodomor denial

An editor has nominated Holodomor denial, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holodomor denial and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 07:14, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

З Новим Роком!

Riurik wishes you a Happy 2008!

--Riurik^(discuss) 21:59, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Queluz National Palace

This article, to which you contributed, will be featured on the Main Page on January 5, 2008.[23] Risker (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Old style New Year

Удачного Вам года! :) Russianname

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ryazanov bookcover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ryazanov bookcover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Assistance

I ask for your assistance in case of issue [24] with user Faustian in terms of WP:Civility. As also your opinion about book [25] to use in WP inline with WP:RS ans WP:V. Jo0doe (talk) 09:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Gagarin_space_suite.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Gagarin_space_suite.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 03:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Working Group login

Hi Irpen, just letting you know I've sent an email (via the English Wikipedia email function) to you with details about your Working Group wiki login details. Be sure to change your password once you log in, for security reasons! If there's any problems with the login (passwords, username not working, or anything), fire me an email and I'll try and sort them out for you. Looking forward to working with you as a fellow group member! Cheers, Daniel (talk) 03:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, an account user:Irpen is mine. --Irpen 02:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

holodomor denial deletion

You told the Holodomor denial article editor that user Gatoclass was pulled to WP:AE for his honest objections. Thats not entirely true, it was for making comments like this. Surely you agree such comments can come across as very offensive. Ostap 20:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this comment was also unhelpful. I never said he was an angel. But his comments did not warrant the administrative intervention. He started off the discussion in a much more civil way and was mobbed. You have to admit that his opponents' primary goal was a "victory" in the content dispute and they achieved it partially by forcing him to withdraw from the article. Take a look at their comments in the AE archives. --Irpen 20:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The situation was pretty ugly. But he put on a POV template and then immediately started a deletion request (which ended with everyone agreeing to keep). It seemed that people would only add POV or OR templates and never say what the actual specific problem was, even now in this dispute editors are struggling to understand what the specific problems are. Then user Jo0doe got involved and called all the editors "diaspora "regime victims" with limited knowledge about topics which they tried to contribute", whatever that means. Discussion really didn't have much of a chance at all. I didn't follow any AE discussion, but I do believe it was strange. Too bad you missed all of the fun. Ostap 05:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:Gibbon

A tag has been placed on Template:Gibbon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad you're back

I've just seen that you have come back in the last few days, excellent news.--Miyokan (talk) 09:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to waste your time but...HELP!

I'm glad your back too! I don't want to waste your time but... the Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007 article is in bad shape... Everytime there is some consensus a new Wikipedian comes along and does evrything her/his way...(there was quite an edit-batle going on there the last weeks...). I trust YOU since you don't seem to be Orange or Blue but know what's going on in Kyiv (living nearby helps I guess). If you have better things to do I understand! PS I can't be of much help with the section: Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007#Political crisis since I soon last track with events at the time. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Faustian activity

Could you please advice me on appropriate action for conduct of User:Faustian - his action described as WP:Vandalism - blanking simply by the reason of Like/dislike what sources and facts are included [26] [27] [28] [29] - since his actioned widened on other edited by me articles - I assume such also as personal attack. Also such effort [30] by him - clear demagogy since he once again returned to already cleared and eplained issue (Koch data) ect Advice badly needed for farther actions in such caseJo0doe (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Latest Holodomor

I was only observing that I applaud your constructive, not confrontational, dealing with Jo0doe's comments and hope for more.
   Actually, I stopped by to agree that I was feeling it's not quite right to use Holodomor in the parts of the article which recount history (per your latest edits), with famine or Great Famine being the appropriate terms--"Holodomor" is a modern term with a very specific meaning attached to it and its use should be focused on modern discussion of the famine. (I tracked down that the first use of "Holodomor" is attributed to Oleksa Musienko, on February 18, 1988, per info @ http://www.mfa.gov.ua/denmark/ua/8992.htm.) —PētersV (talk) 22:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Re

There is no rule that allows you to delete other people's post. In future the proper way you should beheave in this regard Irpen is to relate to the user who you are concerned about your worries and ask if you can correct his post or if he doesn't wish that you service him. --Molobo (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done this two you many times, asking nicely to not mess up other people entries by yours. You ignore all my requests. If you just try to avoid this from now on, there is no issue. If you continue to ignore this, I can't continue cleaning up after you or asking you again and again. --Irpen 22:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support!

Hello, and thanks for your support in my recent RFA! The final result was 61/0/3, so I've been issued the mop! I'm extremely grateful for your confidence in me and will strive to live up to it. Thanks again! —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Please advice

You pointed:

• Just to note that I corrected the anon's falsification and returned the numbers that reflect the references. This qualifies as subtle vandalism, the worst and most difficult to detect. --Irpen 20:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

But Faustian acted in same way – gives data which does not exist in refs (“Nedilna battle”, “makivka and black forest groups” etc from not existed 1973 Krohmalyuk book ) (which itself not WP:V) or manipulate with info mentioned in source (“Despite the stated opinions” while source clear gives an emphasis on that fact what their opinions was adopted by majority), “statements” but in source General Instruction etc. In general, instead to stick with facts everything reverted into desired but not reliable way.

So were is  “subtle vandalism” and were is “finding a significant constructive part in his often erratic edits and ignoring the outbursts”?	 

Thank you for your replay on my Talk Page - since your tooooo long Jo0doe (talk) 21:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

		Thanks for the support
		Thanks for your support on my request for adminship, which passed 92/2/2. I'll learn the ways of the mop, and be sure to live up to the expectations of the community. ♬♩ Hurricanehink (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in my RfA

Oh snap, the DEA is an admin

ASIMO I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which I'm very glad to say was successful at 81/7/0. Some of the very best that Wikipedia has to offer came out to support or oppose me and the kind words from all the editors has really given me confidence to be an admin and I can't wait to start. I will take the advice of the opposes and not jump into any content disputes immediately. As well, I will try to add more content myself. Anyways, in thanks for participating in my RfA, here's your very own personal humanoid robot. Enjoy! --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 14:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible featured picture?

beautiful file, short on information

Hi Irpen, I left a message about this for Ghirla a few days ago but he doesn't seem to be very active right now. Found a beautiful image file on Commons in a clear high resolution version that could be featured picture material, but the voters will want more background than the uploader provided. Do you think you'd be able to dig up more information on this, or know someone who could help? I think it'd be fun to conominate at WP:FPC. Best regards, Durova^Charge! 22:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy Easter, the Lord is risen! Христос воскрес!

I suspect you may not want to answer this until the end of April, but I still felt like wishing you the best on this day.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Irpen

As to the idea that my edits are outside of mainstream views, I am afraid it just comes from our different background in education. None of my books call Soviet invasion of Poland "liberation" for example, nor do they portay Polish lands occupied by SU in 1939 as settled only by Belarusians and Ukrainians. As to the books, oh tens of dozens really, if not more. I finished studies where history was the main subject and many courses in specialised timeframes were finished with exams. --Molobo (talk) 22:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to stick my nose into this discussion, but I have to agree with Molobo on this one. One would be hard pressed to convince me that he is nothing but a scholar, based on his contributions on matters that interest him on WP. And do keep in mind that "many (of his) courses in specialised timeframes were (actually) finished with exams". So, please more WP:AGF. He meant time frames, btw. Dr. Dan (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Irpen, Wikipedia is not your personal playground. I do not have to explain my personal life, experience, or knowledge at your whim. My knowledge and sources are quite backed by multitude of sources I always use in articles. Have a good day.--Molobo (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Now I have to agree with Irpen. A significant difference between yourself and the Prokonsul is that he would have easily produced a plethora of books ranging in the time frame requested. The question is not about a playground or whim. Dr. Dan (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not my problem if Piotrus wishes to discuss his personal life with Irpen. --Molobo (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dan. I got it. I tried to keep the discussion to one page (Molobo's.) Now I can't :( since that would require removing what you have said. Molobo greatly confuses finding a "source" (for some claim) and reading a book. I kind of suspected what his answer was going to be. Piotrus also sources his edits. My point was not about the sources though but a general familiarity with the subject which cannot be attained without reading books, an activity that cannot be confused with the skill to google or even google-book. --Irpen 04:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

No I completely don't confuse it. I read and even analysed several books, I am just not interested in supporting your treatment of Wikipedia as a place where you dictate other users and treat it as a playground. Your concern about my literature starts and ends at sourcing articles and that is is it. Issuing demands to other users that are not supported by any Wiki rule doesn't seem to be sensible aproach to communication Irpen. What's going to be next ? Demanding that I scan my Master of Arts diploma ? Or grades from various history courses ? Copies of my thesis analysing various themes in books about history, sociology ? Frankly, you shouldn't be interested in my personal life here, and I would like it keep that way thank you, unless I find it appropriate. And really your remark is forum-like absurd, it would take me 1 minute to copy and mix any list of course literature from three different unis and present as my reading list. Have a good day.PS:I will now remove your comments from my personal discussion page, as I consider them bordering on rude and concerning my personal life.

PPS:I suggest deleting this thread about my private life for the sake of civility, also either delete it all or leave my responces undeleted.--Molobo (talk) 04:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, this thread is not in any way about your private life. Nothing here can even remotely be misconstrued as such. I simply asked what books have you read the subject(s). You can refuse to answer which you did. You can delete anything you want from your own page but please do not frivolously invoke the privacy concerns. If one of us is interested in the other, it is the one who follows the other person's edits (hint) and this is not me. --Irpen 04:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Molobo please copy edit your above remarks (the ones starting with "No I completely don't confuse it"). Other than telling us you have a master degree in the Arts, it is a little confusing. Thanks. p.s. Am I correct that a magister degree is the equivalent of a bachelor degree in the West? Dr. Dan (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you aren't.--Molobo (talk) 05:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Then you have my sincere congratulations. Btw, what is the equivalent to a Bachelor Degree, in Poland? Dr. Dan (talk) 05:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Dan, I think now we are indeed getting into Molobo's bio (his education) and this is not the subject we should (or I want to) discuss. I don't know why he suddenly turned forthcoming about his degrees while refused to name any book he fully read on the subject. But this is a separate question for a different conversation. --Irpen 06:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Irpen, you are right. Although after Molobo began explaning how the Polish educational system confers degrees, I wanted to be sure about the equivalencies of corresponding degrees with which I am more familiar. But we should be able to handle that at our own talkpages. Once again, sorry. As I have always believed, Molobo's edits speak for themselves more than his academic credentials ever could. And I believe he has answered your question with the following response, "I read, and even analysed several books..." So that's, that. Dr. Dan (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian town help

Can you help in locating Sokal and Radziechov somewhere around Brody? I may have wrong spelling--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I almost gave up looking when I found a map for both! Its Sokal' and Radechov, both closer to Chervonograd then Brody. Sorry to have bothered you--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sokal and Radekhiv is what you are looking for. --Irpen 07:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and also fixing the links in the Brody article--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 08:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Georgiu-Dez

Can you help me out with the current name for this city (South-west of Voronezh)?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Moredn name is Liski. Cheers, --Irpen 04:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Was this "Georgiu-Dezh in 1965 for the Romanian communist leader" a cruel joke? The city was a boundary for the Hungarians whom Romanians didn't like very much and Italians whom they kind of modelled themselves after; both routed there as the juncture of their front sectors. Thank you--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian region small article help needed

Would you be able to help, or recommend someone, in producing a very small article or an article section, that describes the "Dnieper bend"? Many articles refer to it, but I found it hard to define, aside from the obvious of the river banks, and those not in the know would be left to figure out which bend is being talked about. I suppose it is defined by the Western Dnipropetrovsk Oblast (except a bit from the Zaporizhia Oblast and can be used to expand the Dnieper Ukraine article?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I think what you are looking for is Dnieper Lowland (Russian: Приднепровская низменность or Днепровская низменность, Ukrainian: Придніпровська низовина or Дніпровська низовина). GSE has enough to start a stub. HTH, --Irpen 05:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Russian or Soviet treaty?

To demonstrate that we can collaborate peacefully, I'd like to request your opinion on this (discussion at talk).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Nobel winner accuses Ukrainian authorities of 'historical revisionism'

This is interesting, especially considering that he was fiercely anti-Soviet/communist. Do you think it could be incorporated into Holodomor or somewhere?--Miyokan (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting indeed. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's have this discussed at the article's talk. --Irpen 00:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Question

I am sorry if you take this way, but I was really interested in what are your reasons for claiming that Polish government in WW2 was not legitimate. Please do try to understand that people can think in different ways then you, and you are not always understood. Thankfully I also realised how important the fact of legitimacy is to explain to users Soviet actions against it, so I think we should cover that up more in relevant articles.--Molobo (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Molobo, I prefer to see the discussions stay on topic and discuss issue where they belong. AK discussions belong to talk:AK, the pol-gov discussions belong to the talk:pol-gov. And my talk is not the best place to discuss all this. In turn I would kindly remind you to format your entries at the article's talk. If you continue to mess my posts by don't bothering to format yours, I will remove them. I was doing your formatting for (what?) 2 years? Enough is enough. Thank you. --Irpen 00:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

IRC - request for clarification

When you have a moment, could you opine on my understanding of these IRC issues:

1. There are two recognized standards of conduct on WP - general and IRC. According to Flo, a proposal to apply the general conduct standard to IRC failed.
2. Including material from IRC logs on WP is punishable, and the penalty may be banishment. Such inclusions are called "leaks".

Sincerely, Novickas (talk) 13:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - good luck in a worthy endeavor. Novickas (talk) 13:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Statement on RFAR

Hello.

Your statement on RFAR currently stands at over three times the 500 word limit; would you please trim it down accordingly? You can move sections of it to the talk page and link to those, for instance. — Coren ^(talk) for the Arbitration Committee 15:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD

An AfD. You may be interested. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

WG

Irpen, hi, I noticed that you hadn't been to the WG wiki in a few days. There's been a burst of activity recently, and I would be very interested in your input for some of the discussions. If you have time, could you pop in? Thanks, Elonka 10:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)