User talk:Irpen/archived closed issues 06

"Controversy" of having trade relations with Nazis

Whatever hypocritical and deplorable the practice to trade with non-human regimes is, in the cynical business of international politics everyone was (and still is) doing this. As every single major country continued to trade with Nazis supplying them with fossil fuels, ore and high-tech (IBM controversy comes to mind), there is nothing notable in Soviet doing what the rest did to single them out. Let's stick to facts that say:

Soviets did trade with Nazis
Soviets support of anti-fascist movement in Spain was their state policy
Soviets were the only major power to oppose the disgraceful Munich deal and offered to intervene militarily.

These are facts. Whether this constitutes the "controversy", should be left to the reader. As for finding some ref whose author says something and including it into the Encyclopedia, we can go far with such approach. As far as interpretations, not facts go, many personal opinions may be "referenced". Please, let's stick to facts. --Irpen 20:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Soviets signed alliance with the Nazis (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). Yes, for most 1930s Soviets were notable opponent of the Nazi regime, but then for nearly 3 years they were their best allies. Those are the facts. There is also the Soviet-German cooperation article. Of course, you are right that many countries traded with the Nazis - but in the period 39-41, Soviet trade was an important lifeline of the Nazi regime.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please distinguish trade and aid. Any trade was an important lifeline of the Nazi regime. So, there is nothing specific about the Soviet trade. Besides, check the dictionary for the difference between trade (exchange of goods) and "aid". Your following my edits into this article which have not received any of your attention for a year and a half is amusing. Now I wonder how dared you accuse others of stalking you. But do as you please. There is nothing new in that. --Irpen 21:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the threads above. I am expecting an apology.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen - WP:Civil - I'm not saying you're wrong or right - I'm just saying that comments like this - "But do as you please. There is nothing new in that." - aren't necessary and do nothing to help your cause.--daniel folsom 03:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danielsfom, I am more interested in your opinion in the content dispute than in the policy quotes. I am familiar with policies. Piotrus sudden appearance among the article's editors after a 1.5 year break but immediately following my edit is not illegitimate even if he followed my contributions. However, he frequently invokes accusations of stalking and in view of that, this is a rather weird development. Anyway, here is the question. Following the 1939 MR-pact, the Soviets did have the diplomatic and trade relations with Nazi DE while the UK and France were at the state of war with Nazis, initially a phony war but still. But trading is not the same as giving an economic aid. I hope you realize the difference. SU was not alone in trading with Nazis. Many European countries continued the economic relations and so did the US. Does not qualify to call this "aid". Let's make this article piece sensible. --Irpen 04:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in the content dispute - I'm not involved enough in the article to comment on that - what I am interested in is assuring that policies are followed on talk pages. --daniel folsom 04:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you are not interested in content of this article. If all you take interest is that Wikipedia policies are followed, please consider that citing them to experienced editors does not help in encouraging the civility climate. But lets carry the policy discussions at the appropriate pages and discuss the article here. Coming back to the article, can anyone explain how come the trade of goods for money or other goods qualifies to be called "aid" in this particular article? --Irpen 04:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(for the record - I did cite it - WP:CIVIL)--daniel folsom 11:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not helping. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the article and take other issues elsewhere. Thanks, --Irpen 16:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to discuss content when one side is being uncivil, Irpen. It's as simple as that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not feed this thread anymore per WP:TLW. Please continue it elsewhere. Now, back to the topic and for the umpteenth time, can anyone point out how the trade relations (not uncommon even with the most despotic regime in the cynical business of international politics) turned into the "economic aid" in this article? Is there any evidence that the Soviets gave the goodies to the Nazis for free. Neither they were alone in trading with Nazis. Please stay on topic, ladies and gentlemen. --Irpen 17:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen - I'm trying to explain to you that regardless of who I think it's right, comments like "But do as you please. There is nothing new in that." create a hostile atmosphere. I am merely reminding you to remain WP:Civil, and frankly your response (which should have been either defending that statement or admitting wrongdoing) of "I don't want to talk about this" doesn't work. You're the only one creating an uncivil atmosphere - and your doing it on this page, so regardless of what you would like, if you repeate then I'll continue to remind you. Now I think you're a fine editor, and god knows I've made many uncivil mistakes, but let's just try and keep it clean for now - and if either of you have to be told to be civil, don't start freaking out.--daniel folsom 19:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your complements. However, please understand that your continued lecturing editors about policies at the article's talk pages contributes to the hostile atmosphere a great deal. I am not here to tell you what to do. I am here to develop articles. If you want to tell me what to do, do it elsewhere or better yet, reconsider. I would appreciate if the further discussion will concentrate on the article's content. In the last few hours Piotrus and myself made several edits that improved it and we are better off spending time continuing this work. I would welcome your joining us in this quest to make this article compliant with new more rigorous FA standards. I hope you will reconsider you stated lack of interest to its content. Moreover, I suggest to remove this discussion of policies and behavior from this page as it adds nothing to article's improvement. Unless Piotrus or yourself object, I will remove it. There are several pages already where Piotrus and myself hammer out our global disagreements. This isn't one of them and, frankly, one more isn't needed. But if you think it is important to preserve this important discussion, feel free to move it to my talk. Now, pretty please, help develop the article. If you need references, I would be happy to recommend you some. --Irpen 20:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be lecturing you - and frankly you're the first one I told to be civil in a while - usually I do contribute to talk pages and mainspace articles, I'm just saying that (especially since there's a Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus arbitration case going on with you guys - you just need to remember to keep cool heads. Irpen - all I'm saying is that you made an uncivil comment - again I think your a great editor, it's just everyone lapses now and then. It was just a reminder, as I expect given that said case tensions are already high between you and Piotrus. It was not meant to be derogatory, and I'm sorry you understood it to be that, but simply put, I saw a comment that was uncivil, and I said try to not make these comments -there's really nothing more to it. I hope this incident has no bearing on any future interactions between us, and who knows, maybe if you're on an article I'm more active in we'll be able to work together.--daniel folsom 20:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way - if you want to say I haven't added references- why don't you look at my contributions - when spotlight started on this article there were 3 citations, we added 130 - myself adding at least 20 of those - so try to avoid making assumptions. And yeah, I'm fine removing this, however the comment still stands to both of you - especially after that comment - remain civil--daniel folsom 20:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, first of all the whole point was to remind you and Piotrus (both) to remain civil - and Piotrus was also getting upset by some of your comments (as proved by an email he sent me which gave me the link to the arb case). I don't mean it to be derogatory, I just meant it as a reminder - however you took that reminder and stated that experienced editors shouldn't be told when they're not being civil, and then saying that I only edit to make sure people follow policies on talk pages - both of which are completely untrue and the latter of which is completely out of line.--daniel folsom 20:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I want to minimize the number of pages where Piotrus and myself develop our WikiLove relationship. But since you persist, I will respond to you. First, I am upset to see from your response that my opponent keeps using the untraceable channels to get others involved in this all. That he prefers to talk behind other people backs where they cannot respond adds the hostile atmosphere a great deal. I hoped that after recent exposures at the Workshop he was going to curtail such behavior. I am only saddened to see that I was mistaken. I would have preferred, actually, to not know even that this practice goes on. I would have been more comfortable living under the illusion that some things have changed for greater transparency and candor.

Now, if you insist that I "either defend my statement or admit wrongdoing" I can elaborate on what prompted this new development. Since Piotrus continues off-line communications, chances are that I will have to explain anyway. I have no way to know who and what he is writing next. That he maintained for months an off-wiki dump to collect diffs to present against me at the opportune moment has convinced me that his off-line activity can take many unexpected routes.

So, let's split the subjects. If you insist that I "defend or admit" I can elaborate on that. If you disagree that your involvement contributed to deepening the rift rather than healing it, I can elaborate on that. If you think it is all right to work off-line on the issues where no privacy is needed (or even hurts the climate of trust even further), I can elaborate on that either. Finally, please note that in the middle of this all conflict Piotrus and myself expanded the article and whoever of us made a first mistake in this recent incident (his purported stalking or not/my purported incivility or warranted tone/purportedly unwarranted (or warranted) lecturing editors at the article's talk), the article got developed and this is a good thing.

Piotrus is a valuable contributor, I never said otherwise, and the article is getting developed in recent hours by both of us despite your good-faith and well-meaning intervention that, unfortunately, was not helpful. I also have no beef with you and whatever you choose, I will try to be as helpful as possible in addressing your concerns. If you choose to let this stop here, fine with me either way. --Irpen 21:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The uses and limitations of private information

Durova's answer to your question leaves me puzzled a bit.

Why does one "specialize" in difficult disputes, when one hasn't the real ability to do anything about it (i.e. not on ArbCom)? If one is specializing in mediating disputed areas, then that's all very well, but, if that's so, then keeping all things private renders some of that judgment moot.
If one is receiving multiple private confidences, one is tremendously limited in acting upon such confidence. Since all things on site require on-site rationalization, and all on-site judgments require transparency, gathering up many elements from private sources would only, in a way, hamper or paralyze one's ability to effectively mediate or judge, and it bodes ill for the future on ArbCom.

You know that I dislike back channel and off-site communications, at least where such things will not be or cannot be ported directly onto Wikipedia. I e-mail, of course, and I use chat, but I know that none of that is meaningful in regard to Wikipedia without every last bit being rationalized or repeated here. Then again, I avoid personality-based disputes as much as is possible. Geogre 19:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George, thanks for sharing my concerns. I am also somewhat puzzled by an answer but I did not press for more at the Q&A page as this might have been interpreted as hostile questioning while I have no hostility toward Durova at all even though I disagreed with her on several issues. But your questions are best answered by Durova, not by me. I will ask her to comment if she wishes. --Irpen 21:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Cossacks

I came to ask another question, but I saw this discussion. Discouraging when it's clearly not just a one-off. Earlier today I ran into Jewish Cossacks which in fact is not an article about Jewish Cossacks, but a monograph arguing that they existed. There is zero content. And even the argument is mostly just a copright vio... And what got me started? This edit, which linked to what I will charitably call an 'extreme' site. Should I just delete or nominate fD the bad stuff? It's not long-term behavioral? Jd2718 03:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't question the JCossacks article. First- arguing for existence of the entity is necessary because it was hushed for many years by the culture that made a point to paint Jews as cowardly, effeminate etc. I minimized the solicitous tone the best I could. Secondly- we have well documented scholarly sources that are simply inaccessible now and partially lost (Borovoy diss.), but any serious scholar of Ukrainian and Jewish affairs pre 1700 knows this material. The content is not zero, however small it seems. We could embellish it more, but that would be OR, simply because Borovoj is not available on JStore or the like..Galassi 01:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Novorossiya

In English the established name for the southern regions of Ukraine is Novorossia/Novorossiya, not New Russia. Similarly, Novomoskovsk, not New Moscow, or Novosibirsk, not New Siberia. Greggerr (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long time, no see. All right. Let's use this fabulous source. It has many more pretty tables. See you at the article's talk. --Irpen 03:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lviv 1939 Soviet Cavalry.jpg listed for deletion

(I'm forwarding the notice to you as the original uploader.)

An image or media file that you originally uploaded to en.wp, Image:Lviv 1939 Soviet Cavalry.jpg, subsequently moved to Commons, commons:Image:Lviv 1939 Soviet Cavalry.jpg, (with a modified no watermark version, commons:Image:Lviv 1939 Soviet Cavalry - no watermark.jpg,) has been listed at commons:Commons:Deletion requests. Please see the discussion to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. KTC (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, KTC. I recognize the style of the nominator. It is not my intention to have anything in common with Commons. The image is PD and if it is deleted there, I will reapload it here and will provide the license and rationale. Sorry to sound like a dick, but I really have reasons to mistrust the reliability of the commons solution to the Wikipedia imaging. --Irpen 00:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, I don't see the photo to be appropriate for Ukraine article. It needs to be understood that there are different views on the Red Army intervention to Lviv in 1939. According to Lviv people, Polish rule was changed to Soviet dictatorship. One tyranny instead of the other. Do you think it's acceptable to put into Ukraine article a photo of German parade in Kiev? Greggerr (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with a photo being appropriate for an article, the right way to resolve it is to discuss the propriety of the photo for the particular article rather than look for a way to eliminate the photo completely from Wikipedia. If you were so sure that the picture is inappropriate, you would have expected other editors to agree with you and would not need to act through a workaround. I have seen similar tricks earlier. Either way, if you want to discuss whether the picture belong to the article, use the article's talk for that. --Irpen 08:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the license were incorrect, it would automatically resolve the issue. Most people find that arguing is not fun, and you reverted it once so it was going that way. Greggerr (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my revert in the summary. You did not respond but instead nominated the PD image for deletion. Good luck with it. --Irpen 09:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 14 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ukrainian wreath, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

An Arbitration case involving you 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/IRC/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/IRC/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher 00:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bezhin Meadow

Hi Irpen! I started building this article on Bezhin Meadow out, and want to get it to FA status. I was wondering, as I don't speak a bit of Russian beyond saying da or nyet (probably wrong, at that) if you would mind doing a Russian translation of the title for the lead? If you're game as well, and know of any good Russian sources I could track down and possibly use for this, I would appreciate it. If not, no problem!. I started a stockpile of sources to go through here, but have a long ways to go yet. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 17:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Releasing IP addresses of registered users: the Video Professor incident

You commented on this issue at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 31#Wikipedia surrendering users' info without a fight. It was stated there that it was not an appropriate discussion forum for the topic of how hard the Foundation should and did fight to prevent revealing the IP addresses of registered users to parties who had been criticized in a Wikipedia article and who subpoenaed the user information. I have started a discussion at the Village Pump policy page at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)# Releasing IP addresses of registered users: the Video Professor incident. Your comments are welcome. Thanks. Edison (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Brest last days smirnov.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Brest last days smirnov.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

template for deletion

I've sent {{irrel}} to tfd at this location. Best regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Histography

Edits such as this have made me take an interest in the subject of the reliability of Polish communist era historians, and those later historians who rely on their works. I'm more and more leaning towards the stance that only English language sources should be allowed in English wiki, both for the sake of verifiability and for slightly more hope of neutrality. I stumbled upon this, a Polish overview of Recent Polish Historiography on Polish-Ukrainian Relations during World War II and its Aftermath. I would naturally have preferred a review from a neutral source, but perhaps it is better than nothing? cheers --Stor stark7 ^Talk 19:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stor stark7, you have the problems with Polish communist era historians, while I have to deal with this as reliable source (!). M.K. (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove legitimate warnings

There was nothing wrong with the warning Coren gave to Giano. Please stop the disruptive removal of other people's comments. There is nothing in policy that allows for that and continuing to do will be will seen as even more disruptive. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings such this and yours are unhelpful and, as experienced shown, achieve exactly the opposite result. They are removed for a very good reason. Disruptive was their placement wrapped up in their tone. --Irpen 22:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cossacks

Remember our old consensus here here well it seems some people have no respect for it, drop a thought at the talk page if you are up to it. --Kuban Cossack 23:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solving problems

Irpen, I see you referenced my note on Giano's talk page asking him to explain his further incivility. The ANI thread was on previous incivility, the problematic block that resulted, and the problematic unblock that followed. My comment was on a different topic, namely comments that Giano made in that thread. The IRC may be a mess but that doesn't give any user the right to make personal attacks on Wikipedia. I endorse any measure that can cleanup the IRC, and I also support efforts to keep Wikipedia a civil and collegial place to write an encyclopedia. Giano made no attempt to defend his comments, and he's right that there is no defense. (Just as there's no defense for some of the things that get said on IRC.) The fact that Giano is already on probation for previous incivility makes it a special problem and he should make special efforts to avoid future incivility. I hope that everyone here will help him in that effort rather than encouraging further incivility. (I posted this in reponse to your thread "A very plausible explanation that I can't escape" on Giano's page - which I then noticed had already been archived, so I'm posting it here instead.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed comment

Hello, since I know you will ask me... I have removed your comment because it was a personal attack. The user replied discussing whether or not Google or Britannica is a reliable indication on more popular phrase. You, on the other hand, attacked the character of the user based on one word that he used in his reply. You did not provide any constructive criticisms or intelligent facts that could be worked on or discussed. Please do not assume bad faith or accuse others of posting misleading comments. Thanks and I hope you understand. Renata (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done the same thing for the comment below from Vecrumba. Renata (talk)

If interested, I have responded to yours (Irpen's) on mine. —PētersV (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor note

I saw that you referred to #admins in Wisdon98's RfA. I assume you already know this, but the actual name is #wikipedia-en-admins and using the shorthand may confuse non-IRC users. I'm not sure how well known it is that #admins=#wikipedia-en-admins. John Reaves 02:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure the candidate knows exactly what I mean as well as any user who has any awareness of the context. --Irpen 02:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point, your asking if he knows of the context in which you are using the shortcut. Not a big deal though as it's easy enough to figure out. John Reaves 02:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions

Hey Irpen, thanks for your comment at my RfA. I have answered your questions. I appreciate you expressing your opinion in a detailed and very nuanced manner. I like that, it shows genuine interest. If you have any other questions, or if you wish for me to expand on those that I have already answered, feel free to drop me line. Cheers mate. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Sure, glad to help. Will keep an eye on Ghirla's talk. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Apologies

I've responded on the page, but really no hard feelings and no apologies necessary. Just as your post was not aimed at individuals but came across that way, mine did as well. I completely empathize with your side of the fence regarding the behavior on the admin channel. Both sides end up indicting each other instead of seeing that there are a few select parties on both sides responsible for the drama. Keep up your good work. Keegan^talk 06:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN thread

I would be interested in your thoughts here: WP:AN#Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. --El on ka 10:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your comment that Kwsn has in fact returned. I greatly appreciate hearing it.

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being sarcastic a little? I know you and I disagree hugely on this. I simply don't have that kind of time to post what I long since plan to but I will at some point and asap. But I would appreciate if you heed to so many requests and try to see how your posts at your page on Giano look from aside. You don't mean them offensive but they are and hugely. This can drive a person nuts much more than "incivility" or a "personal attack". Blank this stuff for two hours, think about it and, if you feel like restoring, do so after that. Just an advise. More later (as I always promise :( ). --Irpen 22:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c - I came back to add, "I've replied here to prevent AE getting more words added though.")

No, I don't really do sarcasm. Life's too short, as they say. I meant it for real. Reading your comment, as/when AE closes and I'm next around, I'm fine considering it closed too, and either blanking or replacing with a plain link to a section in an archive, if it helps. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B&E maps

Hi! I think it's not a good idea to upload a map of such a quality that it is impossible to discern most of what is written there. I've just uploaded much better version. Alæxis_¿question? 10:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-RusEmpire

Irpen, please see {{PD-RusEmpire}} which I just copied over here from the Commons...hopefully this helps with tagging of older Russian images. I also modified {{PD-Russia}} to include this as an alternative. Kelly ^hi! 17:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coren's BAG membership request

Note that I did support Coren's RfBAG, so I may have a slight bias on this issue.

If you haven't already seen the comments to your oppose on Wikipedia:Requests for BAG membership/Coren, you might wish to take a quick look. You mentioned Coren's edit of a protected policy page; it may be worth noting that it appears as if the protection happened during Coren's edit ([1]). It looks like his edit was submitted about 45 seconds after the page was protected, making it likely that this was the case. When an administrator is in the process of editing a page, and the page is protected, they're not warned that the page has since been protected, and thus Coren likely wouldn't have known about the protection when he made his edit. Ral315 (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so. However, he did not self-revert once he found out, did he?

On a separate account, this outright bating of Giano bothers me from that person, especially in view that he is an aspiring arbcom clerk. That may have little to do with BAGging but giving so many fiasco's coming from several of our botadmins I am uncomfortable already. Why should people wear so many hats? Why not write pages instead? I did not bring up the second argument to the voting page for the reason above and I would not have voted based in that alone. But I don't like his attitude and whatever "position" one attains in Wikipedia, displaying of such attitude may hurt. --Irpen 17:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

What do you think about adding this to articles? If this template can be used, can you add or take out things as necessary? Thanks, Ostap 06:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds line a good idea. First thought. What is Hetmanate doing there? Also, several fork articles listed. We really need to sort that out but for now, I guess they should all me there. --Irpen 06:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christ is Risen!

Ah, that one moment of the year when Russians and Romanians, Ukrainians and "Moldovans", Greeks and "Macedonians", Serbs and Bulgarians lay aside their petty squabbles, awed by Christ's victory over death! All the best in this glorious season of Pascha, and may its warm light enrich your days. Biruitorul (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Da, ura. Христосъ Воскресе!--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eastereggs.jpg

Thank you all!!! --Irpen 02:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image sourcing and PD images

Started this thread, which may be of interest, as it involves image sourcing and PD images. Wasn't Easter several weeks ago? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to make me blaspheme here :)(and let me know if you need a serious answer.)

Thanks for the thread. This "sources" stuff is a ticking bomb. Sites go down every day. By this logic, Betabot should scan the WWW every day and place deletion tags on Leonardo's paintings and such. What a joke! --Irpen 03:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banach origins controversy

Banach was born and spent his childhood in the area populated by Rusyns and Ukrainians. In fact, his last name and the last name of his mother is a very common name among both Rusyns and Ukrainians who lived in this area for millennia.

Banach survived the Nazi occupation of Poland during the Second World war, as well as the cruel interwar regime of the dictator-ruled Poland. Under Pilsudski dictatorship, civilian freedoms were curtailed and minorities of Poland (Ukrainians, Rusyns, Germans and Jews) were oppressed and discriminated against. Many colleagues of Banach, being Jewish, suffered from anti-Semitic discrimination and were denied any chance of gainful employment in Poland ruled by the dictator Pilsudski and his cronies. Other members of minority groups, like Banach, were forced to downplay their ethnic origins and "look Polish".

The modern day resurgence of nationalism and anti-Semitism in Poland led to a controversy surrounding the coverage of the ethnic origins of Banach and other Rusyn and Ukrainian mathematicians in the literature. Decades ago, even Encyclopedia Britannica use to describe Banach as a "Soviet mathematician". Modern-day Polish chauvinists continue the Soviet and Nazi traditions of shameless lies, trying to claim Banach as a "Polish mathematician". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

I have ported over the first section of the WG "Dealing with disputes" page, here to the EN wiki, at Wikipedia:New admin school/Dispute resolution. If you have a chance, could you please take a look before I make it more public? Thanks, --El on ka 16:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring

See this ANI thread about the edit warring at User:Videmus Omnia. Please stop edit warring and discuss there. I've sent this notice to everyone editing that page. Carcharoth (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev Governorate

Thanks; I'm not going to usurp it for long, though (I'm almost done, as a matter of fact). As for the pre-reform spelling, I'll add it to the modern one. Not sure how to handle this properly, so feel free to play around with order/formatting, etc. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Go, usurp it by all means. It needs so much work! But I will try my best to make it as complete as possible. As for the pre-reform spelling, I have neither an opinion nor a view on its usage. --Irpen 19:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've added what I could; for now anyway. By the way, I left you a comment in the body of the text, because I was not able to track where the statement about "four districts" came from. All yours now! :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what Fundukley says, verbatim (in modern spelling): "Второю эпохою в образовании Киевской Губернии было учреждение трёх Малороссийских Губерний или Наместничеств, по Указу Екатерины II, 1784 г. Сентября 16. В исполнение этого Указа, 1782 года 9 Января открыто Киевское Наместничество, составленное из 11 уездов: Киевского, и по ту сторону Днепра — Остёрского, Козелецкого, Переяславского, Пирятинского, Лубенского, Миргородского, Хорольского, Голтвянского, Городиского или Городищенского и Золотоношского. Тогда в этом краю введены были новый порядок и новые формы управления, по учреждению о губерниях, начертанному Императрицею в 1775 году."

Judging that this description is not overly specific, I could imagine the sources you used may be correct as well, although I was hesitant to leave them in the text due to the fact they did not come from particularly reliable sources and could easily be mis-interpretations of the original source (which we are yet to identify). Fundukley at least specifically names eleven uyezds. In any case, I'll keep looking and will let you know if I find anything more definite. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Aleena's RfA

Irpen...Thank you for participating in my nomination for adminship. Your comments have shown me those areas in which I need improve my understanding. I hope that my future endevors on Wikipedia will lead to an even greater understanding of it. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 04:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 30 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kiev Governorate, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the picture

Looking for something to give you back, I found this: [2] This is so "Utomlënnoe Solntse" (the film) that it reminded me immediately of Pyotr Leshchenko (the music). It is not among the pictures shown at Konstantin Korovin, but I did not dare upload it, because of the copyright concerns. "Luckily", he died in 1939, so pretty soon the copyright situation on this one will no longer be ambiguous. All the best. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some name changed

Nusche? This is a German rendering of a town somewhere in the Brody area.

What was the Soviet time name for Horokhiv?

What is the current name for Druzhkopil (Zhuravnyky)? What was it in 1944?

Can you help?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mrg, pls give me a day or two to figure this all out. --Irpen 00:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here are some answers.

Druzhkopil's modern name seems to be Zhuravnyky.[3][4] In English WW2 books (as well as at times of the Ru-Empire), it was referred to as Druzhkopol' (see Glantz[5]), the name that you can find even in Brochkaus.[6]
- Zhuravnyky is now in Horohivsky Raion (see uk:Горохівський район) but some sources mention it may have been in the now non-existing raion of Berestechko. Either it is a mistake or Berestechko used to be a raion center before. Would need to check, if this is important.
Horokhiv, or, if transliterated from Russian Gorohov does not seem to ever have changed names. Glantz uses "Gorokhuv"[7] Obviously Horokhiv and Gorokhov are not different names but one and the same name of the same place transliterated from different languages. The choice for Wikipedia should be defined by context. B&E also have an article on it: [8]
Still no idea about Nusche. Tried various spelling and came up with nothing. --Irpen 00:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for that. I just wanted to verify with you. I will also keep looking. It concerns the articles that have to do with combat in that area during 1941 (Brody) and in 1944. I was now able to find Berestechko thank you

More information on Nusche, which seems to be Нуще!

Сразу был отдан приказ по радио генералам Е. Е. Белову и А. И. Акимову выдвигать корпуса на север, к новому участку ввода в прорыв — к населенным пунктам Колтов, Нуще и увязывать взаимодействие с 15-м стрелковым корпусом П. В. Тертышного и в первую очередь с 322-й стрелковой дивизией генерала П. Н. Лащенко, 60-й армией и с 3-й гвардейской танковой армией, уже начавшей выдвижение в прорыв. http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/lelyushenko_dd/06.html

And finally, it seems to be a village from

С большим трудом примерно в 2 час. ночи 17 июля удалось найти КП сначала 3-й гвардейской танковой, а затем и 60-й армий. Они расположились очень близко один к другому — в лесочке близ с. Нуще. http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/lelyushenko_dd/06.html

Многое теперь зависело от летчиков-штурмовиков. Командир штурмового корпуса выдвинул свой командный пункт в самое узкое место «колтувского коридора» у деревни Нуще.http://www.peoples.ru/military/hero/nikolaj_stoliarov/

This is why it was important in those battles (need to find a topo map)

From this I was able to find it from here

АВДЕЕВ Юлий Федорович. род. 1924, г. Москва. Призван в 1942. Сержант, Погиб , апрель 1944. Похоронен: дер. Нуще Зборовского района Тернопольской области. Украина.http://history.tver.ru/book/book.php?r=17&ch=1

So it seems to be on the Zborov - to Lvov road?

I'll try to find it on a satellite image or a topo map somewhere, cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Biglvov2.jpg

Hi, Irpen...I'm not pushing for the above image to be deleted, I'm just asking for some clue or shred of evidence to support the claim that the image is in the public domain. Could you please provide that, or, if that's not possible, write up some kind of justification for using the image under fair use policy? Kelly ^hi! 00:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done before seeing this message. You could have done it and save time to yourself and everyone else. See, this takes us back to the speed, purpose, individual motivation and other issues of inadequate image patrolling. --Irpen 00:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, but it would have been better if the uploader had been persuaded to add a proper source. I suppose I could have added a rationale but I'm not really an expert on the article subject...my primary contributions are in adding free images to the Wikimedia Commons and in offering my (limited) copyright expertise. I really wish you wouldn't take copyright questions so personally - I'm not seeking deletion of content, I just want to keep our project free. So far as your speed and purpose complaint goes, what exactly was your concern? Kelly ^hi! 01:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I elaborated on that earlier at your talk as well as AN (it is now in the latest AN archive.) I really have nothing to add. Whatever is that you "seek" by tagging salvageable images the way you do, instead of trying a reasonable effort to fix them, you endanger the valid and valuable wp content since the image backlog is often dealt with at the same as yours (or even greater) speed Betacommand-style. --Irpen 01:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I did not mark this image for deletion, only that it needed sourcing information per WP policy. Why don't you argue for a change in policy if you don't feel that PD claims need any justification? Trust me, I add more content than I ever recommend for deletion. I really think you need to read Wikipedia:Public domain, just my opinion. Kelly ^hi! 01:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did not mark PD images for deletion? enough fantastic statements I've heard. I know enough of image policies to upload thousands of images and request permissions from photographers and my images stay for years. You should know it all better than me since you make it your business to check other people qualifications by patrolling their work. That would be fine if you were not careless and resorted to silly rules lawyering. I've seen image patrollers, both good and bad, and I can tell them when I see them. --Irpen 01:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Cossacks

Irpen,

I've been trying to tag this for notability and original research (it amounts to one big, strange piece of synthesis), and started talk page discussion, but the tags are getting tag-team removed by Galassi, Bandurist, and Lute (along with some incivil remarks by Galassi, which I addressed on his talk page [9]).

Question: should I bother trying to get the tags back up? Or should I just send the mess to AfD? What would you advise? Jd2718 (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is rather obscure to not insist in the tag's being immediately restored. Ans-mo is IMO a good guy who can listen and the article's talk is a good place to discuss. With time, I would restore the tag. The problem with AfD's is that they are usually hijacked by ethnic cliques and even inter-ethnic blocks formed along the same lines. So, it should be the last resort. For now, I would try to make points at the talk and ask Galassi and Ans-mo to be more forgiving to editors who don't share their POV. --Irpen 18:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Is there anything you'd like to ask me? In text over the Internet it's easy for messages come across the wrong way, especially secondhand.[10] Durova^Charge! 19:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I think we had enough exchanges in the past to know each other's view on many matters. If I'd like to ask you anything, I will do so in public. The "text over internet"-mode in wiki-matters that are outside checkuser, children's privacy and few other issues is an exact wrong that plagues Wikipedia, something you still fail to realize (and I said that earlier too.) It was your misconception, not the judgment error, that is ultimately responsible for the eviction of the superb content writer and the fallout it caused, while, to be fair, you are not alone in propagating this secrecy.

When we communicate (and I have no problem with that), it has always been the exact same way, through posts on-wiki with diffs clearly available to see who said what and at what time. The post-!! development of Alex Bakharev's being duped into believing of anonymous harassment of female editors fairy tale just enforced my firm belief in an advantage of onwiki conversations.

The post you refer to is a narrow comment to your post at Bishonen's page which I find an outright attack on her character, besides an outrageous attack. In addition to the message being improper and in particular that it came from you of all others I find that anyone invoking 9/11 on behalf of anyone else to be nothing but unbecoming attempts to use the national tragedy to get an advantage in whatever matter which is disrespectful of the human victims whose memory needs to be kept sacrosanct and not invoked for the stuff of convenience, either in politics or in wiki-conflicts.

But that's not all. If you read my message to the end, you will see:

It is also clear that Durova did not learn any lessons and remains all involved in sooperseekret activity still failing to realize what was really wrong with her last debacle. And what was wrong was not a mere judgment error.

I find it exceptionally ironic in view of above that your post is again about the "text over the Internet messages". Text on-wiki, Durova.

Text on-wiki

--Irpen 20:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Тот день

Victory!

File:Nrd037.jpg

Happy Victory Day! Hope this isn't inappropriate, but if I understand right this day is also to celibrate (the wikipedia page Victory Day (Eastern Europe) is vague about this). Mariah-Yulia (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Irpen.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. As you felt the need to oppose my candidacy, I would appreciate any particular thoughts or advice you may have as to what flaws in my candidacy you perceived and how you feel they may be addressed. Once again, thank you for your participation. -- Avi (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Battle of Kharkov RM

Would be interested in your input into the WP:RM on Talk:Second Battle of Kharkov.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Atrocities

Do you remember two months ago you told me "Speaking of wide-scale atrocities of Soviets in 1920s is simply anachronistic."? I think you should read this: [11]. Specifically:

"A considerable number of crimes committed by Chekists mostly in Ukrainian cities during the Red Army's advance or withdrawal in 1918-1920 are documented. One of the most horrific mass executions took place in Kyiv in 1919, when the Chekists executed no fewer than 12,000 people. It is estimated that in all the VCheKa executed more than 50,000 people. In carrying out its repressive-punitive actions, the VCheKa actively resorted to the use of hostages, a modus operandi introduced by an order issued by People's Commissar of Internal Affairs RSFSR Hryhorii Petrovsky in March 1918. There also existed a system of “respondents,” whereby individuals selected from the general population were obliged to inform the Bolshevik organs about links between the local population and those who opposed the Communists and about preparations of any kind of opposition to the regime. If the “respondents” failed to report, they were subjected to the same repressions that were meted out to hostages. In fact, terrorist actions directed against peasants and Ukrainian insurgents constituted the principal actions of the Chekists in 1920-1922 in Ukraine. "

Of course, these pictures are also quite interesting: [12].

“We shall cite a description of the feats of the commandant of the Kharkiv Cheka [Stepan] Saienko, who attained particular renown during the occupation and evacuation of Kharkiv by the Bolshe-viks in 1919. Hundreds of people were handed over to that sadist and mani-ac…Saienko's favorite method: he would stick a dagger one centimeter into the body of a person being interrogated and then turn it inside the wound… Next, the same eyewitness recounts the execution of several prisoners by Sa-ienko that same evening. Drunk or dru-gged on cocaine, Saienko appeared in the cell at 9:00 p.m. accompanied by…Staff-Captain Klochkovsky, 'he ordered Psheni-chny, Ovcharenko, and Belousov to go into the courtyard, where he stripped them naked and with his friend Klochkovsky began to cut and stab them with daggers, at first striking blows at the lower part of the body and gradually rising higher and higher. After finishing the execution, Sa-ienko returned to the cell all bloodied, with the words: “You see this blood? Everyone who goes against me and the Workers-Peasant Party will get the same thing.” (S. P. Melgunov, Krasnyi terror v Rossii, 1918-1923 [Red Terror in Russia, 1918-1923], Moscow, 1990, pp.122-123).

Sure some of this takes place in 1919, but the article currently states that "The Bolsheviks introduced universal health care, education and social-security benefits, as well as the right to work and housing. Women's rights were greatly increased through new laws aimed to wipe away centuries-old inequalities" I think it is clear that is not all they introduced. Ostap 05:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

I left you a comment there, but I'll copy it over to here. "Irpen, my GAR comment to you was (apart from the incident that led up to it) the most stupid I have ever made onwiki. I don't want you to change your stance here; you've made some good points that I'm going to learn from, pass or fail, but I do want to very publicy apologise profoundly for what I said. It was completely unacceptable."

Thanks for your words. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw. I replied to your questions there. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainians of Brazil

If you have time, could you please explain on the Ukrainians of Brazil article (or this section of the talk page [13]) that not everybody born in Ukraine is Ukrainian? Particularly not Jewish victims of pogroms committed by forces nominally under the control of Petliura (the guy himself was of course not antisemitic)? Thanks...Faustian (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do as soon as I am done going over Holodomor edits made lately. --Irpen 03:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And thanks for removing my comments from the Holodomor talk section - I meant to place them on a talk page.Faustian (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H2O's Rfa

Just so you know, your oppose was one of the two things that really put pressure on me to re-evaluate my noming him. When I read your oppose, it caused me to reconsider my actions.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't think you are any of those bad things. The problem here is taking the Wikipedia as anything other than the encyclopedia. Power-games, social games, just games, etc. And all this off-wiki activity. But at the same time, we sould not forget that editors are human beings and be mindful of that. Your action was simply poorly thought of. And that was on top of this being part of a larger problem (not of you but of Wikipedia). My advise to you is to take a break from the Wikipedia space, disconnect IRC and IM networks and do some content writing. It is a very satisfying experience. I would have offered help, but I am very much time-constrained now. Perhaps another time. --Irpen 04:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't do any IRC/IM, and the email I shared was the only email I sent... I tend to do 99.99% of my communications on wikipedia. But I do thank you for the tone above. I have every intention of redeeming myself. But I had to come clean with my concerns. Ultimately, I do think H2O should be an admin---and like I said in my comments, I would have supported him if somebody else did the nom. The problem is that by my standards, I shouldn't have nomed him because he didn't meet THOSE standards. I had said previously that I wouldn't nom somebody unless I truly felt that they were A) qualified B) ready and C) could pass the RfA. I didn't live to *MY* standards---which shouldn't be a knock on H2O. But again, it was your oppose and a comment on SandyGeorgia's page that got me to reassess my position.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Let's put this behind as, ultimately, this is all of little importance. What is more important now, is the balance between the project's and the candidate's well-being. I think, optimal balance is him remaining a committed but non-adminned wikipedian, not stressed out by this RfA (I don't believe he can reassess his fervent desire to get a bit.) I think his candidacy created as much drama as if he were, for example, that ex-admin running for resysopping. This is harsh for him and unfair. I also think he is going to pass. This is less than optimal for the project. But there is little we can do about it other than avoiding the unnecessary escalation of whatever drama is already there. Putting him on record on important issues is a "necessary escalation", if I may say so. So, this is why I asked questions. --Irpen 06:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

I've been an administrator for quite some time but I don't quite get what you mean by "because UE image uploaded by SPA" at Image:Littlejohndenbigh.jpg :) Please explain! You might want to use the standard WP:CSD codes to help us delete the images you tag. Thanks. enochlau (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a totally unencyclopedic (UE) image of some regular dude, perhaps known in RL to the account holder. It is now unusued but its only past usage was the red-linked account adding it as a main image to a penis article. I want this deleted and the apparence of its unencyclopedic intention and even a BLP concern is obvious enough to skip the discussion and vote. But I truly don't care that much. Act as you wish. --Irpen 17:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't doubting your intentions; I just wanted to know what UE and SPA mean. enochlau (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antares (band)

Hi Irpen and thank you for your message on my talk page ! However, I'm sorry, but I can't help you for the article on Antares :( ... I know almost nothing about this topic (although I liked two of their songs), I simply added the discography from the French article. I hope you'll find sources in order to expand this article. Good luck and sorry again ! PS: Sorry for my bad English, it's not my native language ! :) Regards, Europe22 (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate your comment

Here, thank you--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best but I am not exactly an expert. --Irpen 05:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Irpen. I wasn't looking for an expert, just an objective, impartial assessment. I have seen your record of edits and other participation, notably on the sources Advisory Board being proposed. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding comments

Hi Irpen, I want to start out by saying that I detest "mill" admin candidates. I've removed myself from admin coaching because I feel that the only editors that go there are editors hellbent on being admins instead of editors. I'm on your side with this. I have made it my goal, as an admin, and as a "non-content" editor (I suck at it, trust me you don't want me adding articles), to find good candidates for adminship. My goal is to find candidates that are article builders, consensus driven, and that only have the best ideas in mind, and the right attitude about, adminship. With this in mind, I have offered to Enigmaman my nomination (something I'll just as easily decline or abstain from as I don't take nominations lightly). You've complete mislabeled this editor. In this instance, the email contained nothing personal (I saw it before Scarian deleted it, and actually, I called him on it as not really needing deletion). There has been no "off wiki" coaching. No coaching at all in fact. Enigmaman is a good editor. He contributes to Wikipedia. He has done article work, vand. work, Xfd work, etc, with poise, maturity, and clue. I also oppose "mill" candidates. Enigmaman is not one of them, and has somehow, to my great surprise, been labeled incorrectly as such. It is a huge disappointment to me, as I'm sure it is to E-man, who refused nominations for months before finally accepting one. Just my rants here. Sorry to intrude on your talkpage with this. I'm simply seeing an editor being beaten up for no good reason. (and not just by you). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeper, I appreciate your post but I guess we have to disagree here. E-man is a useful editor, but judging from the oppose section of his RfA, there are important concerns why he should just stay an editor he is, doing useful work for the project, as any position that would grant him power over editors is not advisable. I went in a greater detail at the RfA (and its talk.) People refuse nominations for various reasons, like being uninterested, busy (RfA takes a huge chunk of an entire week), having a recent controversy, waiting for a "right time", etc. I only saw little of this editor and what I saw was disconcerting enough. Lack of content writing is usually a good rule of thumb even though, I admit, exceptions are possible as there are some very good non-writing admins. The key reason why the content writing is important isn't that lack of it indicates the bad (or wrong) attitude (although it might.) More importantly, non-writing admins more often than writing ones make bad decisions in addressing the issues that fall from the content disputes, the decision that affects greatly the article writers. When I said a while ago, that the main goal of admins is to create the comfortable editing environment for the editors, you won't believe the amount of ridicule this received from... non-writing admins.

That aside, two other things that concern me is lack of humility, lack of ability to admit to a mistake and the sheer amount of off-wiki activity. I elaborated on these things elsewhere and there is no need to repeat that all. If you have any further concerns, please consider bringing them up at the RfA or its talk. I don't mind talking, but my page is too much out of the view for those who may be interested in this discussion. --Irpen 03:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your civil and candid response. I will drop the issue, as you say, to agree to disagree. You make valid points and have reasoned them out and have come to a different conclusion. Happens all the time, no big deal. As an aside, (as a "non-writing" admin), I completely agree with your sentiment that creating a comfortable editing environment for "the writers" should be the main goal. It's what I try to do anyway. Sorry I missed whatever forum that was posted in. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I inquired for help as to the location of that discussion and Lar recalled it and found a link. You can find it in the bottom thread at Lar's talk. Regards, --Irpen 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that was a fascinating read. Thanks for going the extra step! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Shipbuilding

Thank you for the honorary title of "Accomplished Shipbuilder"! :-) I am very, very interested and enjoy writing about the shipbuilding in the region. So, you will see more articles created and others being expanded by me over the next few weeks. In the mean time, I appreciate your quality checking my work and especially spelling, transliteration, Cyrllic, etc. Could you check out Leninska Kuznya Shipyard which needs cyrllic :-) Perhaps a nice info table listing all Ukrainian shipbuilding yards/plants would be cool in the future.

Thanks again! chiefhuggybear (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will do what I can. DDima would be the right person to ask to create a navigational template. :I will ask him. Cheers, --Irpen 02:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! chiefhuggybear (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle on the river Nemiga

I just created this, but had trouble finding one of the personalities. Can you help?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ragneda

You changed wife to concubine in the recent Battle on the river Nemiga I created, and I'm just curious about that because the Russian had converted to Christianity by then, so what would he do with a concubine? The one source I looked at said wife--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if sources call her "wife", we've got to change it back. However, in general, concubines were taken in pos-Christianization time. See for instance Kiev Expedition (1018). This is one of the most difficult to edit articles for the reasons similar to the Home Army. You can find out why from its talk page. --Irpen 16:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design RfC

At this RfAR, you've expressed some interest in behaviour of editors at articles related to intelligent design. As an outcome, User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC provides a Workspace, with discussion at User talk:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. We also must try to resolve the dispute and as a first step my suggestion is developing guidelines or procedures aimed improving behaviour from now on, so that the desired outcomes can be achieved amicably. Your assistance and comments will be much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 14:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Lviv 1939 Soviet Cavalry.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lviv 1939 Soviet Cavalry.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. Lupo 09:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SYNning

I know its wrong to lower to their level, but how about a Magnification of Holodomor effects or better Propaganda in Ukraine? --Kuban Cossack 12:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless you can find the serious dedicated sources where this subject is studied. The POV forks created by POV-pushers need to be shot down rather than responded with more forks. --Irpen 17:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Propaganda in Ukraine going to achieve: more edit wars! Besides if I use this source [14] and combine it with some tables from [15] I could easyly create an article called Russian propaganda about Ukraine. The selective indignation from some Russian wikipedians is the main problem in my opinion. All this bla-bla-bla about anti-Russian language in Ukraine, but if you ask for facts they always bring that bloody poster up and nothing else. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See what you mean

[16], Yes, it might be better that way. M0RD00R (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intercession needed

Dear Irpen: Your views and mine do not coincide on many points, but you are someone that other users often heed advice from. User:ISasha is currently involved in editwarring, where he brands everything he does not agree with as "vandalism" and summarily removes it (e.g. The Soviet Story, Alexander Dyukov). His contributions to talk pages can be sometimes construed as trolling, especially when he adopts a "Just you wait..." style. As you well know, this is exactly the kind of thing that gets the notorious "Baltic-fascist apologist-revisionist editors' clique" (BaFAREC) all riled up (mobilised quicker than a Waffen-SS legion!), thereby guaranteeing that it will be next to impossible to create a more or less NPOV article for the foreseeable future. Your words have in the past consoled User:Dojarca that the Motherland will not fall on the basis of a single flawed Wikipedia article. Perhaps you could work your magic again, and help remind ISasha that even those who are right have to be gracious and civil on Wikipedia towards those who are so obviously in the wrong? Thanks! —Zalktis (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, you can forget this request. Things have already escalated to the point where blocks are going to be imposed, I'm sure. Sorry to waste your time. —Zalktis (talk) 10:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Irpen, for taking the time to do this anyway. —Zalktis (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you know...

The copyright status of [17]? Can we transfer it to Commons and/or en wiki? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:39, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be easier if the image had a more clear source. With a source, there is an iron-clad case for en-wiki. I am not sure what are current rules in commons. Nor do I care about that failed project. --Irpen 07:19, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a bad feeling that this is just a truncated piece of logo of commercial site http://www.sgv.pl/ with sgv standing not only for Severnaya Gruppa Voisk but also for the site's logo Snova Gotovy Vstretitsya (Ready to Meet Again). I could not find the logo elsewhere. I could not believe any official symbol of a Soviet Army formation could be devoid of red star or at least of something red. Blue was considered a traditional color for designating enemies or something Airborn (in that case accompanied with the Red Star). If I am wrong and it was indeed an official symbol then it is {{PD-RU-exempt}} valid on both en-wiki and commons but please find a source first Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The pl wiki links ru wiki as a source but the link to ru wiki is broken (or the image was deleted?). Perhaps somebody with a better knowledge of Russian than my non-existing one could find the logo and see if it is correct?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image seems suspicious (see Alex' note above) and until the source is found, I would be wary of using it. --Irpen 20:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptions and abuse on Ukrainian Insurgent Army article

After a break from such behavior Jo0doe (talk has resumed with his abusive behavior here [18] ("Inability to read and comprehend books by some of editors it’s not a hurdle for others, while removing of well referenced NPOV information called as usual -vandalism") and here [19]. He has already been by you and others about warned about such behavior in the past: [20]. I've already informed two admins about this and thought I'd let you know that I have done so.Faustian (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed his posts. If he has anything to say, he will have to say it again in an acceptable form. --Irpen 19:25, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rus symbols

Do you know if the colors in this image are right? Apparently it's the coat of arms of the Yaraoslav although in the source it is in black and white, not the blue and yellow colors of the modern Ukrainian coat of arms the uploader changed it to. He has uploaded several other Rus symbols using this coloring.--Miyokan (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can find more at the talk:Kievan Rus. The only emblem of those whose colors are indeed known to be yellow and blue is the Galician. The rest are the user's fantasies. --Irpen 03:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--Miyokan (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holodomor template

Why must you keep removing the template? Don't you agree with Alex Bakharev's changes? I thought he made a reasonable compromise. Ostap 01:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove the template from Holodomor indeed we are making progress with it. However, it should not be added to a more general Soviet famine article, as Bobanni is repeatedly trying. --Irpen 03:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN

I strongly, strongly urge you not to unarchive the portion of the AN thread that I archived. Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've been there. Please do not try to shut down the discussion before it runs out. I strongly urge you. --Irpen 22:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I archived only a portion of the discussion, specifically the entirely unhelpful piece. I've been around long enough to know helpful discussion from unhelpful discussion. Discussion about ArbCom's role in the future is legitimate discussion. One hundred people posting 'wow' is not. And then there are the calls from FT2 to be de-sysopped, etc. The nonsense stops now. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, I am not alone restoring the discussion that seems to you "inactive". Oh my. I wish you learned from past cases when active issues where tried to be swept under the rug. *Shake head* --Irpen 22:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Point well made. I had a lengthy reply that I wanted to post, but thought better of it, following the adage that it's better to not say anything at all than it is to inflame a situation. FT2 is incredibly well-respected in the community, and with calls for him to be de-sysopped and other ridiculousness without ever hearing his side of the story, I became incredibly frustrated. And, of course, seventeen people posting "zomg that's shocking" certainly wasn't helpful, though I can certainly see the argument that discussion is healthy and normal and can resolve a situation more quickly (or with less drama). And, I was rather brusque as I was about to head out for dinner. It seems that the situation is quickly resolving itself, though I hope the community will take this as a lesson to trust those they put into power and to assume good faith when accusations and misunderstandings begin to float in the air. Assuming good faith... we used to cherish that around here. In my mind, I have to admit that I put you into the same category as Ned Scott; at times you're defensive and can be mean as hell, but you've been around long enough that it's clear you always have the project's best interests at heart and you always do what you think is right. Which, quite frankly, is incredibly admirable, as I know it's run you (and Ned) into trouble in the past. Keep up the good work. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't agree with some of your opinions above but I am happy to consider the matter patched. BTW, I don't remember running into trouble. I have my share of "admirers" at #admins, true enough, but no trouble so far. Hope it will stay that way. Cheers, --Irpen 02:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and apology

Irpen, character matters, and the comments you've made here are indicative of strong character. I apologize to whatever I might have said to you in the heat of battle. Secret decisions must remind you of Stalinism. Of course, I believe Stalin allowed lawyers for the defense. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --Irpen 22:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Orangemarlin RFAR

Per ruling of the arbcom here: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Orangemarlin#Arbitrator_views_and_discussion an RFAR on Orangemarlin has been opend here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#User:Orangemarlin. You are invited to submit your evidence and statements.. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GII

Re [21]. I disagree with (nearly) all of that. Once again, let me suggest that you take it to the ANI thread William M. Connolley (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

USSR not Ukraine for country of birth

Just wanted to make you aware of this class of edits being done across biographies of individuals born in former Soviet republics. I changed the one in this article to a compromise solution which you may agree with, or you may prefer the prior or original edit for country of birth. You're in a better position regarding Ukraine. —PētersV (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley

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/Geogre-William M. Connolley/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/Geogre-William M. Connolley/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 02:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your Arbcom activism

I support your push to make Arbcom act responsibly in the OM situation. I find the secrecy to be a massive violation of AGF -- The commission has assumed bad faith of us all by not communicating. It wasn't just a "screw up." It's a violation of policy, and it continues to this day without apology. And the occasional cryptic statement that has come out over the past week have not been communicative at all; the opposite, in fact. The Arbcom's behavior literally makes me nauseous. Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. I assure you that you and I are not alone to think so. --Irpen 20:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re

Are you asking about the edit or the edit summary? If its the edit summary, that was meant for this IP editor [22] who was following Horlo around reverting him. I believe that is the very definition of wikistalking, isn't it? Ostap 22:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it better to ask that IP editor first if he had a good reason first before sending the wikipolice after him? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:47, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anon stalking continues: [23]. What can be done? Ostap 03:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea who is this anon and what is he doing, but WP:STALK specifically says:

In particular, proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles

I can see how anon could have found Horlo as a tendentious POV-pusher (I am of the same opinion of this editor) and decided to check his other contributions to see whether there are similar policy violations in other articles. Anon's edits themselves do not seem to me wrong or intentionally disruptive. He reverted some of the Horlo's edits that would have likely been reverted anyway and were in the past reverted by others. Reverting Horlo's rabid tag-edits or using names in violations of the naming conventions are edits that are essentially correct. Now, personally, I don't follow the edits of disruptive accounts simply because I think this is too much honor for them to spend my time this way, but if anyone makes his business to correct Horlo's edits, that person is editing within the policy. If he would be following Horlo from page to page attacking him and picking fights, that would have been another story. If someone would be following you, Ostap, I would also strongly disapprove it since your edit history is diverse and productive unlike that of Horlo whose entire wiki-career consists of tendentious POV-pushing. --Irpen 05:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That is good to know. But I disagree with your opinions of Horlo (he has created many articles), and I ask you to reconsider and to keep assuming good faith. Ostap 07:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I would see him editing differently from what I have seen so far, I will be happy to reconsider. I always assume good faith but sometimes there is nothing left to assume. Having to wear pink glasses is not part of WP:AGF. --Irpen 07:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation is wrong

Re [24]. I didn't get mad and I didn't block G for offending me. I blocked him, as I said, for incivility. I'd be grateful if you would correct your mistake William M. Connolley (talk) 14:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William. I am talking about increasing the block length, not the initial block, which was clearly within the policy despite, IMO, was also mistake. --Irpen 18:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So am I. I repeat my request William M. Connolley (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't get you. I am not trying to play games but I can't see what you mean. --Irpen 19:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've read the block log, I'm sure [25]. The second block was for repeated incivility and the third for re-repeated incivility William M. Connolley (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the block log does not say "because I am annoyed". But you were annoyed by how your block was received and especially that it was overturned and you acted upon it. As stated at multiple places including, users who are blocked can understandably feel very much pissed off because of the humiliation. Even if the block is very needed, there is no reason to escalate the situation further and react to the user's reaction. It was discussed many times, including at the workshop. Please read the entire context of this remedy and see what it is about. --Irpen 19:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are making things up. You have added text to the talk page as statements of fact that are simply based on your own guesswork William M. Connolley (talk) 21:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you talking about? --Irpen 23:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note

Hi there. Please note I've moved your request to the talk page from the section titled 'Motions and requests by parties' in the Workshop of the Geogre-William M. Connolley ArbCom case as you are not a party to the case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I noticed that before your message and reposted it to my own section if this makes everyone happier. --Irpen 07:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers - no problem. :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comments

[26] - Oh really? You would've done it differently? Do you have any experience in handling 3RR violations? Are you an admin? Did you write the guide for handling 3RR violations like me? Did you get support for the block that you made on Folantin? What? No? Well, I did/am all of the above things. So doing it differently would've resulted in a much less effective outcome, obviously. Thanks though :-) Outside input is appreciated, even if it's not considered. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 12:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scarian, I was involved in the editing, so my views are probably biased, but I would rather protected the article for a few days than blocked the participants. Kuban Kazak has added a lot of material that should be in the article but written from a strong pro-Russian nationalist POV. Some material was not particularly well referenced but it is more or less public knowledge for those interested in the matters. I was trying to NPOV Kuban's additions, Folantin at first reverted wholesale but than started to work on improving the text, Kuban was trying to get better references. Overall it was not a sterile revert war but a sort of productive work (although overemotional and with assumptions of bad faith from all sides). I would think protecting the article for a few days so to cool down the things and allow more discussions would be more productive than blocks for edit warring (I have heard of DMCDEVIT solution for edit warring just not agree with it). This is my opinion, you were in charge and your actions were different. You were absolutely entitled to them. Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Alex. Scarian, I don't get your barrage at all. Can't I disagree with how you handled this report without your coming here with such stuff? I've seen you handling such conflicts in an eager and block-happy way before and if Folantin initiates a recall, I will back him up, based on your past blocks regardless of what I think of Folantin. I can find diffs for other examples if necessary. Now, would you please reconsider your arrogant attitude if you want to have a discussion. Some humility won't heart. Thank you. --Irpen 14:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm confused: "humility won't heart"? Sorry? What? Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 18:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, additionally, my recall criteria is: "5 editors in good standing, acting in good faith" - I do not consider you in good-standing, Irpen, neither would you be acting in good faith. You have a personal vendetta against myself because of Enigmaman's RfA. It's clear to me that you hold that grudge and don't appear to be letting it go despite this being just (and only) an encyclopaedia. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 18:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scarian, I have little doubt that users who come here mainly not to write content won't give up tools easily. So, I was actually surprised by finding out that you are formally open to recall. Now I see the sincerity of your listing yourself there better. Of course you can disqualify any editor who thinks your adminning is harmful for this project and make things up about faith. You are neither the first nor the last among the admins who won't give the sysop rights voluntarily under any circumstances. Not listing yourself in the category would be more honest than acting like you do, but it does not matter much to me.

Oh, and I did not even remember that it was you who acted so weirdly and E-man's RfA. I only remembered you from other rash blocks at 3RR. See, I really don′t make it a point to try to remember every editor whose inappropriate behavior I witnessed. The especially voluminous cases tend to stick to my memory better but not because I make it a point to remember who is good and who is bad. I try to judge each conflict on its own merit, not on the participants' names. But now that you reminded me, I will probably not forget that you were indeed among the main actors of E-man's RfA. --Irpen 19:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glaring example of original research from the UPA article

Irpen, I've dramatically reorganized my comments so that my point is clearer and easier to understand. I hope you don't mind such an edit to my comment:

One of the things that Jo0doe wants to place in the article is the following [27][28]:

"Accordingly to documents presented to the International Military Tribunal documents Ukrainian organizations (OUN(B)) which are working with Amt Abwehr have same (as Nazi’s) “objectives”, namely, the Poles and the Jews [47]. Such “objects” described as “all farms and dwelling of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed” [48]. "

Fortunately the references are available on-line (although Jo0doe did not provide the on-line reference - I wonder why). The first reference [47] is here: [29] and the second reference here: [30].

Now let's look at what Jo0doe tried to do with those two documents. As we have seen, he tried to make an edit to the article asserting that according to documents presented to the International Military Tribunal Ukrainian organizations working with the Abwehr had the same goals as the Nazis with respect to Jews and Poles including all Polish dwellings going up in flames and all Jews killed. The "evidence" for this are:

a transcript of an interview [31]in which an Austrian officer describes in 1945, a conversation he overheard six years earlier in 1939 between Keitel and Canaris with no OUN members (or any Ukrainians) present, in which Keitel is overheard stating "You, Canaris, have to promote an uprising with the aid of the Ukrainian organizations which are working with you and which have the same objectives, namely, the Poles and the Jews." This bit of information is the basis for Jo0doe writing "Accordingly to documents presented to the International Military Tribunal documents Ukrainian organizations (OUN(B)) which are working with Amt Abwehr have same (as Nazi’s) “objectives”, namely, the Poles and the Jews..." into the article.

another excerpt from the interview [32] in which Ribbentrop is said to be planning an instigation of Galician Ukraine aimed at the extermination of Poles and Jews. According to the interviewed officer, in 1945 he stated that he overheard in 1939 Ribbentrop say to Canaris "...that the uprising should be so staged that all farms and dwellings of the Poles should go up in flames, and all Jews be killed."

So on the basis of conversations between German officials recalled six years after the conversation, the reader is led by Jo0doe to believe that OUN and Nazi policies towards the Jews were the same and the goal was extermination of the Jews.

I wonder what others think of this style of editting?

It's more than original research - it's deceitful use of primary sources. And unfortunately, it fits a longstanding pattern of this person's edits.Faustian (talk) 23:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How much longer will this sort of thing be tolerated?Faustian (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sort of busy with many RL matters today and some first-degree malice of a much grander scale. But I promise to look at this withing 24 hours. Sorry for not being able to be more helpful. More later. --Irpen 16:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you know

I hope you know Folantin both on Papa Novembers talk page, and both in the already old incidents page discussion, continues to speak against you. Papa November already told him that he doesn't buy it and that he know's your honest, and i also argue with Folantin about his claims on you, but that would really be nice if you could answer him. And by the way, do you know when Kuban Cossacks block will expire? Thank you. Log in, log out (talk) 17:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said it all I have to say on this matter. Folantin is merely disgracing himself by engaging in his accusations that border outright xenophobia and running amok all around Wikipedia. Your arguing with him would be also a waste of time. I have to do some non-wikipedia stuff for the next several hours. I will see if there is anything left to be said by the time I am back. --Irpen 18:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Define "running amok all around Wikipedia". Today, I've edited my own page, ANI and Papa November's talk page and asked a question at WP:WORKINGGROUP. I hardly think the encyclopaedia is in imminent peril from my editing. --Folantin (talk) 18:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folantin, please stop dramatising yourself. Besides putting some flowers on the street and halping an old lady to cross the road, you said really not nice things on Irpen on the incidents page and on Papa November's page. Log in, log out (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello,

Thank you for your help in wikifying the articles I have started, like here [[33]]. Unfortunately, because I have been busy in real life, I have not have the time I would have liked to get acquainted with all of the details I should have. You obviously know more about those brackets than I do.

However, please do not revert direct quotes.

WP is a learning process for us all.

Thanks, Horlo (talk) 09:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Katerinoslav is not a direct quote. It is the name of the city spelled in this source contrary to our Wikipedia rules. If the name is used as a part of the quote in "quotation marks", that would be a different story. Here it is not and there is no need to. Some English sources of Ukrainian origin use Ukrainianized English words like Dnipro or Pivdenny Buh. It does not warrant using uncommon names in articles. BTW, thank you for your civil comment. I hope it stays that way from now on. --Irpen 15:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Martintg's driveling on again

You received a mention--Miyokan (talk) 10:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Tatar Invasion and the Battle on the Kalka River

Hello Irpen. The Battle of the Kalka River is currently listed as a featured article candidate. This is not really my thing. I have read a little on Kievan Rus', but I know nothing about the Tatar invasions. However, when I compare the detail in this article with what I've read in Fennell and Martin's histories, and with what Google Books shows of Martin Dimnik's works on the Sviatoslavichi of Chernigov, and what Leo de Hartog's book seems to say, I am a bit worried by all the vivid details of the campaign and battle which appear in the article. The numbers look entirely implausible I must say. Do you have any information on this subject? Do you have an opinion of the article? Please do let me know what you think! Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK about recent changes in the World of Science

Now scholar works which not included in Google will not be treated as such (scholar).
Non-English Works of National Academies of Science will have a fringe nature for the purposes of English wikipedia. (bottom of the topic [34]
May be it’s will be new for you but in addition to “темники” Kuchma also scrutinized work of Institute of History Ukrainian Academy of Sciences about UPA and was amongst authors of such. [35] (bottom of the topic)

So could you advice me a mediator with practical knowledge in Psychiatry – I’m worried about my mental health in regards of mentioned aboveJo0doe (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working Group Wiki Final Report

Hey, as a reminder, the Working Group is approaching our 6-month deadline for producing our final report. The draft is being built at [36]. Could you please stop in, and see if there is anything you'd like to add? Or if not, just signoff at the talkpage that you are okay on how things are going? Thanks, Nishkid (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

The Arbitration Committee has rendered decisions passing a motion to apply discretionary sanctions remedies to the case linked above. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ("articles which relate to Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted") if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The final text of the motions can be found at the case page linked above.

— Coren ^(talk) for the Arbitration Committee, 14:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Ohtyrka historical CoA.gif

A tag has been placed on Image:Ohtyrka historical CoA.gif requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Ohtyrka historical CoA.gif|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Sdrtirs (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed massive reorganization of the UPA article

Please see [37]. I would like to have your opinion if possible, thanks!Faustian (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Working Group Final Report

As a reminder, the Working Group's deadline to post a final report, occurs on August 7. A draft final report is now on EN, at Wikipedia:Working group on ethnic and cultural edit wars/Draft report. Could you please review it, and either edit it, post comments at the talkpage, and/or post your endorsement at the bottom of the report? Thanks, Nishkid (talk) 23:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OoooOOo

Following a link from Keeper's page, I never realized that you'd brought up the Scarian/Eman thing from June at the RfA talkpage. No one informed me that there was a discussion... and I might have been able to explain things better. Ol' well, though. Water under the bridge, and it seemed as though I was very quoted. :) In the end, I'd like to thank you for not assuming the worst of me. From what I see and read of your talk page, and contribs, I believe that you're one of the small handful of admins that I can trust. Happy editing! Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 14:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Oh, don't worry, Irpen isn't an admin. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 17:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Please pull in your horns, Scarian. Irpen hasn't edited since early July. Don't greet him with that kind of hostility, in case he logs in to check his page. "Don't worry", to somebody who wrongly thinks Irpen is an admin... ? Presumably the person was under that impression because Irpen is a well-known, hardworking, and widely respected user, no matter what your personal opinion of him may be, or mine, for that matter. To somebody who praises Irpen for being a trustworthy admin? Is that really a good joke, do you think...? You are an admin, but that doesn't constitute a general license for amusing yourself at the expense of users. BTW, I notice an angry, aggressive post of yours, higher up on this page.[38] As luck would have it, Irpen went on a wikibreak soon after you posted it. It bothers me to see you attack him both coming and going, even though I'm sure that aspect of your posts on his page is accidental. Anyway, Irpen's comment that you responded to on July 6 was mild enough. Your reply was, well, bad-tempered is the least I can call it. Your best recourse would have been to completely ignore what he'd said instead of (apparently)holding Irpen to a higher standard of conduct than you hold yourself. I'm sure you're really aware of the principle that "Wikipedia's administrators are held to a higher standard of behavior than other users". See [39], an arbcom comment which has passed into policy by being linked from WP:ADMIN. Could you please take a little timeout to consider these points? Of course I can't dictate your actions, but I really wish you would take Irpen's page off your watchlist. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 20:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Seconded. (including the best wishes). Keeper ǀ 76 20:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... *through gritted teeth* thanks Keeper. - No. I shall stop being angry now. I guess I've always had a bad temper on here and it really has collided with some people. I've decided to stop giving into the addiction :-) - I don't think I'm a bad person. I know how to be nice and polite. I guess I just lose control when I see things that I believe are wrong. That happens with everyone. Irpen, in the past, I've found some of your comments to be enraging to the point of wanting to burn my whole flat down. But oh well :-) I am passed that as of now. I have nothing against you personally. You're a human being. I'm genetically programmed to love you in some sort of fashion. Maybe not physically just yet... We'll talk about that another time (if you're into that sort of thing... I'm game if you are?). Anyway, I'd just like to say I'm sorry for losing my temper with you. I promise I won't engage in any future discussions on Wikipedia that will lead to me swearing or losing my temper. This includes ignoring Kurt Maxwell Weber, any cabals, Daniel Brandt, and the poo (that's not a swear word) stain that is Wiki Review. I promise I won't make fun of, belittle, insult or upset anyone (intentionally) ever again on Wikipedia or Wikipedia Review or on the Internet in general. I wholeheartedly and unreservedly apologise to anyone whom I have upset over the past 17 months and I will endeavour to patch things up with them again. Thank you to everyone whom has been nice to me :-) Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 20:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*blinks* Wow. This is better than TMZ on TV. Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 21:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

zOMGWTFBBQ!!! I love TMZ on TV!!! Reminds me daily of all the people that are much worse off than me, a la Cops. Glad this could be entertaining to you, QB! That all said, I think it's only fair that this moves away from Irpen's talkpage. He hasn't edited in over a month, what a weird thing to come back to (and please come back, I). Keeper ǀ 76 21:39, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kiev night view.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kiev night view.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ViperSnake151 23:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Kiev night view.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Kiev night view.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [40], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Kiev night view.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ViperSnake151 14:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Image:Kievsovet.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:Kievsovet.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [41], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Kievsovet.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. ViperSnake151 14:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your template may be undeleted

See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_August_19#Template:Irrel.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bombing of London.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bombing of London.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Lodz liberation3.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lodz liberation3.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:History of Ru-related

"Controversy" of having trade relations with Nazis

The uses and limitations of private information

Jewish Cossacks

Novorossiya

Image:Lviv 1939 Soviet Cavalry.jpg listed for deletion

DYK

Bezhin Meadow

Releasing IP addresses of registered users: the Video Professor incident

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Brest last days smirnov.jpg)

template for deletion

Histography

Please do not remove legitimate warnings

Solving problems

Removed comment

Minor note

Your questions

Images

RE:Apologies

AN thread

Thanks

B&E maps

Coren's BAG membership request

Template

Christ is Risen!

Image sourcing and PD images

Banach origins controversy

Dispute resolution

Please stop edit warring

Kiev Governorate

Lady Aleena's RfA

DYK

Thanks for the picture

Some name changed

Your comment

Тот день

Victory!

Rfb participation thanks

Second Battle of Kharkov RM

Soviet Atrocities

My RfA

H2O's Rfa

Huh?

Would appreciate your comment

Regarding comments

Ukrainian Shipbuilding

Ragneda

Intelligent design RfC

Possibly unfree Image:Lviv 1939 Soviet Cavalry.jpg

WP:SYNning

See what you mean

Intercession needed

Would you know...

Disruptions and abuse on Ukrainian Insurgent Army article

Rus symbols

Holodomor template

AN

Thanks and apology

User:Orangemarlin RFAR

GII

USSR not Ukraine for country of birth

Thank you for your Arbcom activism

re

Your interpretation is wrong

Please note

Regarding your comments

Glaring example of original research from the UPA article

I hope you know

Hello

User:Martintg's driveling on again

First Tatar Invasion and the Battle on the Kalka River

DYK about recent changes in the World of Science

Working Group Wiki Final Report

Speedy deletion of Image:Ohtyrka historical CoA.gif

Proposed massive reorganization of the UPA article

Working Group Final Report

OoooOOo

Image:Kiev night view.jpg listed for deletion

Speedy deletion of Image:Kiev night view.jpg

Speedy deletion of Image:Kievsovet.jpg