User talk:AndriyK/Arc080306

Ukraine-related topics in WP[edit]

Hi again! Please take a look at Ukraine portal here at Wikipedia. It may be useful to find out what's going on in UA-related topics. You may want to add two announcement boards there to your watchlist:

Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements (don't forget to announce your articles there too),

and

Portal:Ukraine/Ukraine-related Wikipedia notice board

Regards, --Irpen 07:21, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andriy, once again I offer you to engage into some kind of constructive discussion. I see what position you are coming from and I respect that. However, your language and pattern will lead nowhere. Instead of deleting, cut-and-pasting, cursing and throwing occasional phrases that disrupt article's flow, please do some constructive editing. Many articles do need improvement to be sure but we don't need to bring this spirit here. If it is too much to ask of you to engage into creative editing, please make a better use of talk pages. I hope, you will bring some positive contribution to Ukrainian topics. --Irpen 07:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Andriy, your work on Ukraine-related articles and other contributions are appreciated, but please keep in mind that other Wikipedians have already put in a lot of work to make them what they already are, and this is a collaborative project. Conflict and stress are hugely counterproductive, as we have learned from past experiences in this community. In the long run your contribution would be even more positive if you would wp:assume good faith and be a bit more wp:civil. Regards, Michael Z. 2005-10-6 16:28 Z

Dear Michael, thanks for your message. In fact, I just reminded Irpen that s/he (as everybody else) should respect Wikipedia policy. (You can check this. I signed my messages on my and Irpen's talk pages). Is this a reason for a conflict or stress? ;) --AndriyK 17:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just that, huh? Or should I quote from the original messages you posted at ua-wikipedia talk pages about my work in exact words that you were using and calling others to join in? You may consider apologizing but you don't have to, as I said. I won't loose my sleep over this. If that anon phobic attack on my talk wasn't yours it was from one of the buddies in response to your call. That was indeed somewhat painful to see after the work I put writing about my country for Wikipedia unlike your foul language that speak about no one but yourself.

Michael and myself had MANY disagreements and we always worked them out. It is OK to disagree. If you stay polite and raise your objections civilly, fine, we'll work them out. If they remain unresolvable, we could ask for more eyes checking this. Anything can be worked out with patience and good faith.

Other than Michael and myself there is just a handful of editors who are trying to cover Ukraine grossly underrepresented in en-wiki. If you want to help, fine. Join in! If all you do is deletion, uncivil attacks, unwarranted Ukrainization of names (Chernihiv) and random dumping of information that advance your views into the articles (Bogolyubsky into Kiev) you will just make things more difficult. Or was that again some of those you recruited who did that? Chernihiv in its recent form was written by me from a totally pitiful shape and I took all care I could to use names (not just Russian but Polish too) correctly in the contexts. Then you, guys, come and do nothing but the name changes actually enforcing a modern Ukrainian name to the times it doesn't belong. I mean can't you improve the article, add to the history, etc? Similar with Bogolyubsky. He was introduced into two Kiev articles right into the very first paragraph. Why waste everyone's time? If you see the important info is missing and have no time or desire to do it properly, add it to talk! If you hesitate to write for the article because of your English, don't hesitate a bit! My own English needs improvement too and Michael and others copyedit my text all the time.

One more time, I suggest we stop this warring. Don't suspect anyone who you disagree in being anti-Ukrainian. We really have enough edit conflicts with some of our neighbors to add to this. --Irpen 03:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I accept your retraction of uncivil remarks and I hope anon who signed Gutsul will retract his. Anyway, let's move on. I hope we will manage to cooperate in imrpoving the UA-coverage. There certainly will be differences but they can be worked out. Vsyogo naykrashchogo, --Irpen 07:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

напиши рац . предложение - пусть web-дизайнер немного доработает логику сайта : перед редактированием или сохранением текста запрашивать перевод 10 контрольных слов на национальный (украинский) язык (например rope -> мотузка)-> если введут правильно -> сохраняется -> а кацапи ж не знають як по українськи правильно то вони хрен и сохранять текст

Lviv[edit]

Most of your editing there was indeed just substitution of what was already there with a POV terms ("Nazi ally", "occupation", etc). These are valid POV's but still not universally agreed. You may want to check the Allies of World War II article's talk for this discussion. Your removal of the link to OUN is unwarranted. There is only one factual disagreement. The article said that Soviet policies of Russification were preceeded by Ukrainization (that was indeed the case to suppress the Poles and replace them in the city, initially by Ukrainians. Russification came later. If you disagree, cite your sources. BTW, you are one step away from violating 3RR if you haven't violated it already while I was writing this. Please make a use of talk:Lviv. --Irpen 07:01, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes and to keep the context of the discussions you may respond at your own talk. I will keep an eye on it. Similarly, I mostly respond at my talk when I get the message there. --Irpen 07:07, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had a really difficult day and I may not get to all the conserned articles immediately but I will get to them eventually. BTW, your calling on others to help you find a workaround against 3RR is childish. It will take only an anouncement at Russia portal to get some angry voices to your edits and I am, so far, avoiding that hoping we can work something out and agree on things.

In what I agree with you is that the Lviv article does need a lot of work being so Polonocentric (not that I am against it covering the Polish history of the city as well). If you manage to get attention of some quality editors to it, it would be really great. --Irpen 03:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not twist my words. I never said that Lviv article is "Polonocentric". The article need a lot of work because of it incompleteness, not because of "Polonicentricity" or any other "centricity". I am trying to find somebody who could improve it. In any case, wrong and inacurate information should be removed immediately. As I said, wrong information is much worse than lack of information.--AndriyK 07:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You never said that indeed and I didn't imply so. It was me who said that. I will get to your comments on Lviv there. In the meanwhile, I explained every single change I did after you in Ukrainian language.

I asked Gutsul to register so that there would be no confusion who leaves what and where, It is up to him now. His Ukrainophobia attack was the worst thing I've ever seen written to me yet on WP. -Irpen 07:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian nationalism[edit]

Dear friend, Ukrainian nationalism is the last thing we want in this project already torn apart by the Polish, Romanian, Belarusian, and Lithuanian nationalists. If you think that your naive ukrainization of the names for ancient East Slavic tribes is a good idea, you are wrong. They settled in some areas of modern-day Russia, not in Ukraine only. The Severyans, for example, never called themselves "Siverians" and have not been known as such until you came here. In Old East Slavic (like all other Slavic languages) the word for north is pronounced as "sever" not "siver". If your aim here is to engage in endless and ultimately fruitless edit wars and reverts, you'll get plenty of it, until your childish attitude towards editing is changed. --Ghirlandajo 11:36, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear, Ghirlandajo, in fact thay did call themseves "siverians". The letter "jat'" (I do not have it at my keyboard, but it looks similar to "ъ") was prononced as "je" in the Nothern Rus and as "i" in the South. Siverians (in spite of their "nothern" name) lived in Southern Rus.

Have not it been known, before I came here? I'm glad I gave the people a chance to learn something.

I hope you'll fill some gaps in your education. But for the time being, please do not blame peopple for Ukrainian (Polish, Romanian, Belarusian, Lithuanian etc.) nationalism just because they're not so ignorant as you are.--AndriyK 18:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I had my own share of arguing with Ghirlandajo. He and I disagreed many times but before calling him ignorant check his contributions. Actually it is a good practice to do before going into name-calling which is better avoided altogether.

Andriy, I have to start using more harsh words about what you are doing. Your fight to spread Ukrainian nationalism into Wikipedia is doomed. Please reconsider wasting yours' and others' time. If not, you will just force others to spend time undoing your damage, time that would be better spent for bringing in more information to WP.

I do see that some edits you make bring useful info and I welcome that. However, much of what you've done so far requires the repair rather than adjustment. One more time, I am asking you to curb your aggressive spread of questionable edits. You view mine and others' ideas questionable. Fine with me. We all make mistakes. But your staunch disagreement to compromise to find the golden middle is unrpoductive.

And one more thing regarding the names substitution. The few most annoying things people can do are (excluding personal attacks):

making an edit which all it does is name substituiton/addition
making an edit which just deletes stuff (well, this is sometimes good but very rarely)
insert disconnected phrase into an article to advance some POV

On the former (names), check my proposal at Wikipedia:Eastern_European_Wikipedians'_notice_board#Games_with_names and discussion at talk. Now, would you please give a little thought to what several people are trying to tell you? If you abide yourself by a proposed restriction and, at least, combine name substitution with other improvements that would be a good step.

I hope my comments do not offend you and you will reconsider certain things even if a little bit. --Irpen 19:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moving articles should be done with care in cases where you may expect disagreement since it it much more difficult to undo (usually requires listing at WP:RM and voting). Before you move the article, when you can reasonably expect a disagreement, propose it first at the article's talk. The names there are for a reason. The reason may be wrong. There is talk to discuss that rather than imposing your views on the community. --Irpen 20:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just follow Wikipedia Guidelines, so I do not expect any disagreement. --AndriyK 21:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is hipocrisy to say you didn't expect disagreements with thse move. For suggested example see my recent talk:Polans. --Irpen 22:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You like talk about "cooperative spirit", but you do not act cooperative. You do not follow the WP policies. You lyes. You remove usefull information from the articles. You put wrong information there. You don't here if I ask you to cite souses or remove the bullshit from the article. You are completely contrproductive.

I do not see any reason to talk to you anymore. I've seen. It does not help. --AndriyK 22:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

moves by cut and paste[edit]

I will not be responding to your personal attacks. However, please note that it is not allowed to move by cut and paste. If you want to move the article, but can't, you must list it at WP:RM. Cut'n' paste moves will be reverted as vandalism which won't count against 3RR. On the other hand, vandalous reverts themselves will be counted. Think about it and write something for articles instead of name changes (this is just a suggestion you would likely ignore, but just in case) --Irpen 07:56, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also see talk:Putyvl. --Irpen 10:32, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see you keep reverting to your earlier cut and paste moves. Please understand that this is doomed and also against the policy. On the other hand I agree with your final version of Beregynia, the article I created some time ago. If you would have just proposed it earlier, rather than stubbornly adding a Ukrainian word as if it is a Proto-Slavic or whatever you want to call this language, there would not have been any reverts. I am glad the article is better now than it was before you got to it. --Irpen 12:25, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

Andriy, you violated the WP:3RR in Ukrainian language article and even with a margin.

1st rv 21:03, October 9, 2005 AndriyK
2nd rv 16:51, October 9, 2005 AndriyK
3rd rv 11:55, October 9, 2005 AndriyK
4th rv 09:28, October 9, 2005 AndriyK
5th rv 08:13, October 9, 2005 AndriyK
6th rv 07:31, October 9, 2005 AndriyK (additionally corrected 1 letter typo in this revert, but nothing else. Enough even without it anyway)

This is sufficient for a block already but this is not my intention to have you blocked. And you just reverted again. I would like you as anyone else to help imrpoving the coverage of Ukraine in English Wikipedia. However, if you continue these wholesale revertions, I will list you at the blocking list because this would be the only way to make article's further development possible. I hope there is still a chance that you will stop waging these wars. --Irpen 06:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rv of vandalism does not break 3RR. You removed usefull and verifiably information and this is vandalism. Did you count your reverts? Should I list you for blocking?--AndriyK 06:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was not vandalism. Read WP:3RR. One more revert, and I will list you for blocking. I hope you come to reason but I kind of had enough of this rv wars. With you blocked, this will stop. Or , please read and respond at talk, there for a reason. --Irpen 07:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said you many times, you should not put unverifiable information to the article. This information will be removed. If you don'st, I'll ask other people help me. You personal judgements are not appropriate for the artcle and they will not be there. --AndriyK 07:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are talk pages to discuss that. You revert wholesale a whole bunch of edits well sourced and explained. Explain at talk what's wrong, wait for what others say. Do not revert anymore. Or do... The policy is there for a reason. I never listed anyone for blocking because everyone I ever dealt with was able to read and respond. I hope you will do the same. --Irpen 07:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I explained it to you many times: there is no creadible sources supporting fantasies. Have you understood? I do not believe. So I'll try three times more, although it hargly can help. There is no creadible sources supporting fantasies. There is no creadible sources supporting fantasies. There is no creadible sources supporting fantasies.--AndriyK 07:12, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't behave silly. As for your asking others to help, I've seen you were doing it at ua-wiki. It is up to you and them to decide what's ethical and what's not. Another clue, you can create sockpupet accounts to circumvent 3RR, but sooner or later people get caught for that and are banned for a long time. There were examples. I suggest, you just start working with others at talk pages. If you do, I will do all I can to discusss things. This is not about winning. This is about improving the articles. You think my edits make them worse. It is a legitimate opinion. Find some others who agree with you on particular edits and I will withdraw them. Believe me, I don't like this any more than you do. --Irpen 07:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen's edits are made in good faith and can't be considered Wikipedia:Vandalism. Don't break the 3RR; count to ten slowly and go to the discussion page. And I hope no one considers using sock-puppet accounts; that would be discovered and lead to a serious ban. —Michael Z. 2005-10-10 16:54 Z

Dear Michael, thank you for your message.

You can check yourself that Irpen removes information based on creadible sources (Ukr. Constitution, Ukr. Census results for instatnce) and adds completely wrong information. (Please see Ukrainian language). I repeated many times, that if s/he believes that her/his information is correct, s/he should cite sources. But it does not help. S/he continues to destroy my edits and adds unverifiable nonsence. Is it good faith?

I did use talk pages. (Please have a look Talk:Ukrainian language) But it does not help. S/he continues pu the wrong information back.

One more point: Polish names of Ukrainian cities. I find it very usefull to have them in the first line of the corresponding articles. Why Erpen makes a problem of it? Do you understand it? Why usefull and correct information should be removed? Just to pin down Poles?

Concerning sock-puppet accounts. I am not a computer expert, I do not know yet what it means. --AndriyK 20:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen's edits don't fall under the definition of vandalism. Your breaking of the three-revert rule is not justified. "If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24 hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours." —Michael Z. 2005-10-10 20:32 Z

Ukrainian Team: Let's meet here[edit]

Greetings, Andriy! I saw your proposition on the Muzon.com and I think I will be able to help. I have just done some additions to the entry on Skoropadsky and Prometheism. Can you point me in direction of some areas affected by our "big brother"? Hrycian

Hi, I am new to the project and was just interestd by your statement in Maidan. When I read the article on Chernivtsi, I did understand what you are saying. The article is biased and I would say - propogandist. I will read the rules of contribuing to Wikipedia. And then we may engage in some project. --ROMAN.

Hi, Roman. Nice to meet you here! Please sign your messages on the talk pages (but not in the articles) typing --~~~~. I hope our Ukrainian team will grow rapidly and we'll improve the Ukraine-related content. Regards. --AndriyK 21:56, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Andriy! I'm not sure how many people other than Ukrainians will read about Ukraine on Wikipedia. Still, the content of the pages on Ukraine is important. I would like to help out as much as I can as well. Here's a question: how can we change "Kiev" to "Kyiv"? Volodya Nazarkevych

Hi, Volodya! It would be difficult to change Kiev to Kyiv right now. We have to wait until Kyiv becomes more common in English. But most of other Ukrainian cities and towns should be spelled according to the Ukrainian pronociation. So just look trough the Ukraine-related articles and correct misspelligs. The article title can be changed by using the "move" button in the toolbar above the article. But this works only in the simpliest case. For more complicated cases, we have to wait until our community becomes a bit stronger. Otherwise the "Russian Mafia" will start the "edit war" and we defeet.

Even more important, to extend Ukraine-related articles and make them more balanced and correct, or write new articles about Ukraine (but please do not create very short "stub" articles).

Hope to here from you soon. --AndriyK 12:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see more editors interested in expanding Ukrainian-related articles.

Please try not to spend too much time on symbolic gestures, like changing the title of the article from Kiev to Kyiv. I've gone that route, and its just not acceptable as the primary name to the ears of most English-speakers. It took patience just to convince some productive editors that we should write "Ukraine" instead of "the Ukraine", but a reasonable argument backed up with references prevailed.

Concentrate on building the body of articles, and especially on adding material to achieve balance where editors have started articles with a limited scope. You'll find a list of articles needing attention at Portal:Ukraine.

And don't be afraid that you have to fight against a «група "русскіх патріотов"», or «вандалізму з боку "російської мафії"». Everybody here has their own point of view, but most of us are reasonable folks who are willing to listen to a convincing argument. There's the occasional difficult editor in every camp, but discussion and consensus will work things out.

Привіт, —Michael Z. 2005-10-19 22:48 Z

I agree with Michael concerning Kyiv/Kiev. We indeed have to wait until Kyiv becomes more common in English. But concerning most of other city/town/village/etc. names, this is not only "symbolic gestures". Misspelling of the names may often lead to mistakes. See, for istance, article about Polans. Bilhorod was misspalled as Belgorod and linked to Russian city of Belgorod, which is several hundreds kilometers from Kyiv and has nothing to do with Polans. In my opinion, correcting misspelled names improve the quality of Wikipedia and helps to avoid mistakes.--AndriyK 07:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the information on Ukraine will be edited following such very simple approach: The geography, the tourist information as is eyes-witness. Microsoft World Map acronim is very usable, but it is't indisputable. History articles of the territories making Ukraine preferable from the different points of view. It is desirable to make references on contemporary records. But fictions such as " Чорна рада " are factual now. It is desirable to add the clause "great Russian goal analysis". We must be patient and persevering and we will organize command work editors for daily repare after vandals (or volyntary employees of KGB-FSA - let them wrote about they own goals, not about Kiev/Kyiv/Kyyv as (C) Microsoft). May be it is usable to host a mirror of the articles about Ukraine in Wiki, which created by Ukrainian editors team. PS. We use to name Kirgizia, now oure russian brothers and we say: Kirgystan. And nothing can be done about.

Andriju, just a thought - please ponder or ignore if you will. I fully agree with your aim to present Ukrainian related content in Wikipedia in neutral fact based manner free from Russian (and to lesser extent, Polish), bias. I am not sure though your methods would work in the current environment (e.g. the number of Russian and Russo-assimilated Ukrainian editors exceeding the number of Ukrainian editors). Russians proper + Russians with Ukrainian surnames are very sizeable minority back home, but a minority nonetheless. I see no reason why they should have control of Ukrainian content of Wikipedia and by doing so perpetuate age old Russian stereotyping. I believe Irpen recently called on Russian editors to particiapate to the fullest extent in editing Ukraine related content. It would help immensely if the balance is redressed through attracting a number of Ukrainian editors. The catch is they need to be capable of crafting quality articles in English hence advertising the job on Maidan.org or most other political forums does not cut it. I posted a message on ukrcenter in London and suspect Mohylanka's forum be good, too. In other words, popularisation of English Wikipedia needs to be done in a more focussed way and choice of forums need to be geared more towards English/Academic ability. In the end, this is for the benefit of the whole Wikipedia project. Cheers. Buchik 15:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please send me the addresses of the forums were the advertizing of Wikipedia would be effective. Let' think what else could we do to invite more Ukrainian editors to Wikipedia.

One more problem. Ukrainian editoprs find themselves in a very hostile environment. Almost every Ukrainian editor's edit very likelly will be reverted by Irpen. To make a little correction to the article (which normally would take a quater of hour or so), one has to spend hours or even day explaining Irpen basics of Ukrainian history, linguistics, etc. And there are a group of Russian users (or even not only Russian) supporting this Irpen's behaviour. I suspect that many Ukrainians lived Wikipedia because of it. We should find the way to avoid such facts in future.--AndriyK 14:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a hostile environment if one approaches it respectfully and tries to understand the way things work. Taking Andriy's criticism to heart and preparing for conflict would probably be a self-fulfilling expectation. I also suggest you avoid the habit of labelling other editors by their presumed nationality.

For example, if you come in with the intention of renaming everything possible to Ukrainian names, then I suggest you first familiarize yourself with the basics of Wikipedia:Naming conventions, so you know what the policies are, understand where you may meet resistance and why, and the correct procedures for renaming. —Michael Z. 2005-11-14 15:53 Z

To be honest, Michael, this was not about Ukrainian names. There are several examples were I spent ten times more time for fighting with Irpen's ignorance as for the editing the articles itself.--AndriyK 16:07, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Usim vitannia. Tshym mih tym dopomih. Vybachajte jakscho schos ne tak. Ja sche ne rozibravsja jak tsia shafa hraje. Duzhe chasto vydavalo meni jakus' storinku z pomylkoju. Jakscho schos' treba - dajte znaty. Shanujmosja.Dovbush 21:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Маленьке зауваження: в коментарях потрібно набирати "rv" а не "vr", тобто "revert", а не "Верховна Рада" ;). Якщо маєта час, пригляньте будь-ласка ще й за статтею Ukraine і Holodomor. Дякую.--AndriyK 14:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see how I changed the summary of the List of Ukrainisns. Also, please join me on the talk page of the list, as we need to accumulate support for our cause.--Pecher 10:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion with Irpen[edit]

I saw your public call for attention to en-wiki (see? I read the same sites!) While I have certain objections to several statements you made there, I would be happy to see more editors for UA-topics. I once asked at maidan myself for attention to Orange Revolution article, but there was little reaction.

We may set up a separate board at Ukraine portal something like "Neutrality check board" where we will list and discuss articles with severe neutrality problems. What do you think? Have to go now. --Irpen 08:20, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Irpen, if you'll stick at facts, it'll help to keep neutrality of the UA-relatedtopics much more than any "Neutrality check boards".--AndriyK 08:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chernyakhiv[edit]

Please refrain from renaming articles. If you want an article renamed try to file a requested move.--Wiglaf 06:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move is usually needed if the target article already exists. This was not the case.

My changes conform the Wikipedia guidelines Naming conventions, city names, if you see any problem, please explain before you revert.--AndriyK 07:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This move does not concern a city name. It concerns an archaeological culture, which has a conventional name in English. The fact that the name of the town has a different form in Ukrainian is not relevant. This is an encyclopedia where we use the English names in currency. It is not a tool for renaming archaeological cultures.--Wiglaf 07:50, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Chernigov, Russkaya Pravda[edit]

About Vsevolod I of Kiev

Chernigov is Old East Slavic name, Russkaya Pravda is the common English spelling see Russkaya Pravda#Nomenclature --ajvol 07:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

East Slavs that lived around Chernihiv did not have the consonant "g" in their language. "Chernigov" is Russian name.

There is no common English spelling for "Ruska Pravda". Several different names are used in the English-language literature. "Russkaya Pravda" is just a transliteration from Russian. There is no reason to use it for the document created in Kyiv(Ukraine).--AndriyK 08:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was created in Kievan Rus, Old East Slavic state. --ajvol 08:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in Kievan Rus, Old East Slavic state, but not in Russia. What is the reason to use the Russian name?

Please note that the place, where it whas created is the present day Ukraine.--AndriyK 08:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See History of Russia. "Russkaya Pravda" is the common English spelling. --ajvol 08:29, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no common English spelling. "Ruska Pravda" is used as well. History of Russia is written by those people as you that use Russian spelling.

Why do you revert Chernihiv? Do you have your oun opinion how "г" was prononce in old times? Then please cite sources.--AndriyK 11:15, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Russkaya Pravda, Chernyakhov culture, Chernihiv, etc[edit]

You know Andriy, it's a fact of history that sometimes conventional names in English come directly from the Russian language. In the history of Kievan Rus’, which is not "owned" solely by Belarusians, Russians, nor Ukrainians, sometimes we just have to settle for mentioning the modern Ukrainian name in an article, and living with a title that looks like modern Russian.

And if you'd just stifle your strident accusations of lying and propaganda, and the remarks about "Russian Mafia", if you respond to perceived slights like an adult instead of with a stream of invective and wails of "Irpen started it", maybe you will be taken a bit more seriously by established Wikipedians. You're the loudest of us advocates of Ukrainian point-of-view, and you're going to get us labelled as counter-productive whiners. I suggest you try to be extra-patient for a couple of weeks, and concentrate on some productive editing instead of a noisy crusade for Ukrainian terminology. Making changes around here requires a good reputation to achieve consensus, and you're quickly exhausting your good will and influence in this community. —Michael Z. 2005-10-20 14:15 Z

You know, Andriy, I have no objection to several (not all) of your renamings, like Petrovka->Petrivka, Putivl->Putyvl and several others (not derevlyans, etc.) but it is indeed better for WP to do some more editing. You did a good job expanding the Origin section of UA L. If we all do more writing, everyone would benefit. Please refrain from rude remarks in response. I am still composing myself but I will get back to UA L. Regards, --Irpen 20:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio[edit]

Your edit at [1] has restored a page that is filled with copyright violations. I please ask you to not restore the page to this version. Thank you. Zach (Sound Off) 22:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at maidanua.org[edit]

Hi. I am, of course, in no position to tell you what to do and say. However, your comments at [2] about User:Irpen were really offensive.

Massive article renaming is a waste of time. Overall, native speakers of English have absolutely no interest in Ukraine. Alternative spelling, like Kyiv instead of Kiev, is a real distraction to those who have at least some interest. Please, keep this in mind. You are not writing articles for yourself only.

I still hope you would reconsider your point of view and use your time more productively. For instance, you could double check name spelling in List of heroes of Ukraine and complete the list for 1999 (I've already inserted links to edicts -- these are commented out). Sashazlv 02:22, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sashazlv, maybe somebody has misinformed you, but I did not corrected Kiev to Kyiv. Moreover, I worried other people agains doing it. Just have a look at my talk above.

I corrected several misspellings of other Ukrainian cities, towns, subway stations that do not have any traditional English spellings. This is not against the Wikipedia guidelines and this allows to avoid some mistakes (see above about Belgorod-Bilhorod).

I am not a "zapadenec" as you were presumming, but I do not have any negative attitudes to any region of Ukraine. It's a pity, if you have.--AndriyK 09:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AndriyK, attracting editors from other online communities to contribute to Ukraine-related articles would be commendable, but you really lower the effort with your uncivilized "Russian gang" rhetoric. And your personal attack against Irpen at Maidan is beneath criticism. The "detailed analysis" you mention there is so much manure: you started a revert war with him in your very first edits of Ukraine-related articles, and you're still holding a petty grudge. That you would go so far as to post an announcement on Maidan and at other forums to enlist help for your campaign is sad. From some of the thoughtful responses I read at there, I doubt you will find many gullible stooges who will listen to your hateful screed.

Irpen is a long-time member of Wikipedia and builder of its Ukrainian community; he is a knowledgeable and prolific contributor who's dedicated to maintaining a neutral point of view. He has repeatedly tried to engage you in constructive discussion and look for a compromise, and you have responded with name-calling and disrespect. You are a newcomer here, and in your brief tenure you've written nothing, only wasted other editors' time in revert wars and rude discussion. You are actively destructive, and you're going to give us Ukrainian editors a bad name.

To newcomers who are reading this: please don't be put off by this ugly demonstration. At Portal:Ukraine and its new articles board you'll see there's an active community of collaborating editors from different backgrounds, and many articles that need your contribution. —Michael Z. 2005-10-23 07:49 Z

Dear Michael, our discussion would be much more usefull if you were addressing the issues I mentioned in my messages at Maidan rather than giving very general comments. It would be extremely interesting to see your opinion concerning that two points.

You'll vever convince me that inserting any wrong/unverifiable infomation into Wikipedia articles is the same as "maintaining a neutral point of view".

You'll never convince me that lies and slander is "a constructive discussion".--AndriyK 09:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear AdriyK, I don't know you but I'm already don't like your "discussion style". You remarks like "you are crazy", "you have a split personality disorder", "you got to be take care of" is not caused by my behavior in any way. I never said something like this to you. Maybe you always like that but in the case you are mistaken:

I am not Irpen, I am not sick, I am not going to talk like this with you.

Regards,

--Nemesis

Kiev Metro[edit]

Hey nice to see someone taking notice on the site, anyway can I just ask you to wait for a while with the Ukranian trasliterations, I want to make a portal about all metro systems of the former USSR, which will have both Russian and Ukranian languages on the three Ukranian metro systems, Russian and Belorussian on the Minsk metro and ... so on. You are more than welcome to provide good, high quality images of the stations though... Best of luck. Kuban kazak 13:31, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What has Russian language to do with Kiev Metro? You do not use Ukrainian names in the articles about the metro stations in Moscow, do you?--AndriyK 13:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more :)-- Kuban kazak 18:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We will... the portal will be multilinguistic and multitranslitratnistic. As to answer your question, quite a bit, first of all the majority of the stations in Kiev still contain both Russian and Ukranian language references, moreover say tourguides about a European city will give the metro name in English, whereas Russian guides on Kiev will quote the Russian name. Moreover if you remember the way it was done, first part - station names were given in Ukranian then ~ late 1960's Russian is used, but on the announcers instead of saying the name in Russian, it will give the Ukranian name with Russian grammar (quite unique if you ask me). For example Zhovnevaya, Chervonoarmeiskaya, Ploshchad Zhovtnevoi Revolutsii and ... so on. Finally when I was in Kiev last year I overheard on a ratio of 20:1 in the metro the public giving the station names in...Russian, so for an entry into say Prague metro, giving Russian transliteration will not be at all right, but Kiev and especially when we will make Kharkov and Dnepropetrovsk metros, both transliterations will be given. А если честно не занимайся дурью а давай вмести побольше фактов найдем про метро и вывесем, язык ты всегда потом успеешь поправить. Извени если ошибся но ты похоже в Киеве живешь? Даже если не живешь все равно приглашаю на форум метролюбителей у нас Киевлян (а точнее знатоков про Киевское Метро) мало, а это жалко. Удачи с фотографиями. Kuban kazak 14:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Russian guides on Kiev will quote the Russian name, but there exist the Russian version of Wikipedia, where Russia´n names belong to.

When I get to making the Russian version of the Kiev Metro I will promise of both Russian version and of course the Ukranian and Ukranian transliteration EVRYWHERE, unless of course will stop arguing and maybe you'll do that before me.

Если не заниматься дурью, то не следовало ревертировать те статьи, гдя я уже исправил названия.--AndriyK 15:04, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Статьи которые я начал еще не готовы для того чтобы их названия полностью меняли. Вот когда закончем описания станций, когда закончем все метро, когда вы предоставитe фотографии, и когда весь портал метро будет готов. То тогда хоть переводи на Занзибарский и давай транслитирации Англискому, а я посмеюсь. Ладно забей, дело твое, только дай закончить раздел а потом при согласие других коллег если решити то вперед меняйте что хотите. Но все таки ты из Киева или нет?Kuban kazak 15:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Вообще да, но в даный момент - нет.--AndriyK 15:28, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I see that you already reverted some of the names of the lines already (to be fair it looks so childish from a third point of view) but have it your way although if I was in your place I'd start filling up details on the stations, and of course trying to find images. Вообще то если действительно охото помочь статье то мог бы начать Украинскую версию страницы, Украинская часть портала будет на вас лежать так что время в пустую тратить не желательно.Kuban kazak 17:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content from talk pages[edit]

I noticed you removed a comment from someone's talk page when adding yours... in the future, please use the "+" link at the top of the page (to the right of "edit this page") to create a new section, or manually create a new section, but do not remove other people's comments. Thanks, Bushytails 18:42, 24 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

This was my mistake. I am very sorry. --AndriyK 19:56, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hello, I am Knyaz, I have been watching wikipedia for long time (almost a year) but registered only now. I wanted to thank you for your actions against the nationalist edits of User:Ghirlandajo. Please don't give up; most of his edits (ones about historical, political things I mean; ones about Russian people are usually ok) are in fact not applicable to wikipedia and very POV; what is the saddest is that he defends them by reverts and therefore disrupts wikipedia, as well does not disucuss in talk page, calls everyone nationalist and such. So, in case he starts reverting your edits, try to inform other good editors of Wikipedia out of whom there are many in Eastern Europe (including many non-nationalist Russians). Something needs to be done about it, as I checked his edit history and it seems he is doing such POV edits frequently. If we will all cooperate however, we will defend Wikipedia from all the propaganda some users are pushing and will keep it a respectable encyclopedia... I am trying to inform the contributors whom I respect about this problem, you could try that too; and try to watch his contributions from time to time. Knyaz 09:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you very much for your support! I felt myself a bit isolated in Wikipedia after several edit-war attacks. Let's keep contact and find more users that could support us making Wikipedia more neutral and informative. It would be nice if we support each other. Regards, --AndriyK 14:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Hi there. I have just blocked you for 24 hours owing to your three-revert-rule violation on Severians. When you return to editing, please discuss things rather than revert things. -Splash^talk 21:06, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your copyright violation[edit]

AndriyK, other things aside, this, this, and this edit of St Volodymyr's Cathedral was a copyright violation of http://ukraine-today.com/culture/religion/cathedral.htm

Please read again WP:Copyrights and remember that with few exceptions it is not allowed to copy and paste from most sites.

Also, as Sashazlv have pointed to you earlier, we cannot afford to have wholesale deletions of information from Ukrainian articles with few rare exceptions. Events with Filaret's seizure of the cathedral are relevant. If you think they are not properly presented, you are welcome to modify the presentation but not to remove the account of events as a whole. I hope you will learn something, finally. If you have anything constructive to say, while you are blocked, regarding this or other articles, you can post your comments here (block allows postings at your own talk) and I will copy them to the relevant talk pages. --Irpen 23:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I rimind you once more: you have to cite sources if you add any information to the article. All lies should be deleted from the article.--AndriyK 09:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful[edit]

I don't care about your Czernichów spelling war. But if you revert other useful information, I will revert you by default. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 11:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This could happen only exidentally. I am sorry. Where did it happen? --AndriyK 12:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reverts[edit]

Having read the discussion threads recently, I found myself in a position of having nothing to add. I wholeheartedly agree with the arguments provided by others and am not willing to repeat the same things, which have already been told numerous times. On the other hand, I do not regard comments/sources provided by you as accurate, nor do I see your objections as (pardon the pun) objective.

With all that in mind, however, I do not approve of certain personal remarks against you (nor will I tolerate personal offenses by you, should you for some reason desire to employ such tactics in future).

Please, remember that the only way to "win" a revert war such as this one is to stop reverting and instead barrage "the enemy" (if you wish to see us in that light) with the facts and quotes from credible sources, preferrably in a neatly organized manner. Until this happens, I am going to stick to technical interpretation of Wikipedia policies (such as 3RR).—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What sources you would consider creadible, if Encyclopaedia Britannica is "increadible" source?--AndriyK 14:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Britannica itself uses different spellings interchangeably, and the main article title is Chernigov. I am sure they had their reasons to do it that way, but Britannica naming policies are not the same as those employed by Wikipedia. Per WP's policies, Chernihiv spelling must be mentioned and explained, but Chernigov must be used while it is still more common in the English language. If I may remind you, you (as anyone else) have the right to appeal Wikipedia's policies or even start a campaign to change them. While it is definitely much more work that logging in every day to revert the changes you do not like, it is the only "legal" (from Wikipedia policies' point) way to find out what the true consensus is. Heck, you may even succeed if you are patient enough, although I personally would not bet on it.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Britannica uses Chernihiv for the title of the article. From that it's clear that that Chernigov is not common name in English (in contrast to Kiev) (the referencies are given in Talk:Chernihiv).

I do not see any reason to change the Wikipedia policies. I would like to make the articles to conforme the presently existing policies.--AndriyK 16:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are thinking that Wikipedia:Naming conventions dictate what name to use within an article? Try changing all occurrences of Kharkov to Kharkiv in Eastern Front (World War II) if you want to learn more about that. —Michael Z. 2005-10-27 19:33 Z

As pointed to you elsewhere, Britannica uses Chernigov or Cherigov (Chernihiv) in all articles devoted to history, every prince and historical person's article use Chernigov. --Irpen 20:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 21:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Colleagues, please note that I cannot answer the same question thousand times on thousand pages. I explained everything and gave referencies here and here. I admited from the very beginning that the spelling "Chernigov" is endeed in use. But it does not make the spelling "Chernihiv" "anachronistic". Because the spelling "Chernihiv" is used by creadible sources and applied to all periods of the history of the city. I gave the referencies. Please listen to the opponent's arguments if you indeed whant this to be a discussion rather than a badgering.--AndriyK 11:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

inuse[edit]

Please do not lock several articles at a time, if possible. Could you accomodate that? Thank you for starting to write. --Irpen 22:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't lock any exited articles. I created two new articles and need some time to expand them.

Is it you job to prevent others from normal work?--AndriyK 09:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, as I said I welcome the articles. But it is considered a bad habbit to keep inuse for hours, let alone for several articles. You can work on them in oyur userspace draft names. But it is just an advice. People get annoyed by inuse kept for too long. Thank you, --Irpen 14:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Не позорь себя[edit]

Слушай ну что ты как ребенок вцепился в этот жалкий собор? Тебя мало с этого сайта банили? Мало тут замечания у тебя от остальных? Ты посмотри на себя со стороны чтобы не написали как не одаленно было бы от Украины ты сразу модерировать как муха нa д...o. Но зато сколько ты новых статей написал, больше 10? Вспомни тоже метро нет бы помочь, нет главное это чтобы правильная транслитирация была. Когда до тебя дойдет что эта энциклопедия не для тебя а для миллионов вокруг света. Им абсолютно плевать на транслитерацию. Создавай свою версию Википедии и блин что хочешь туда пиши. Я кстати дал нормальное к-во источников включая со стороны УНСО. Впредь если хочешь вылить эмоции насчет Русско-Украинских вопросов то выливай их здесь, а не тут. Странно вначале ты мне показался толковым человеком.Kuban kazak 21:43, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andriy, but seriously. This is a huge disruption for everyone. Don't just respond with "It's not my, but your fault..." stuff. Write articles and stop calling others names. I am willing to forego the horrible amount of shit you unloaded at me on and off en-wiki. Others already responded to you an ua-wiki and Maidan that you are being mistaken about others. Your stubborn animosity is not helping your cause. Write an article or two and please avoid responding with another bunch of rude remarks. --Irpen 21:49, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AndriyK. I would not get too concerned about Kuban kazaks and Irpen's messages above. You are doing an important, time consuming, tedious and ungrateful job of putting facts right and a number of people (myself included) support you for that. The opposing side's lack of argumentation and dubious statements (references to anti-ukrainian sites by Kuban kazak and misrepresentation of the majority of Maidan posters' comments by Irpen) all attest to their inability to play fair. Keep up the good work! Buchik

Thanks for support! Please come here again!--AndriyK 13:54, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes very important and ungrateful, not writting new articles, not adding any original information to articles, but changing transliterations and formats of articles. Something to be very proud of... BTW I don't see how the sites are anti-Ukranian, considering they are directly relevant to current Ukranian politics. Irpen and me, and many others who keep this turd in the bowl from overflowing actually write articles and do not change them without properly discussing first. Kuban kazak 12:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Links to disambiguation page[edit]

лес рубят, щепки летят. Your quest against "Chernigov", just like the one against "Kiev" looks weird to me. I have nothing against places like "Mykhailivka" spelt in whatever language you want. But renaming towns with established naming in foreign language requires efforts more than one man. This guy may help you.

The Smolensk case is simple and I know how to deal with it. mikka (t) 16:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User blocked[edit]

This user was blocked for violation of the three revert rule on St Volodymyr's Cathedral:

Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where are more than three reverts? This was article modification and only 3 (three) reverts.--AndriyK 15:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As per 3RR:

Reverting doesn't only mean taking a previous version from history and editing that. It means undoing the actions of another editor, and may include edits that mostly undo a previous edit and also add something new, page moving, admin actions such as protection, etc. Use common sense.

If you believe my common sense is flawed, you have the right to appeal your block with another admin.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As requested, I've reviewed the situation, and I don't believe that the block was inappropriate - your four edits removed a particular phrase from the article each time, which counts as a violation in my book. Please accept your block graciously. However, I firmly believe that it takes two people to start a revert war, and so Ghirlandajo is also blocked; albeit for a shorter time, since he didn't violate the precise letter of the policy, only the spirit of it. Rob Church ^Talk 16:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, thank you for your attention to the issue. Regards, --AndriyK 17:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everything went just like I told you? Do you believe me now, or am I just a "troll" for you again? :) --Nemesis

Wikipedia is not[edit]

(See also my message here)

These are all valid points but please show at the respective article's talk pages how this rant of yours relates specifically to them.

I could rant in response that WP is not a pamphlet to push fringe Ukrainian nationalist POV into related or unrelated articles, but instead I specifically pointed to you at the articles' talk pages when I found your edits disagreeable. Also, no one responded to your vote fraud (recruiting the absentee voters at outside forums who vote as you told them and left, very similar to Yanuk's tactics) by recruiting voters to inosmi.ru and I claim a partial credit for that because I asked people not to play these games no matter how low you go with yours.

Finally, if you are interested in presenting Ukrainian nationalist views to the world, here is another idea for you. Write a Ukrainian nationalism article and present this ideology there with analysis and references. But writing articles is much harder than correcting Chernigov for Chernihiv in an article I wrote or cutting pieces out of other my or other people's article.

For whatever reasons, there is little support in WP to your destructive behavior and your attempting to ascribe it to the anti-Ukrainian mafia that you imagined shows just how mainstream your views are. --Irpen 04:57, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Plese do not twist the facts. I am not interested in "presenting Ukrainian nationalist views to the world". I do not support any nationalistic POV. This is your own ill fantasies. I came here to write neutral articles about Ukraine. But I am not going to tolerate somebody using Wikipedia for anti-Ukrainian propaganda. I find the way to stop it. Please inform your freands on my behalf.--AndriyK 08:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As per your request, I informed a WP community that is interested in Ukraine, most of which consists of my Wikifriends at Portal:Ukraine/Ukraine-related_Wikipedia_notice_board#Announcement_of_behalf_of_user:AndriyK. --Irpen 09:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So let me get this right, if someone adds a few language transliterations to the article about Lvov Oblast, that is considered "anti-Ukranian", if someone presents some inforamtion about a conflicting church and tells the truth about its cannonical status that is considered "anti-Ukranian". If someone adds information about the Kiev Metro, and uses Russian transliteration that is considered "anti-Ukranian". If someone presents a different POV on the abolishment of Zaparozhian Sech, and offers to intergrate this into the article, that is considered "anti-Ukranian". Mate, my wife is Volynian and my ancestors came from Zaporozhia so what makes YOU think that you are the one who has the power to decide what is anti-Ukranian propaganda or not? Also if you came here to write new articles, well write some articles then...give examples of some of the articles you wrote...or made significant contributions to. Kuban kazak 18:41, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You tried (or even succeed) to insert biased POV to several articles without balancing it with other POVs. This I call anti-Ukrainian propaganda.

Wrong, first of all even if NPOV is not anti-Ukranian propaganda. Second on numerous occasions I have manadeged to merge both facts of both POVs (check the history) third if you got problems why not have a go and write an article yourself for a change, and finally look whose talking was it you who decided that just for your pleasure to remove uncannonical from UOCKPs reference? Kuban kazak 19:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning liquidation of Sich, let's stick at facts. I've shown you at the talk page that your edits contradict to the facts you presented yourself.

So you agree that I presented facts...hmm why did you remove them?Kuban kazak 19:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everything what does not based on facts or does not take into accopunt all the facts is propaganda. Your and your wife's origin is not an exuse.--AndriyK 19:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Neither is yours so why did you so much claim to have the "true Kievan POV" about the Vladimir's seizure Kuban kazak 19:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you would add balancing material to articles as you've counselled the readers at maidan.org to do, you would be a great contributor, even if you put in only half the energy that you do into these constant discussions. You would get a lot less resistance to that. But to stubbornly continue attacking particular words and phrases just attracts attention; it's a big waste of time for many of us. Look at the absolutely wasteful volume of discussion that was generated at Talk: Chernyakhov culture, where you launched an edit war and renamed the article without knowing anything about the subject. —Michael Z. 2005-11-7 19:09 Z

Lviv Oblast[edit]

Russian name for Lviv Oblast is not a propaganda, this is just unrelated stuff, which I removed.

The name Lvov Oblast was used almost exclusively in English from 1939 until 1991. By putting the name in the article, we are helping searches find this page and pointing out the current correct name. This is not unrelated, and anyway you're removing it because you are on a crusade to de-russify everything Ukrainian. —Michael Z. 2005-11-7 19:09 Z

Let solve this issue by adopting the convention.--AndriyK 07:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, this is a worthy issue. I raised several points at Talk:Lviv_Oblast. Please join the discussion there. --Irpen 19:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge[edit]

Ok Andrusha I have numerously seen you making statements that you came here to seriously edit and write new articles (yet so far your effort has been -- 0). Well why not prove yourself useful and for a change start earning a reputation of an editor instead of a dumbarse who pointlessly edits articles to suit his personal childish tastes. I made it easy for you, here is a challenge in an area where you are familiar with:

Drogobych and Izmail Oblasts; Moldavian ASSR
I have a few old atlases which show that in fact in the 1950's two more oblasts existed in UkSSR. From an excellent collection of topographical maps here is a 1940 atlas, which on Ukraine's map (don't worry its the site that has the permission) clearly shows the Drogobych Oblast and the Moldavian ASSR, as well as the original 1939 border. I have a few late 1940's atlases which show the Izmail oblast as well (basically the part of Odessa oblast that was annexed from Bessarabia in 1940). So how should we present this quite important information?

Well the question is for you to answer, give it a go, and all of us will see how you do it. In the meantime forget about everything else, take your time. Maybe once you've done that, you will make more articles and one day when you look back you will see how silly you really looked.

Понимаешь у меня о тебе сформировалoсь очень отрицательное мнение, но ведь не по-Русски оставлять своего в дерьме. Смотри на это как на протянутую руку. Решать тебе.

In the meantime I ask other editors to take no effort in this.Kuban kazak 00:36, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Go Andriy! I don't know much about the subject, but I will help out however I can. —Michael Z. 2005-11-9 05:43 Z

This below is related and therefore copied from talk:Lviv Oblast with my comment at the bottom.

What I actually want... I want to write neutral and informative articles about Ukraine. But I do not want the people like you would list them then for renaming, or such people as Kuban Kazak would shit there (with your help, of cause) with their Orthodox fundamentalizm....

Good! Everyone else have repeatedly told you that article you will write are very welcome. Time to start. --Irpen 09:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And you told me that they will be listed for renaming.--AndriyK 09:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, I just don't understand how the possibility that they will be renamed (which is not assured, BTW, since it would require consensus at move vote), so how this possibility is an obstacle for you to write them. You are relatively new here and you might not know that there is nothing unusual to have the articles being ended up at the name different from the name originally used by the author. Here is the list of some of my early articles that ended up renamed and I don't feel a least bit bad about it:

Admiral Makarov I created was moved to Stepan Makarov
Velikiy Knyaz Konstantin (ship) was moved twice and ended up at Russian tender Velikiy Knyaz Konstantin
Konstantin of Russia was moved to Konstantin of Rostov
Irpen' was moved to Irpin
National University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy was moved to National University of Kyiv-Mohyla Academy
St. Andrew's Cathedral was moved several times and ended up at St Andrew's Church of Kiev

This is just some of the articles I created (many others were not moved), since with experience I started to pick names that satisfied other users. However, I don't hold any grudge to those who moved my articles and even to the move of Irpen' to Irpin despite my being described by you an alleged leader of an alleged anti-Ukrainian mafia. So, by all means proceed with your principality articles or with Kuban Kazak's offer or with red links and stubs at Portal:Ukraine/Things_you_can_do or with whatever else you have in mind. --Irpen 02:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I propose very simple solution: You, guys, stop shitting and I start writing.

Are you ready to stop shitting.--AndriyK 08:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Start writing then, чего за яйца кота тянуть?Kuban kazak 12:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop shitting then. Зачем, действительно, животное мучить?--AndriyK 12:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Мальчик мой The wikipedia is looking on you and waiting, I have stopped "shitting" your turn. Kuban kazak 12:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Хорошо бы если бы ты еще убрал дерьмо за собой.--AndriyK 12:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Эх чувство юмора нету, оригинальности нету, проффесианолизма также нету, на любое желание серьезно заняться делом - лень. Ну неужели все вы такие нудные и скушные, ведь были вы лет 15 назад нормальными людьми...что же вас так деградировало? (Причем подумай сколько людей ты позоришь) Только потом не спрашивай почему мы Кубанцы (потомки Запорожцев) считаем себя Русскими. Жалко мне тебя если честно говоря, много ума но отсутствие разума и ослиная упрямость. Дрогобыч и Измаил тебя ждут, к ним никто ни притронеться пока... Kuban kazak 16:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Мне особенно твоя "проффесианолизма" понравилась. Ты в президенты случайно не собираешся?--AndriyK 16:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on someone's spelling in internet discussions is extremely rude. No one ever commented on your English around here. --Irpen 10:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Тебе им точно не стать, президент должен свои речи сам писать...а не капризничеть по поводу мелочей типа -iv или -ov ;) Kuban kazak 18:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kuban kazak, please do not overgeneralized about "вы такие нудные и скушные, ведь были вы лет 15 назад нормальными людьми". AndriyK's position and Russophobia is on the fringe and far from the mainstream. It is not representative either of Ukrainians in general or for the Ukrainians at Wikipedia in particular. --Irpen

speak for yourself. user:Buchik.

Buchik, the contributor is Irpen...check history.Kuban kazak 10:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mate I know exactly what you mean, but if AndriyK is going to represent the "true" Ukranian viewpoint, he will soon watch himself create a stereotype of Ukranians. All I'm trying to say that all of the Ukranians I know and a good portion of them come from the west of the country (my wife including) do not share his viewpoint, as do the majority of the population of that country. I am trying to point out to him that his actions will only make a third party point and laugh at him, Ukraine and Ukranians. I can't be blamed if he is so stubborn that he does not see this obvious thing happening.Kuban kazak 18:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not see how this is a concern for Russian Wikipedians. user:Buchik.

This is concern for ALL wikipedians irrespective of race and nationality. We are not going to have some person running around editing articles to suit his personal taste, and please sign your entries. Kuban kazak 18:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The advise above for Russian wikipedians to look after their patch and not not to make judgement calls about Ukrainian subject matter was posted by me. Your reply above does not address my statement at all. I was not talking about AndriK's reverses in this instance (which I see as justified, BTW) but about Russian nationalism permeating your statements. Your previous post stated "I know exactly what you mean, but if AndriyK is going to represent the "true" Ukranian viewpoint, he will soon watch himself create a stereotype of Ukranians. All I'm trying to say that all of the Ukranians I know and a good portion of them come from the west of the country (my wife including) do not share his viewpoint, as do the majority of the population of that country. I am trying to point out to him that his actions will only make a third party point and laugh at him, Ukraine and Ukranians". This is no concern of yours and you are not qualified to make such statements. If you feel you must dispense judgement please stick to Russian topics. Leave ukrainians alone. BTW, I have already registered but am still trying to figure out the mechanics of login and signature/date stamping. Buchik

Ok if I have to repeate myself then fair enough so be it. 1) My ancestors came from Zaporozhia 2) My wife is Volynian 3) About a 5th of my life was spent living in Ukraine (in the west if I may ephasize, and I personally know that most of the stereotypes that you'll hear in Kiev, Donbass or Moscow about western Ukraine are wrong). 4) All I am doing is stating the obvious: AndriyK, in his time at Wikipedia manadged to achieve nothing apart from pointless and childish edit wars about obscrure spelling or wether a church was barged into... Moreover the user has created not a single article, and if he goes on trying to convince people that his view is true "Ukranian" then all he will achieve is to damage a respectble nations (and its peoples) reputation and create stereotypes. Whilst I might have patriotic POVs, I am against an article not repressinting the other side of the story. NPOV is a wikipedia policy which everyone must adhere to.

Now setting that aside, I nevertheless welcome you to Wikipedia and look forward to some constructive contributions, if you want help with something specific, by all means let us know. Best of Luck Kuban kazak 13:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kuban Kazak. I do not want to be acrimonious or standoffish but should state again: reputation of Ukraine and Ukrainians is the matter for Ukrainians and Ukrainians only. Your ancestral and marital links do not qualify you as Ukrainian. You are Russian and quite clearly stated on your home page "I am also a Russian patriot and love my country like any Cossack must do". It is a known fact that Russian patriotism and Ukrainian patriotism are mutually exclusive. Our history is a testament to this. I have not noticed anybody on this page having an issue with you arguing with AndriyK's edits and reverts on the policy ground, but please, please keep your "big Russian brother" remarks to yourself. They come across as condescending and not helping your case one iota.

That said, thanks for welcoming me here - I am looking forward to having a chance to contribute to the Wikipedia content. I am sure we can cooperate over a number of issues, although I do not know much about Metro. Buchik 17:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AndriyK, you can prove us wrong regarding these comments by taking up on any of the proposals offered to you. --Irpen 17:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you find "Russophobia" in my edits? Any examples?

Suppose I wrote in some article "(Great) Novhorod" and somebody corrected it as "Novgorod". Whould it be "ukrainophobia" in your view?--AndriyK 17:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do not take your proposals concerning specific articles. I'll decide myself what is interesting to write.

A I said, I would love to start writing, provided that you, guys, stop shitting and clean up ypur shit .--AndriyK 17:32, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so you want everything I wrote on the Kievan Metro (for example) removed, deleate the lines and we should return to some low-class article instead of what I turned it into? Так мне понять твою логику (если конечно она у тебя есть)?

No I do not want you remove everything you wrote. I propose you to remove the shit.--AndriyK 18:23, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could you by any chance specify what you want, and try to do it with a larger volcabulary (I understand this could be difficult for you) Kuban kazak 19:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I tried to use the language appropriate to your style. Now I'll try to explaine it in another way, but I'm afraid it will be difficult for you to understand.

Could you please remove all you edits that do not correspond to the WP:NPOV policy?

Whould you so kind to remove all political stuff you inserted to the articles initially not related to any politics?

Could I ask you do not spoil articles any more? Please, be so nice.--AndriyK 19:39, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A word of advice to you, copied from my talk:

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

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

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

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

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

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

So Andriy when will we see Drogobych and Izmail oblast information? Kuban kazak 19:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo[edit]

Greetings. Don't be discouraged by attacks on your person. I do believe we need people with knowledge of Ukrainian history so as to not let others influence the articles about it in negative way, that for others couldn't be spotted. --Molobo 17:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Let's keep contact.--AndriyK 17:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo, please check my contributions and my user page for a list of articles that I influenced in negative way. --Irpen 17:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Molobo I agree with you, but the problem here is not wether there is knowledge or not, the problem is that this user took so far no effort to input this factual knowledge into this encyclopedia...Kuban kazak 18:00, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true.--AndriyK 18:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So what have you contributed to, I mean serious factual informaion, even your tezka Andrew Alexander already outdid you Kuban kazak 19:44, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look in my contributions and you'll find.--AndriyK 19:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well give me a list, your contribution list is too polluted with edit wars that I can't filter it out, so give a list.Kuban kazak 19:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you are really intersted in, you'll find yourself.--AndriyK 19:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything there sorry to dissapoint you. Kuban kazak 20:37, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian language[edit]

WHy did you revert the article? I offered reasons. Unlike your namesake, who is just bullying, you often tried to discuss things in the past. Stop bullying and discuss at talk. I explained that too much emphasis oh history doesn't belong to the lead. There are no other language articles with similar whining in the lead paragraph. If you can find some, show them. If you disagree, express yourself. This will not be decided by two vs one rv war. I could have also asked for help and you both would be outnumbered. I just think it is unethical no matter what forums and back-channel emails you use for your crusade. --Irpen 18:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Alexander explained his point in the comments. Indeed, it is not common praxis to ban a language. So it's a quite remarcable issue.

On the other hand, if you would like replace politics by linguistics in sections of the article I'll greatly appresiate your efforts. Please read more literature. It'll make your edits more professional. Regards,--AndriyK 18:33, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying it is unremarkable. I am saying that history doesn't belong to the lead. It makes it look a silly whining, almost lauphable. If Andrew Alexander in his Russophobia likes to make this and similar stuff as conspicuous as possible, it still doesn't make it the best for the UA L article to have a ridiculous lead. Check other languages, even the formerly banned ones. I already said at the artilce's talk, that I would like to see a linguistics specialist to add to the phonetics and grammar sections, the latter was just so pitiful that I moved it to talk. Politics is in history of L section where it belongs. Too bad that the rest isn't written yet. Next time, don't revert for the sake of solidarity, explain and, perhaps, when you try it, you will get a clearer picture that would be easier to defend in discussions. --Irpen 18:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even if to consider the mentioning of the ban of Ukr. language if the first paragraph as a drawback of the article, this is deffinitely not the most major drawback. The article contains to much politics and too little linguistics. If this will be corrected, the issue of the leading paragraph would be easier to settle. I'll suggest you to stop the edit war and use your efforts for improving the rest of the article.--AndriyK 18:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair I tend to agree with Irpen, I mean take our balachka dialect, it has no written form, yet ban or no ban it perfectly survived for 200+ years, even though we consider ourselves Russian, the dialect is quite close to modern Ukranian language. Anyway it is an important point, but not in the lead of an article. Kuban kazak 19:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Andriy, please understand that the way to improve the balance is not to remove the stuff which is relevant but adding the information to balance it. If you think the article is unbalanced in giving too much attention to history and too little to linguistics, add the info about linguistics rather than remove info about history. Politics is very relevant to the history of the Ukrainian language. I made several calls at the article's talk for someone to write about linguistics and no one answered them including yourself. I could see removing the info which is irrelevant, but not the info which is relevant being removed for the sake of some "balance". You claim that lack of canonicity is irrelevant to a St. V's article. I disagree but I understand why you removed it from there. Certain aspects of Politics are relevant to UA L history and your removing isn't justified. In no other language article history is described in the lead, however. If you agree that this is a drawback, why, except for the hypothetical "solidarity" you restored it. Again, if the article lacks something, add it. But this is no reason to have a ridiculous lead. --Irpen 21:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that unrelevant historical and political suff has to be removed from the article.

You are doing the opposite: you remove the relevant information. the fact that the language survive bans is very remarkable and clearly belongs to the article.--AndriyK 10:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable as it may be it does not belong in the lead of an article, an article about linguistics not history and politics Kuban kazak 13:46, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When removing "unrelevant historical and political suff" care to propose the removal first and wait for a reaction a little bit. The fact that language survived bans is relevant and it is there. It doesn't belong to the lead as no language article's lead contains history. Once we spin-off the History of Ukrainian into a separate article, we will have this in the lead there. Check this about deletions from the text. Also, you will just aggravate everyone if you continue to make decisions on your own when the discussion is in order and especially when it is ongoing. --Irpen 07:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Let's pospone the discussion concerning the leadong paragraph. There are a lot of other things to do there. Start from less controversial edits, if you would like to improve the article. Otherwise it looks like edit wars are your primary goal here.--AndriyK 08:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask who is talking? (User_talk:AndriyK#3RR) --Irpen 08:37, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Common courtesy warning before moving articles[edit]

And to the issue of carelessly forcing your opinion on everyone without discussion, did you see the discussion at talk:Peter Mogila? If you did, why you moved an article nevertheless? I could have prevented that easily by creating a redirect in advance, but I didn't do it knowingly since I am used to assuming that editors behave civilly, listen to others and use the "move" function with care. If you would have raised the issue, other editors would have voiced their opinions and we might have decided to move the article.

Do not assume that any move is up to any editor only because it can be easily done. Let me illustrate this. Personally, I think that, since a WP is not a dictionary, Polkovnyk should be moved to a Ukrainian Colonel name. Note that the link is red and I could have moved the article if I wanted to have it there and didn't care about what others think. Note that I didn't do that and no one else did. Several possibilities (including mergers of UA/PL/RU colonels into one article or merging them all into a colonel) are being discussed and no one imposes his view by moving an article and making things difficult. You may of course follow your line of behavior and run into creating a redirect from Ukrainian colonel to Polkovnyk thus forcing your view on the others. However, I suggest you don't do this and be careful with moving articles. Propose the move, wait for responses. Others don't run into redirect creation as soon as the proposal they dislike appears.

Did you get any mediator's attention to St V's Cathedral (note, btw, who created the article and it was also not moved by your imagined conspirators to St Validmir Cathedral of Kiev, also note who created Peter Mogila and NAUKMA articles) --07:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like that the article "Polkovnyk" was messed up by your incompetent edits and was replaced with "redirect" without any discussion by one of your friends. And all this happend before I even have finished the article. Pease choose a more constructive line of behavior and convince your friends to do so. Then you will not have any problem with me.

Concerning Mohyla's name, this should be regulated by an appropriate convention. The rules should be the same in all cases (or in almost all, at least). Be yourself consistent, either you count google hits or you look into Britannica, or something else, but there should be the same procedure in all cases.

It would be nice to extend the convention that now is being discussed to include there also names of people, organization and other entities. A cleare and unambigous definition of "most common English spelling" would be also very helpfull.--AndriyK 08:18, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just said that you should have proposed the move. As for the competency of my edits, your highly educated opinion is very valuable to me. I am sorry you found my edit destructive. I will revert to you earlier version then with all the mess that I organized into a Wikipedia style and added the information to. If you choose to return my version or to use it, I would like an apology for your rudeness, but I will be just fine without it as well.

Coming back to Mohyla, I don't mind the new name at all. My point is that it is better to propose the move and wait a little bit for opinions. One might have brought up conventions that it is an English Wikipedia and moved Polkovnyk to Ukrainian Colonel. People just have courtesy that you could also use in the future when moving the articles. --Irpen 08:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you restored the Polkovnyk version, largely based on my text. Good, I will feel better now. Thanks, --Irpen 08:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This version is mostly based on my text. Everybody can check it. I also preserved those of your edits that do not contradict the historical facts.--AndriyK 08:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. --Irpen 08:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the articles I created Ivan Bogun, Putivl and Severyn Nalivaiko were also moved without any discussion by Mr.AndriyK. I don't really mind the new "Ukrainain" spellings (the whole notion of "polkovnik" vs "polkovnyk" seems rather humorous to me and reminds me an anecdote in Bulgakov's White Guard about kot and kit.), even though the real Ukrainian spelling was already mentioned in Cyrillic. As for Polkovnyk I think the best solution is to merge the article with colonel. Fisenko 08:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Polkovnyk--AndriyK 08:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning renaming, it should be regulated by a corresponding convention. (See above).--AndriyK 08:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Convetnions are guidleines and are subject to interpretations. That's why editors expect a proposal first as a courtesy, to think over and discuss the it, because undoing a move is often difficult. It is especially difficult if the user learned from Yanukovych how to rig the vote using absentee voters en masse.

BTW, did you create a Ukrainian colonel redirect because you judged others by the same standard? I am afraid you are mistaken. People here suggest the moves before making them. But you do learn fast, I must say. Especially, the subtle "typo" with correction in Mohyla's move. --Irpen 09:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

you said: Be yourself consistent, either you count google hits or you look into Britannica, or something else, but there should be the same procedure in all cases.

I find this especially funny to hear from you. You renamed Mogila disregarding how he is called in Britannica (including even the EB article's name!), and at the same time you revert Chernihiv with a "See Britannica" comment. Good go! However, even the assertion you are making (to justify the latter revert) is false. As I have shown at talk, Britannica usually uses Chernigov in the historical context (you are welcome to reread talk:Chernihiv). To see this hipocrisy right after your "respect your colleagues" call is rather amusing. --Irpen 17:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I learned it from you: to use different rules in different cases. As you mentioned above, I do learn fast. ;)--AndriyK 17:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If seriosly, unique and clear rules have to be established. Otherwise we'll always have such discussions.--AndriyK 17:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You left me speachless hear. Not only you cheat but you take pride in that. --Irpen 17:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You don't like of other people bahave like you? Why? :)--AndriyK 18:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's just ridiculous, AndriyK. However, thanks to the Wikisoftware, all the history is preserved and anyone can judge who did what! --Irpen 18:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely what I mean.--AndriyK 18:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt[edit]

I think you may be interested in this nomination. It seems to have caused quite a stirr - and more voices would be appreciated. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

en:Ilya_Yefimovich_Repin[edit]

Greetings! You might want to have a look at uk:Обговорення:Рєпін Ілля. And I apologize for that I am not so interested in what you do on Wikipedia myself to help you... Ilya K 11:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation process, maybe?[edit]

Hi AndriyK, please see my message Edit wars on the Talk:Oleg of Chernihiv page. mno 13:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copied my reply from there: Nonetheless it doesn't stop you guys from revertwarring, and you all but stopped commenting on the WNC/GN page. This is unacceptable, especially from the experienced editors who should well know better then disrupt Wiki. I'd like to propose a solution till a consensus is worked on WNC/GN: let one party have its way with names from A to M, and another with N to Z. Otherwise I will consult several admins and propose that we PUT ALL AFFECTED PAGES INTO PROTECTION until you reach an agreement.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is encouraging to see you contributing ot the proposal again. Let's hope we work out something soon. Could you explain your changes on talk? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll stop correcting/reverting the names that start with the letters from the second part of the alphabet (i.e from N to Z). But I'am afraid it would be not easy to convince Irpen, Ghirlandajo and Kuban Kazak to stop reverting the names ftom A to M.--AndriyK 16:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like the idea of A to M and N to Z. What is this, a war zone where we divide the country into pieces???? It will not work. A third group will come in, and then what? A to F and G to O and P to Z???? mno 00:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of arbitration[edit]

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

ArbCom accepted[edit]

This is the generic message left at several editors' talk pages in relation to the ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Community_vs._User:AndriyK. Since the fourth ArbCom member has recently voted to accept the case, the case is now considered accepted by the ArbCom as per Arbitration Policy. Please make sure your statement for the ArbCom is on the page if you are willing to write one (OTOH, being named as a party does not require you to make a statement, it just gives you a right to write one) and please make sure your statement is proofread if you wrote it earlier. Please, also, make sure your statement is in the appropriate place of the ArbCom page and not interjecting with others' statements. You are welcome to read up on the Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy and the associate pages.

--Irpen 04:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Stuhna River[edit]

You may want to notice that it was me who created the Stuhna River article. It is sad fact that most names were transliterated into English from Russian, but wikipedia is not going to change this. My position here is 50-50. Names of notable historical context and those with strong English language tradition cannot be changed in wikipedia. The rest is your fair game: I don't care how you spell Mykhaylivka. Wikipedia is not a place to fix English usage or restore historical fairness. I have never seen a single Russian that wanted English spelling Moskva. mikka (t) 01:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I mean. I do not change Kiev for Kyiv, Dnieper for Dnipro, or Galicia for Halychyna. These names do have significan English usage.

Does "Battle of Stugna River" have any significant English usage? If your opinion is 50-50 i.e. you are not sure for 100%, why did you move the article to "Stugna"?--AndriyK 01:58, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Stuhna is not so nonnotable as you might think. It is mentioned in the Tale of Ihor's Campaign, and in English translations it is guess what? mikka (t) 02:09, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And this you call "significant English usage"?--AndriyK 02:11, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was just an example. In all contexts where people would want to know about this battle it is Stugna. Of course a random illiterate american does not care about all these barbaric names. But we have to keep the consistency of reference in relevant ocntexts. mikka (t) 02:14, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted[edit]

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

Russian architecture[edit]

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

Chernihiv Principality[edit]

Howdy! I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I ran across my first {inuse} template. Seems that you have been working on the Chernihiv Principality article for more than a month. That doesn't seem right given the massive amount of editing you do. Anyway, rather than ignore it, I thought I would mention it. Schmiteye 21:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong place[edit]

I think you wanted to post at Wikipedia_talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board, not at the new article announcement page. In any case, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ghirlandajo.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I copied it to the notice board.--AndriyK 23:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your arbitrary edits of RfAr/AndriyK/Workshop[edit]

Andriy, please stop adding new section to that page, as if it were your personal talk page. It is your behavior that is discussed there and not mine. If you insist on adding evidence from the Evidence page, I will have to upload all the evidence against you contained therein. --Ghirlandajo 08:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my e-mail[edit]

Hi, here is my e-mail that you asked for. Not using "e-mail this user" button: tired of spam. Cheers, Ukrained 23:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your email re: blocking Kuban kazak[edit]

Hello Andriy. I have chosen not to block Kuban kazak. My rationale has been explained here. -- JamesTeterenko 20:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I received your second email. You may wish to read through the Resolving disputes page. It tells you about the avenues you have for arguing your case. However, my simple suggestion is to relax. Maybe ignore items that you believe are POV. Maybe create a new article on other topics that you are familiar with. Having spent a little time looking at your edit history, I see a lot of edit wars. These are not looked upon positively by most Wikipedians. We are all volunteers here, we all make mistakes. The big mistakes tend to be corrected very quickly. Smaller mistakes do also get corrected, but maybe not as quickly. Maybe let someone else correct them for a little while. If you and Andrew Alexander spend time adding non-contentious content, people will likely stop suggesting you are both the same person. -- JamesTeterenko 06:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A great advice, especially since you manage to make even non-contentious content contentious as per talk:Russian architecture. Your finally heeding to an advise to actually write something would be appreciated by all. --Irpen 07:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responding to your email, but I believe that the standard dispute resolution process will take it's proper course. Please stop lobbying me to get involved. -- JamesTeterenko 06:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ukrainians/User:Antidote[edit]

Hi, I am struggling to preserve the integrity of the List of Ukrainians from disuruption caused by User:Antidote, who repeatedly and arbitrarily deletes a number of people from the list. I would appreciate if could join me in editing the list and on the talk page.

User:Antidote is involved in a number of edit wars and has caused disurption to various East European, Catholic, and Jewish lists and is probably involved in multiple voting. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote. I would appreciate if you could endorse the request for comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Antidote#Other_users_who_endorse_this_summary or post an outside view.--Pecher 19:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert in Russia-Ukraine gas dispute of 2005[edit]

Please read my questions on the Talk:Russia-Ukraine gas dispute of 2005 and try to answer them before you revert. Please switch to a fair discussion instead of starting one more edit war. --AndriyK 21:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was you who started reverting on this article. I strongly encourage ArbCom to limit your capacity to revert, although it's the only "contribution" you have made to this project so far. Please refrain from further reverts until they settle the issues of your previous revert warring. --Ghirla | talk 21:28, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What abou a fair discussion?--AndriyK 21:55, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 3RR[edit]

No, I couldn't go investigate it because I'm not an administrator. Please don't go campaigning for people to investigate other users' behaviour, or you may find they complain of harassment. Rob Church, 22:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Templates in Ukrainian language[edit]

You added two templates {{totallydisputed}} and {{verify}} on the top of the article Ukrainian language. Could you please explain the reasons on the corresponding talk page?--AndriyK 14:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read summaries in the history section. I notice that you seldom use edit summaries, which is not good, by the way. --Ghirla | talk 14:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whould you please elaborate your summary on the talk page?--AndriyK 14:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your reverts of Russia-Ukraine gas dispute of 2005[edit]

Can you find any sources confirming that the reorganization of "Naftohas" manegenement is somehow related with the disoutes and with any statements of Ivchenko? Please add the references or let me remove the unverifiable info.(see also Talk:Russia-Ukraine_gas_dispute_of_2005#Ivchenko_2)--AndriyK 15:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added two links on this already. Please stop ignoring them. You delete not only the data on Ivchenko but an extensive quote that follows it. It is a bad style. Removing properly referenced data that doesn't suit your nationalist POV is a bad style, you know. --Ghirla | talk 15:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the new link you added, but this link does not relate the dismissing/reapointing of Ivchenko with any his statements. Moreover, it clearly written that "President Viktor Yuschenko dismissed Oleksiy Ivchenko from the post of first deputy fuel and energy minister and CEO of the Ukrainian national oil and gas company Naftogaz Ukrainy due to the abolition of the positions he held."

The paragraph in its present form does related these events, which seems to be a POV. If I am mistaking, please provide references.

Please be civil in your edit summaries.--AndriyK 15:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is strange to hear that from you, who styled me, Mikkalai (one of top ten most active wikipedians ever), etc "Russian Mafia" and "adolescent gang". I made only two edits to the article in question today, accompanying them with summaries "he was dimissed and restored within few days; read the news more often" and "the current diction is correct, another link added". Which of them do you consider not civil? That said, I do consider you a pernicious troll, so please stop stalking and harrassing me. I don't want to waste my time on trolls. Goodbye. --Ghirla | talk 15:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well...I don't see AndriyK as a troll Ghrilo. As a matter of fact you disappoint me Ghirlo...Actually Mikka is only 13 and you only 113. And I don't allow you to speak like that with our friend AndriyK Bonaparte talk 12:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights[edit]

You may be interested in Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. (SEWilco 06:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you. It's a pity, it did not become an official policy yet. I added this page to my watchlist and will follow the discussion.--AndriyK 12:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year![edit]

From Bonaparte,

Bonaparte talk 11:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I may tell you something, but please look who dissaperead from the scene lately... Bonaparte talk 16:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Priviet[edit]

Andriy, Just to say, I thought the Arbcom failed the project in your case. Civility is nice, but defending a culture against being renamed by occupiers really trumps nicey-nice. Keep the faith. Benjamin Gatti 02:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry block[edit]

FYI: User:Dovbush has been recently permanently blocked by some admin that I never saw or contacted as per the suspicion that Dovbush is the sockpuppet of yourself. Since that particular admin is not in the list of people with access to checkuser tool there is no guarantee that he established that for a fact. I did call for the check in your arbitration but I haven't seen any action on my calls.

As per this, if user:Dovbush is not your sockpuppet, you may consider to take some action to keep that user's ability to edit. As I said earlier, that while I suspected a sockpuppetry here, I have no proof, so I just voiced my suspicions based on the edit pattern. --Irpen 22:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I repeated you many times, I do not have any sockpuppets. I think, Dovbush can take care for himself, if he decides to return to the wiki (He have not appeared here since the end of November). I left him a message on his talk (in Ukrainian) and offered my help, in the case he need it.--AndriyK 22:32, 6 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

List of Ukrainians[edit]

Why did you revert the edits on that page? Antidote 22:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because you removed several names from the list and I had to restore them.

Please explain your reverts as well.--AndriyK 22:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove any names from the list - in fact, I restored names that were removed in the previous version. See for yourself: [3]. I long ago explained the revert here Talk:list of Ukrainians#Found Compromise. Please revert back to my version. Thanks. Antidote 22:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it a comromise, there should be other people who agree with it. I did not see it on the talk page. Did you reach any agreement with Pecher, Ukrained...--AndriyK 22:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrained is not involved in this. It is only User:Pecher, who refuses to respond to find a consensus with me and just wishes to revert to his old version without given reason. I have dicussed it on the talk page there and have only been flamed. You can see here why I am reverting to the other version: [[4]]. That is a revert FROM my version to his - deleting many names and readding names that have been moved. Antidote 23:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I do not see any reasons why "Famous Foreign Nationals born on Ukrainian soil" should be in a separate section. The division is made by profession or similar. "Foreign Nationals" is not a profession. It destroys the logic of the list.

So I tend o agree with Pecher rather than with you.

You might try a request for comment, to discuss the issue with other people.--AndriyK 23:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about we put these names in <--- ---> under their professions section. In order to do that however, we must use my version because it does not have all the deletions of the older version. Do you understand? Antidote 23:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they were born, worked or lived on the territory of present-day Ukraine, I have no objections. There is no reason to change the leading paragraph, however.

I think, it would be more resonable to start with the current version and insert the names it lacks from your version.--AndriyK 23:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simply including these people in the list is controversial for other nationals as well because they are in no way Ukrainian. To include them we would have to include EVERYONE born on modern Ukrainian territory including Greeks from Ancient Times. There was a Greek colony in modern Ukraine. Antidote 23:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there were famous Greeks born on modern Ukrainian territory in Ancient Times, they clearly belong to the list according to the definition in the leading paragraph. I do not see any problem here.--AndriyK 23:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The main problem right now is that Pecher's version has way too many deleted additions, and hence I need someone to finally see that my version needs to be reverted back -- then we can move the names into their selected sections and discuss this. Antidote 23:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try to disuss this issue with Pecher. My contribution to the article has been extremely marginal. So he is more right person to talk with.

The article is protected. W caanot do anything now anyway.--AndriyK 23:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pecher is ignoring most of this - only blindly reverting to his version. Antidote 23:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid he has very similar impression of your reverts.

Propose him to preserve the structure of the list (names of sections) and the leading paragraph as in his version. And explaine that only new names should be added. I hope he will agree--AndriyK 23:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

All that needs to be done is a quick revert to the version I had before you reverted it and the names from "Foreign Nationals" moved to their respective locations. Then we can all have a civil debate about including those names at all or not. But as it is locked right now the list has just been practically maimed. If you agree with this, then say so on the talk page and it will help bring the edit war to a standstill. Antidote 23:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss this point with Pecher and/or ask other people for comments. Then, after the issue is solved, ask admins to unprotect the article.--AndriyK 23:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need a third opinion to support the reversal to the newest version GIVEN that the names are readded. Also, you said that putting a "Foreign Nationals" section is conterproductive to the professions sections but theres also a section called "Parents born in Ukraine"...why do you not debate that? Antidote 00:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, "Parents born in Ukraine" does not fit to the structure of the article either. It should be corrected.--AndriyK 12:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom election[edit]

Щиро дякую. You asked a question about my ArbCom candidacy just now, and I was just dropping you a note to say that I have answered it. David | Talk 19:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belarusian Language[edit]

Stop trolling and discuss! --Kuban kazak 19:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is you who is trolling. You removed two paragraphs and did not explain your edits.--AndriyK 20:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my edits in the edit summary back on the 14th of December. And the facts that the paragraphs show have since been slightly rewritten (although none of them ommited) and then on the 21st Rydel does a semi-revert which puts the two paragraphs whose facts are compleately repeated after the table back into the text. Simultaneously encouraging him to discuss (see the talk pages of Belarusian language and his talk page as well) and warning him of 3RR penalties and locking the article stopped the trolling, now you come along and with your editing habits...--Kuban kazak 20:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary is not sufficient. Please elaborate it on the talk page. It would be more helpfull than discussing my and Rydel's editing habits.--AndriyK 21:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read your arbitration statements for how your editing habits appear from a third person's POV. With Rydel I have invited him several times for discussion (which is fully set up). His refusal is not something I control. If you would like to discuss, I have elevated all the points on the talk page. --Kuban kazak 21:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please switch to a civil discussion. I am not going to read anything entitled "For the Trolls".--AndriyK 12:03, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case stop trolling the article. А если читать не хочешь...зря от чтения люди умнеют. Тебе подобное ох как пригодилось бы. --Kuban kazak 18:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Kk for a token 1 hour as per your request. But both of you are edit warring; please talk more and revert less. To that end, I have renamed the unreasonably provocative section to "A disputed point". William M. Connolley 20:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you!--AndriyK 20:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ну получил свое удовольствие за то что меня на час заткнули? А теперь назад к делу. What is clearely evident in your edits is that you have not bothered to read the history of the article and the events on the 14th and 21st of December. Here is how it went:

===Previous Edit:===

After partitions of Poland (1772–1796), the Belarusian territory was incorporated into Imperial Russia. Unlike Ukraine, Belarus has historically lacked a strong nationalistic drive. During the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth times, educated people of Belarus tended to identify themselves with Poland, and today some prominent persons are claimed both by Poland and Belarus for their nationality. More recently, the population of Belarus tends to identify itself as a close associate of Russia (if not considering themselves Russian outright).

One of the reasons for this situation is the minority status of Belarusian speakers in urban areas—traditional cultural centers. For example, according to the 1897 Imperial Russian census, in Belarusian towns of more than 50,000 residents, only 7.3% respondents reported Belarusian as their mother tongue (the criterion in defining nationality for the purposes of the census). This state of affairs greatly contributed to a perception that Belarusian is a "rural", "uneducated" language.

In the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century, very few people wrote in Belarusian, peasants being mostly illiterate, and urban dwellers preferring Russian, Polish or Yiddish. Still there existed a minor movement for returning to the Belarusian language; it was important in the circle of friends of Adam Mickiewicz.

And then:

The Belarusization was stalled and even reversed beginning in the 1930s. Hundreds of people were shot or sent to Siberia. The orthographic reform of 1933 clearly "russified" the Belarusian spelling rules. In 1938

===My edit:===

After partitions of Poland (1772–1796), the Belarusian territory was incorporated into Imperial Russia. Unlike Ukraine, Belarus has historically lacked a strong nationalistic drive. During the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth times, educated historical people of Belarus tended to identify themselves with Poland, and today some prominent persons are claimed both by Poland and Belarus for their nationality. For the peasents, however, most continued to refer to themselves as Russian.

Initially Imperial Russian athorities thought that the language spoken by Belarusian peasents was nothing but Polonised Russian, nevertheless as Polish influence over the territory slackened, the Russification of Belarusian peasents proved counter productive. In the 1897 most refered to their home language as not Russian during Polish rule, but as Belarusian

Table

In all respects the urban language of Belarusian towns remained either Polish or Russian and in the same census towns exceeding 50000 had Belarusian speakers of less than a tenth. This state of affairs greatly contributed to a perception that Belarusian is a "rural", "uneducated" language

However the census was a major brakethrough for the first steps of the Belarusian nation, as it clearely showed that by this point the population and the language was neither Polish nor Russian. In 1904 the Russian Imperial athorities legalised the language and Belarusian schools along with communities switched their language of communication. Initially only in Rural areas, but in cities all schools too were mandatory to include Belarusian language

And then:

The Belarusization was stalled and even reversed beginning in the 1930s. The orthographic reform of 1933 changed the Belarusian spelling rules and somewhat brought it closer to Russian.

The sentence:More recently, the population of Belarus tends to identify itself as a close associate of Russia (if not considering themselves Russian outright), was moved towards the end of the article thus allowing for a continuous timeline.

===New edit===

Only before the table:

One of the reasons for this situation is the minority status of Belarusian speakers in urban areas—traditional cultural centers. For example, according to the 1897 Imperial Russian census, in Belarusian towns of more than 50,000 residents, only 7.3% respondents reported Belarusian as their mother tongue (the criterion in defining nationality for the purposes of the census). This state of affairs greatly contributed to a perception that Belarusian is a "rural", "uneducated" language

In the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century, very few people wrote in Belarusian, peasants being mostly illiterate, and urban dwellers preferring Russian, Polish or Yiddish. Still there existed a minor movement for returning to the Belarusian language; it was important in the circle of friends of Adam Mickiewicz.

My table

In all respects the urban language of Belarusian towns remained either Polish or Russian and in the same census towns exceeding 50000 had Belarusian speakers of less than a tenth. This state of affairs greatly contributed to a perception that Belarusian is a "rural", "uneducated" language

However the census was a major brakethrough for the first steps of the Belarusian nation, as it clearely showed that by this point the population and the language was neither Polish nor Russian. In 1904 the Russian Imperial athorities legalised the language and Belarusian schools along with communities switched their language of communication. Initially only in Rural areas, but in cities all schools too were mandatory to include Belarusian language

Now have a read of the two paragraphs and find that they share 90% of each other's facts, with a sole exception of Polish writer, who I personally feel that he does not belong in the article, but will not mind returning him --Kuban kazak 16:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment at Talk:Belarusian language.--AndriyK 09:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to it. --Kuban kazak 13:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xenophobic comments by Duca[edit]

Please explain this edit summary of yours. --Irpen 18:45, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You restored extremely xenophobic message, did not you?--AndriyK 18:47, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, you called me a xenophobe then? Note, that Duca has been known in the past for his rude extreme Romanian nationalist comments that he makes against Ukrainians, Russians and Moldovans alike. It is important to let others be able to make a quick judgement about this editor and his edits. Therefore, I request that you let his message stay. It speaks only about himself. --Irpen 18:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And also about those who restore it.--AndriyK 18:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then. I will restore the comment because I find it important that others see Duca in real light. If you consider me a xenophobe, you are welcome to start an RfC against me about the issue. Once again, you really disapoint me. --Irpen 18:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holodomor[edit]

AndriyK, your undiscussed reversions to the Holodomor article are not helpful. See the extensive talk page discussions taking place over the course of the past week. There are strong neutality concerns with the version of the intro that you've restored. These concerns have nothing to do with the fights over nationalism that you have been having with Russian editors; the concerns pertain to the Western academic historiography on the subject. 172 10:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion is helpfull, if all participants demonstrate a willingness to find a compromise. To my experience most of the people opposing Andrew Alexander in this discussin do not accept any reason. I do not have any experience with you. Hopefully you are different from the rest. I answered you at the article talk.--AndriyK 11:14, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Alexander and I have been discussing the article on the talk page for over a week. There's a much better chance of reaching a compromise on the article if the two of us work out a solution, without the article turning into a proxy revert war between Andrew Alexander and his allies on the one hand and Andrew Alexander's usual opponents on the other hand. I am a U.S. historian of Polish Jewish background, not a Communist or a Russian nationalist. I don't think that you have any reason to view me as sort of a threat. 172 11:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, hopefully we can find together a compromise formulation. Let's take into account all the facts, inclooding troops on the boders.--AndriyK 11:55, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AndriyK RfAr closed[edit]

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 04:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will return after this period.We need Ukrainian knowledge just as well as Polish or Russian. --Molobo 12:07, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AndriyK, you are still welcome in uk wiki ! Ilya K 15:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]