User talk:Irpen

• User talk:Irpen/archived closed issues
• User talk:Irpen/archived closed issues 02
• User talk:Irpen/archived closed issues 03
• User talk:Irpen/archived closed issues 04
• User talk:Irpen/archived closed issues 05

• If you left a message at my talk, I will most likely respond here rather than at your own talk to preserve the context of the discussion, so please stop by later. However, please consider in many cases to use the article's talk for the issues related to specific articles. Similarly, if I left the message at your talk earlier, I ask you to respond there for the same reason. Don't worry, I will see it!
• I never censor my talk page from most anything, including the criticism of myself left by others. However, I may remove clearly trollish entries, personal attacks on myself (unless I find them amusing) and on others (even less tolerance to those). The rest will be occasionally archived.
• Please stop by at the Wikipedia's Ukraine portal and Russia portal.
• Thank you! --Irpen

PBW talks

I've read all the relevant talk pages before I posted my comments, I wonder what made you think that I didn't. Perhaps I haven't noticed some of the arguments and repeated them, but it was certainly not done in bad faith. Also note that I'm not reverting some of your controversial edits and instead I'm using the talk page. I appreciate your will of discussion and I hope to hear some arguments or a list of things that are actually disputed. Halibutt 00:35, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

For now, I dispute the Kruchkov story, but since it is totally on its head I have doubts about the sources in general, as I pointed at the article's talk.

Also, I would like to see copyvio problems addressed. The article, from which the text was borrowed was not listed in references. I have no way of knowing what else is from where. If you used any other online sources, list them of course, at least at talk, since I cannot just buy and read all the print books listed there. Online refs definetely have to be listed in online WP. Also, only books used in writing should be in references. The rest is "further reading".

In the dispute re outcome of Kiev Offensive we already heard each other. I would like to see what others will say, very much including the Polish editors, maybe not all but most for sure (don't want to call names). Same about Wolodarka.

Finally, for clarity, let's not split the discussion between several pages (yours, mine, articles). You can respond to me at your own talk. I will know :). I only responded here now, because these things are already said at the article's talk. It is important for all conserned editors to see relevant discussions. regards, --Irpen 01:07, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I believe I already adressed all of your concerns on the respective talk pages. I hope to hear from you soon. I also explained where the heck the part on Kruchkov came from. It was about the only online reference I used and now it is mentioned in the talk. As to the copyvio - please take note that it was in the original version by Piotrus, so I believe you should ask him about it, and not me. As to the other voices in the discussion - unfortunately I doubt it will attract more readers as this matter is not that popular nowadays. Or am I wrong?

Anyway, I prefer to respond on people's talk pages as it is easier for them to notice that there is some discussion going on. Otherwise, I'd have to open about 1000 User talk pages every time someone posts a comment there... Halibutt 01:37, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

BTW, Irpen, don't get me wrong, I really appreciate your calm responses and your influence on cross-checking the articles. However, you still need to provide any sources at the Battle of Wołodarka talk page - and I seriously doubt you could find any to support your claim. Whichever way you turn the cat... Halibutt 06:30, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Kostomarov

Sorry, I had no intention to contribute to the article on Kostomarov. I merely pointed to the fact that the guy represented quite a one-sided view on history and that much of what he wrote (and of what you quoted as a source) is factually inaccurate. So far I didn't have time to finish the chapter. It is fascinating as a monument to Russian vision of history, but I simply left for the weekend (a German wikipedians' meeting on Usedom island) and did not return until 4am today.

As to EB being a decent source - I admit I have (rather bad) experience only with EB1911, which is not a best source for the history of Central Europe as it is known to reflect only the Russian 19th-centurish view and for a complete disregard on other views. I hope modern EB is better than its predecessor. Anyway, I always prefer to discuss original sources rather than other encyclopedias, as it is easier to check the sources the author used - and the author himself. Cheers! Halibutt 00:47, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedias simply represent modern mainstream version of its time. If modern EB says that PSW started from Kiev offensive we cannot just say in WP that it started from Vilnius. This is the sense it is important. We can present EB's version along with the other, but we cannot present a version that contradicts EB as the mainstream and discount EB as erroneous. Again, if EB says that the Polish goal of the war was to "seize UA" we cannot just say that its goal was UA's independence. We can say, that there is a dispute but something being in EB means that this is mainstream, or at least one of several mainstream versions.

You may not be ineterested in Kostomarov's article. That's fine. I just want to move the lengthy talk to where it is relevant and that's why I am asking you. I would be interested to know what you say when you finish it. I would like to reply to what you already said but I would like to do it at a diffrent talk page. That's why I asked whether you would mind if I move the material. --Irpen 01:01, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind at all, feel free to move it. However, since you used his vision for support of your arguments at the discussion on the history of Kiev, then perhaps leavcing a part of it there might be appropriate as well. After all the fact that the guy saw practically everything as a means of oppression (even the Magdeburg Law - lol) is quite relevant to that discussion. Halibutt 01:39, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

As to other encyclopedias - here we differ. For me other encyclopedias - even as acclaimed as the EB - are written by people like you or me, who have their own views and the articles they produce are still more of their own selection of facts than representation of mainstream history. Especially that the current mainstream history of PBW is published in Polish and Russian and not in English. Hence, the (unsourced) claim that the Polish aim was to conquer the Ukraine might be simply a mistake, a reflection of authors' views, a reflection of Russian sources rather than Polish or Ukrainian, or for instance, a bad wording (the term used as a short for capture militarily and pass it over to Ukrainian authorities). All in all, IMHO encyclopedias can be used as a decent way to cross-check the wikipedia articles, but they are hardly sources of their own - and should not be used as conclusive in determining such crucial issues as the aims of the war - especially that we have plenty of original documents to work with. Halibutt 01:45, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Kiev Offensive

I understand your frustration. Anyway, maybe a short break and returning to the articles afresh in a couple of days is a good idea. In the meantime, what do you think of my suggestion of writing more articles about the battles/events of the 1920 campaign that would add more balanced view ? As I tried to explain, the articles written by Polish editors are based mostly on Polish historiography, therefore their selection may be intrinsically biased. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 20:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I appreciate your attempts to find agreable solutions. You, Piotrus, EugeneK and myself did manage to move the articles forward a little bit before Halibutt got stuck with myself and EugeneK (I don't blame him for his vision of this but I think he did jump the gun too fast and defends his positions to stubbornly, but that's just how strongly one feels that he's right, so no bad blood is drawn).

Writing about other battles, as you proposed, is a good idea. However, this is better to be done by editors with better preparation than myself. I just tried to start from what I saw in the articles that initially alarmed me as making little sense. Only after that I started to dig into the topic. If I get into writing new articles, I would have to do so much research, that I would not be able to do anything else in WP.

As for getting back to this after a break, we'll see. We will need to have some starting points to agree on. Outcome of the battles are crucial and there are no new arguments there to possibly bring up. I asked for an alternative scenario at Wolodarka which would be a draw and how different would that be from what actually happened. I did not get an answer. Halibutt asked, how is this not a victory and also doesn't see responses as an answer. In Kiev, the outcome is so obvious and so well argued at talk, that it is just impossible to believe people can agree on anything if my change of the outcome was called "unexpected, unsupported and unsourced change ... [with evidence I] so far failed to [provide]". Anyway, I got frustrated with arguing itself but not personally with people. I will keep an eye on the articles and might even write at talk pages but I decided against trying to edit them for now. Thanks again! --Irpen 20:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to see Polish, Russian, Ukrainian etc. editors collaborate more than fight. Maybe I'm over-optimistic, but I believe this can gradually be achieved. The first step is respecting each other even if we cannot agree, and I think this is a success already. Edits like this one are very harmful and inflammatory, however. Thanks for putting it down, we don't need a flame war on top of this all.

As to an alternative scenario for a draw at Wolodarka, I'm not sure if there exists any in cases of a charge or siege, when one side is clearly defending its positions only. My view on this is quite mixed, as you've seen. I have to admit that even the Kiev outcome is not 100% clear to me, although I'm rather inclined towards "Soviet victory", but I also understand Halibutt's points. Poles were not defeated there, but withdrew, no Polish army was destroyed. Unlike Soviets, who were later defeated in Battle of Warsaw (1920). See the difference ? Thanks for your patient and cool approach and I appreciate your withdrawing instead of loosing the temper :-) --Wojsyl ^(talk) 21:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

No, no! I did loose my temper and therefore withdrew. As for your specific example, I view it like this. If one is trying to attack, fails and the seige fails because of that (besieging army withdraws), this is the victory of a defender (Battle of Moscow). If the attack did not suceed and things return to where they were, this is inconclusive. Another attack at a later time may or may not be a victory. --Irpen 21:48, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I agree. This seems like original research, however. It would be good to have a support of independent (not original) research calling it a draw. This could be difficult, though. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 05:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think it is an overstretch to call this "original research". This is just a simple and obvious logical string. I am sure that you will not find any book or source that would say literally that 1.980458456336502^{1.980458456336502} = 3.8701893442374057953370823328016, but if I need a result of this calculation in some WP article, I am sure I am allowed to use it. The article describes the battle, tells that everyone returned to an initial position and than calls an outcome a "Polish victory". I think your recent change in Wolodarka is a step in the right direction. Thanks again for your help in the search of the resolution. I didn't really plan to do anything there, but what really ticked me off is a complete disregard of my objection via a single-handed removal of my POV tag. Cheers, --Irpen 06:53, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Bah! Indeed, reading your chat here was helpful (see my recent comment on Talk:Battle of Wołodarka). Hope that ends the dispute. Cheers. Halibutt 13:50, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Or does it? Halibutt 07:35, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I will respond to your comments at article's talk. I really had no time today for much. I will get to this on the weekend. If/When you feel I am not responding within a reasonable time, you may remove the mention of the dispute of course. I may resurrect it when I respond but I think a couple of days isn't too much to ask. Also, I owe you responses in different discusions which I also plan to get to soon. Regards, --Irpen 07:42, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I have edited the article a bit further and then removed the POV tag. Let me know if there are any specific issues that you still consider POV and that remained in the article. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 14:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, is there any chance you respond to your own dispute any time soon? Halibutt 08:10, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I will respond at article's talk. --Irpen 14:03, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Allow me

I, Ghirlandajo, hereby award you this Order of Bogdan Khmelnitsky for your great work on topics pertaining to Ukraine and especially for your exceeding patience and resilience in discussing controversial issues on talk pages. Keep it up!

Wow! Thanks :) , I am honored! Actually, I am trying to contribute to Russia-related article too. But, due to a much larger number of great editors there, my contribution to RU remains rather insignificant.

I was already thinking of awarding myself an Орден "Дружбы народов"' (Why can't I award myself if Brezhnev could?) but with this more prestigeous award, my vanity is more than satisfied for a while for now :). Cheers, --Irpen 22:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Remember, Brezhnev awarded himself the Order of Victory, but it was taken from him after his death. Many of his honours were revoked, such as the Polish Order of Military Merit. Zach (Sound Off) 04:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, you did not revoke Mikkalai's barnstar you awarded to him when he single-handily substituted it by the Hero of the Soviet Union that he chose for himself and still displays it on his page? So, don't try to scare me, I will award myself with something when I feel like doing this. If this gets revoked after my death, well, I will see what I would do then. --Irpen 05:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Mikkalai rejected the Barnstar, and he replaced it with the HSU. I threw my hands up and moved on. Zach (Sound Off) 05:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, self-awarding legitimacy, or lack of it, should not be affected by the fact whether or not it is accompanied by a rejection of a different award, should it? Anyway, I am extremely modest, at least as much as you are, as you could see. I only displayed a ribbon at my user page. Please note, that I was awarded an Order of B. Kh. 1st class skipping the lower two classes. As you can read from an article, 1st class is "awarded to front or army commanders for successful direction of combat operations that led to the liberation of a region or town inflicting heavy casualties on the enemy." I hope our enemies would not recover from such heavy casualties and no one will ever challenge from now on that our cabal rules the Wikipedia. Ура! --Irpen 05:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

While I agree about the cabal, I was not tyring to pick a fight. I was trying to inject some knowledge. Plus, I see that your taking my route on the ribbon bars. :) Zach (Sound Off) 05:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Wołodarka

Ok, Irpen, let us end this whole dispute. If you please, just explain on my talk page how is it that the Russians achieved nothing and were defeated yet the Poles did not win. Halibutt 11:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I will explain it at the article's talk itself for the one last time. --Irpen 22:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I took your above words as a promise. Do you plan to keep it some day? Halibutt 15:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, I did respond at that time. Please check dates. To what you wrote later, there is nothing new to add and I view that I said more than enough. Since there are no new questions, there were no new answers for some time. The note about the dispute should stay unless other editors, not just you, views them unwarranted. Not everyohe has to agree, but there has to be an overwhelming majority. So far, to you were rejecting proposals from three (!) editors and insist on your version. I spent to much effort on this to abandon it now. Unless I see that several editors view my position unjustifued, I see no reason to withdraw my objections. --Irpen 19:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Since you do not respond at my talk page and it is quite difficult to monitor talk pages of all the people I leave messages to, I replied in the article's talk page. I hope you'll respond there and not here. Halibutt 22:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, now that you have the article blocked, could yopu possibly PROVIDE SOURCES to the version you so fiercefully promote? Also, answering my question (only one, really simple question) would be a step in good direction... Halibutt 01:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

it is easy to figure percentage of speakers

• http://www.uceps.org/ua/opros/15/?show_q_id=46&idTema=0&m_razdel=101
• http://www.uceps.org/ua/opros/15/?show_q_id=47&idTema=0&m_razdel=101

Ilya K 18:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I know about the census. But there is a caviat. Please take a look at Ukrainian language#Independence and modern era (last paragraph) as well as talk:Ukrainian language#Percentage of speakers. --Irpen 18:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You have not understood, follow links. But unfortunately here - http://www.prozorist.org.ua/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=161 different numbers (although more Ukranianistic:):( . But I beleived in surves afer presidental elections Ilya K

I am sorry, internet problems :(. I got it now. The links are indeed useful. I should use them for ua-language article because I only had Kiev numbers at hand when I was writing this section. However, please note that this numbers prove that the statement at ua-L that "Ukrainopohones became a minority in their nation" removed by AndriyK was factually correct. We should return it there then, shouldn't we? Thanks for the useful link and for your participation. I am glad to work together on more article. --Irpen 19:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Welcome here - uk:Мовна ситуація в Україні. Ilya K 19:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! These numbers seem sensible. I can't do much more right now. Please keep an eye on Ukrainization because it got totally disrupted. Also, I left some comments to your recent edits at talk. Actually, you may see that I was against this article to be started at this point because it mostly duplicates the section from the history of ua-L. But once it was started I was just trying to see it not going into excesses and moderating it. I hope it can be made encyclpedic. The wholesale delitions by one user will just make it slower and will not accomplish anything. Regards, --Irpen 19:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

http://www.dif.org.ua/publics/doc.php?action=11/us5

Чи доводилось Вам за останні 12 місяців стикатися з випадками дискримінації (утиску прав та інтересів) щодо людей таких національностей?

e1. Чи доводилось Вам за останні 12 місяців стикатися з випадками дискримінації (утиску прав та інтересів) щодо… Українців?

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
1. Так 6.8 7.2 9.2 6.6 9.6 8.5 8.4 12.6 7.1 7.3 6.4 7.2
2. Ні 88.1 92.5 90.4 93.1 89.6 90.4 91.0 87.1 92.6 92.3 93.2 92.7
Не відповіди 5.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.9 1.1 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2

e2. Чи доводилось Вам за останні 12 місяців стикатися з випадками дискримінації (утиску прав та інтересів) щодо… Росіян?

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
1. Так 8.6 9.5 9.3 7.4 8.8 8.5 5.7 10.4 5.8 5.9 4.4 6.1
2. Ні 85.7 90.0 90.1 92.2 90.2 90.6 93.6 89.1 93.6 93.4 95.2 93.8
Не відповіди 5.7 0.5 0.6 0.4 1.0 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.2

So nobody's complaining. Ilya K 19:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

more http://www.livejournal.com/community/ukr_nationalism/324195.html Ilya K 20:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC) Thanks for the useful links. I will be happy to use them. Could you repair Ukrainization (I have server problems right now and can mostly edit talks only). It is a total mess not just content-wise but broken pieces too. Also, you may want to revise the intro in view of my comments at its talk. If you can't do it, I will do that myself later. However, the broken pieces and pieces of paragraphs have to be fixed asap. --Irpen 20:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Why are you lying?

The source that is available online says clearly that it was a Polish victory. So, in fact it's not that it's my conclusion, it's Fudakowski's conclusion. Halibutt 04:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Watch your tongue! Now to the point. I explained what's wrong with using Fudakowski's conclusions. His descriptions are interesting to get some small detail not an overall picture. The other source (an academic one indeed), calls this "failure". It is your concsusion that failure is so significant as to qualify for a defeat. I disagree. Why don't you mention what Davies says about it, BTW? Back to your "lying". If you want to turn this into an ethics dispute, I will only welcome it. You know how to start an RfC, don't you? If this just accidentally slips, watch yourself. --Irpen 04:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

• One source calls it a victory
• You say that no source calls it a victory
• You lie.

Also, from now on I'm stopping to watch your talk page. As a sign of courtesy you could reply at my talk page. Halibutt 21:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Check again WP:Civil. An academic source does not call it a victory. The one that does is, as I explained, not credible in this respect for two reasons. If you cite that Davies also agrees that it is a defeat, I will accept it. --Irpen 21:49, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

As to your words that seem a lie to me, you might not like one source for this or that reason (for instance that the author was too young to see what happened or too close to the battle to tell the result), but you cannot decline that the source exists. And this is exactly what you suggested.

Because, as I already pointed out (three times in a row, if memory serves me right), I don't have Davies' book at home. So, contrary to your allusions, I don't simply "refuse to say what Davies says", in fact I don't know. Halibutt 22:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Very well, could you ask Piotrus to check then? As I said, I will accept the Davies' version. I thought you said you don't have Davies in English but have him in Polish. So, I assumed you cold check that. --Irpen 22:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Page moves

Point me to page moves that need to be listed at WP:RM. —Michael Z. 2005-10-27 19:47 Z

See your talk. I think an arbitration is in order with preliminary injunction to prohibit moves by this user issued upon case acceptance. He should be allowed to propose moves at talk, of course, but not move single-handily, even if the page is available. These pages should be moved in one block. My god! That's so exhausting! I so much wanted to do something with St. Volodymyr's cathedral, because it is a very worthy topic. And with so much more! Cheers, --Irpen 19:56, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The Chernihiv issue

Hi there, Irpen! First of all, thank you for your kind words on my "Siege of..." articles. I hope they won't be badly butchered by our Polish wikipedians :). As for the voting, I really feel that some admin or sysop (whatever they're called) should intervene and sort out this mess with sock puppets and one-time visitors. Otherwise, this voting doesn't make any sense and will have to be moved to arbitration committee or something. Btw, was this AndriyK blocked? Do you know? Take care and I'll see you in the Russian Portal, as always. KNewman 18:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

He was blocked and not once by now, but his blocks already expired and he can edit now. --Irpen

Just wanted to add that admins can't really check if a user is a sockpuppet. I left a message to David Gerard, one of the few people with the CheckUser capability. I wouldn't hold my breath for him to review this request any time soon, but at least he did not decline it right away. If that fails, ArbComm might be the only option.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 19:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I am prepared to go for ArbCom on the issue as way as in general against the user who made all this trouble. This is, however, rather time consuming. OTOH, recruiting voters at forums popular among the Russian chauvinists may result in future debates that would be even more time consuming. Personally, I prefer the ArbCom as I explained earleir. --Irpen 07:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Piłsudski's nationalism?

I'd be interested to discuss your view of Piłsudski as being nationalistic. I think the perception in Poland is quite the contrary, he was the main opponent of nationalism. I'm curious what made you think he was a nationalist ? Maybe it was the Soviet propaganda, that attempted to picture him as a facist ? --Wojsyl ^(talk) 08:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well let's see destruction of multiple non-catholic buildings (including the famous Alexandr Nevskiy cathedral in Warsaw). Invasion of a sovereign nation - USSR. Having some random ideals about creating a barrier from Russia red or white, to be fair that's a bit on the nationalistic side. Kuban kazak 19:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

All right. Where do you see nationalism in this ? --Wojsyl ^(talk) 21:57, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Wojsyl, FYI, the Soviet propaganda preferred not to cover Pilsudski at all because he was associated with not so successful military campaign of the Soviet Russia. If you are interested in modern view of mainstream historiography in Ukraine, you may read the following article in Ukrainian or in Russian (whichever you can read more easily).

• "Figures of the 20th century. Józef Piłsudski: the Chief who Created a State for Himself," Zerkalo Nedeli (the Mirror Weekly), Feb. 3-9, 2001, available online in Russian and in Ukrainian.

I did not expect at all that the statement that he was a nationalist would startle Poles. OTOH, I beleive, that my statement to the contrary was equally unexpected for you to see. That's the consequence of systemic biases we may have been exposed too. That's the good thing about international projects, such as WP, that it brings people with such different views together. --Irpen 22:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's good and educative. I would expect that Russian POV would see Piłsudski as an enemy, and Ukrainian POV could perceive him as a traitor, but why a nationalist ? :-) Just for explanation: the Polish perception is that he was the major opponent of the nationalistic ideas of Roman Dmowski. Calling an opponent of nationalism a nationalist does not seem to make much sense. The fact that someone was fighting against the Soviet Union has nothing to do with him being a nationalist or not. Or is it that all the enemies of Russia were labeled as nationalists by definition ? ;-) --Wojsyl ^(talk) 22:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well first of all we must remember that the Russian common POV on nationalism is often heavily skewed away from its true definition, (for instance in some of his Postwar policies Stalin might well fit the, traditional unskewed definition of Nationalism) Ho Chi Minh, even though he was communist was at the same time a hardline Vietnamese nationalist. Most new nations begin with a heavy slant on nationalism. Poland in the post WW1 scenario was certainly not an exception to this rule, and if you look at the policies conducted by the new Polish state then, examples of nationalism are...everywhere, multiple destruction of Orthodox Churches, multiple Polinisation of what you call the Kresy territories...Usually the policies that were carried out at that time are later accredited to the leaders, I did not say that it was Pilsudskiy that ordered the destruction of churches, it may well have been that he did everything in his power to prevent their destruction, but history seems to have its own way with these events. Kuban kazak 23:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I have no doubt that Poland in the interbellum was a highly nationalistic country. In fact the level of Polish nationalism rose with time and was much higher in the 1930-s, after Piłsudski's death than before. Nevertheless, he was the leader of the socialist party, that opposed the right wing nationalists. I don't think he ever claimed that Polish nation was superior to any other nations or that Poland should be limited to a single nation only. Piłsuski's friend and Polish president Gabriel Narutowicz was murdered by nationalists, who hated them. I don't know who ordered the Alexandr Nevsky cathedral, but you'd have to take the whole story into account and consider when and why it was built. It was clearly a symbol of a foreign occupant. Ask yourself: why should it be preserved in the newly independent Poland ? I don't see its destruction has much to do with nationalism. To summarise, on Polish political scene, Piłsudski was seen as a major enemy of nationalism and his ideas of multi-national state were fiercely criticized by National-Democratic Party. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 01:26, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The question is would there ever be such a multinational state even if Pilsudski would have gotten it his way and managed to be its leader. I don't know how genuine his words were but even if believing that he was sincere saying that, I doubt his policies would follow up. His army's behaviour in Galicia and Volhynia after the suppression of WUR leave me in doubt about him being able to accept equality of Ukraine and Poland and, perhaps, others in the Polish-centered mega-state. His army's mauradeering in the central Ukraine during the PSW may not prove much, because it may have been common at the time, but he could have taken measures here too. The most important thing, though, is that unlike some Polish people I've seen believe, the equality of nobility and religions in PLC is a myth or at least it is a myth from what I read. It may be unprecedentedly "equal" compared to other multiethnic states, but other states never claimed to be "federations", or "Democracies of nobles". Other states never proclaimed religious freedom too and Warsaw compact was unprecedented. The truth perhaps is that the proponents of such federations throughout history always assumed a Polish domination there, even if subconsciously. I see no reason that Pilsudski was any different in this respect. --Irpen 01:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You may be right, but since we're speculating here, why not go a bit further. If the federation succeeded, probably we would not have WW2 and probably not Soviet Union. Even if dominated by Poland in the federation, I expect Ukraine would be better off than under totalitarian regimes. Piłsudski's idea was to counterbalance the power of German and Russian empires, but obviously he failed. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 08:52, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

As to Kazak's arguments (mind if I join you?), they are bizarre indeed. For instance, the destruction of the Saxon Square Orthodox church was not a matter of Piłsudski's nationalism or socialism as he had nothing to do with that. That building (the highest in Warsaw at that time!), along with the monument to Poles killed for loyalty to their monarch and several other signs of Russian rule, was seen as a symbol of Russian oppression. It was visible from almost all parts of the city and was built by the city (large contributions imposed on it by the occupants) for the Russian garrison. And after it was gone, it was decided to dismantle the church. While the decision might seem controversial to some, it was made by the authorities of Warsaw, not by Piłsudski (note that, unlike USSR, Poland was a democracy and not every single thing was decided by the Chief of State, especially after he withdrew to his reffuge in Józefów after the Polish-Bolshevik War). Also note that there were also other Orthodox churches built for the Russian garrisons of Warsaw that were dismantled after they became deserted (most Russians withdrew from Warsaw along with the Russian army in 1915), while several others were left in place (there are three of them still standing, despite the fact that there are barely any Orthodox people in Warsaw nowadays).

As to what Irpen wrote above, Piłsudski's idea was not a multinational state but rather a federation. Also, note that the border treaty with Ukraine was respected by Piłsudski even after Dmowski's negotiators at the Riga talks threw the Ukrainian cause out of the window. And that the border on the Zbruch river was kept, despite the fact that the Russians offered Poland much more territory there. Also, we can only speculate what would've happened with Petlura's Ukraine after the war as in fact it lasted only for several weeks before the allied armies were pushed back. During the war of 1920 the Ukrainian Army was indeed subdued militarily, but this is rather natural. Especially that it was severely understrenght (all six Ukrainian divisions were en cadre and numbered more or less the same as an average Polish infantry division of the time) and fully equipped by Poland. However, it was not dominated by Poland politically in any way. Note that there was no Polish administration there, not even in the front area (which was quite uncommon back then and is even now; usually allied armies have their military administration near the front). So, all in all, if there was no Polish political hegemony there during the war, why should we assume there would be some after the war? And how are such assumptions any more reasonable than assumptions to the contrary?

BTW, how about moving this discussion to Talk:Józef Piłsudski? Halibutt 03:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I understand that the stated form of the state was a federation but I am sure that what was had in mind was a Polish dominated federation as I explained above. As for Ukrainian events, I am talking not about joint operation with Petliura's which I find strange to call "allies" but so be it if this is used in Polish books (collaborators seem more exact to me). What I meant, are events that happened before Petliura was subdued and had to sell out the the aspirations of Ukrainians in what is now Western Ukraine for Pilsudski's help in installing himself in Kiev. From the article linked above (sorry for the Russian):

В сентябре 1919 года войска украинской Директории попали на Подолье в так называемый «треугольник смерти». Они были зажаты между красными русскими Ленина и Троцкого на северо-востоке, белыми русскими Деникина на юго-востоке и поляками на западе. Смерть смотрела в глаза. И не только людям — всему только что рожденному государству. Поэтому, верховный атаман Симон Петлюра просто вынужден был или согласиться на предложенный Пилсудским союз, или фактически капитулировать перед большевиками, как сделали тогда или через год-два Владимир Винниченко и Михаил Грушевский. Решение это — очень болезненное. Польская шляхта была историческим врагом украинского народа. Кровоточила свежая рана ЗУНР — именно в это время пилсудчики распинали украинскую Восточную Галичину. Но все же Петлюра согласился на мир и союз, признав украинско-польской границей будущую границу советско-польскую. Следует отметить, что при этом Пилсудский получал меньше земель, нежели ему предложил Ленин, и в придачу еще и войну с огромной Россией. Надднепрянцы же фактически бросали на произвол судьбы в беде своих братьев-галичан. Но Петлюра решил использовать последний шанс сохранить державу — в союзе с поляками. Попробовал. Было не суждено.

P.S. I have no objection to moving the discussion to Pilsudski's talk. --Irpen 04:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I took the liberty to migrate our last two comments to Talk:Międzymorze and reply there. Halibutt 16:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

PMW

If I should revert this or not. Ghirlandajo comment, unsuprisingly, is not helpful. What do you think? In other news, I have been thinking about making our EENoticeboard more active. One thing that would be useful would be a listing of pages with disputes involving our editors (like currently Międzymorze, and maybe others I might be interested in but am not aware of). We can also have a list of past discussions with a summary of a compromise reached (like on Domeyko and Polish-Soviet War). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:09, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

While I disagree with a comment in the edit summary, I am not so clear about the phrase itself as I've said at the article's talk. Ghirlandajo's change about what the day means in Russia now is certainly correct. We are only talking about the phrase regarding the Polish interpretation of that and I am not clear of it. Did you mean that it is interpreted as such in Poland now because the events it is connected to happened at the time of the Polish intervention? Or do you mean that in today's climate the relationships are so strained that, therefore, it is interpreted as such? Since it was not clear to me, the phrase probably needs changed in any case (that is if it's kept, of course).

I am all for the EE board revival despite there was a Polish editor who at some article (I forgot which one) argued whether the PL is EE on the first place. The braoder attention to PSW and PMW would certainly help. Some discussions are still not resolved (like the Volodarka one which was decided by a vote tally when the result 3:1 was not statistically significant, it's not 30:10, but I just got tired of that)

As for Miedzymorze, this is a serious issue too. While "imperilism" name isn't neutral, much of this article is about expansionism rather than just the Miedzymorze, and this would benefit from discussions.

What's your take on the Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Geographic names discussion. I think we are close to a good proposal (the last version). Regards, --Irpen 02:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for copying the responce to my talk page, I don't check other people's talk pages for replies. I meant that today's relationship are so strained that this festivity in Moscow was viewed by many Polish commentators as a Putin government message to Polish government ('we don't like you'). I wonder how it was viewed by Russian commentators? It certainly was (for a few days) hotly debated in Poland (IIRC). As for Poland being in CE/EE, I think many would say it is in CE - while I think that the correct answer is that it is in both, and serves as a bridge. If you could add the links of those discussions to our board, it would surely increase its usefulness. I will check the discussion soon, tnx for the note. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Map was done by Halibutt, and it is still beta. Feel free to nag him to do a new, better version :) I just got tired of waiting :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 14:41, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Naming rules

Why I insist on stricter naming rules. This is specifically important from Polish perspective. As you know, territory of Poland was shifted a lot after WW2. Now, having the naming rules defined will not allow the Polish more nationalistic editors for the schizophrenic behaviour they are exercising now, where they would like to see more historical names in the East, while at the same time insisting on the modern Polish names in the west of the country. Generally, most of the towns in northern and western Poland has their German names, while also most of the countries in Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine have Polish names. That is why I'm against "leaving it up to the authors". I think it should be set either one or another way. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 00:47, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! I agree with you about strict rules in the first line. I just think it would be harder to define strict rules for the inside the text usage. That's what I meant at the discussion page. --Irpen 00:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Please pay attention: lies is against WP policy

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Civility#Examples.

As I pointed you out many times, the city name Chernihiv is applied by creadible English-language sources to all periods of history: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] [6], [7].

Why do you misinform other users telling that it's "anachronism". Don't you have a better argument except lies?--AndriyK 16:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I have shown you repeatedly that Chernigov is preferred in historic context. I replied to that links list of yours where you posted it originally at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Geographic_names#Text_of_the_Article. Too bad you don't read replies to your messages at talk pages. Also, no need to post something twice at my talk. One time is sufficient since I pay my undivided attention to your opinions. --Irpen 16:38, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You lie again! You did not show me that "Chernigov is preferred in historic context". You've cited something using both"Chernigov" and "Chernihiv" without any reference to the source.

Even if other sources use "Chernigov", this is not a reason to to call "Chernihiv" "anachronism". Or you pretend to be more competent in modern English than the authors and editorial board members of the sources I cited above?--AndriyK 16:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Sigh, I explained at the talk page linked above everything that needed to be said on that. I appreciate your posting of a WP:NPOV link at several talk and discussion pages. It is indeed a very useful reading. You may also consult WP:Civil, another pillar of WP. --Irpen 16:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

AndriyK, you don't think "Oleg of Chernihiv" is an anachronism? You've been occupying lots of editors' energy with fabrications like this.

Regarding civility, a bald-faced accusation of lying looks pretty hypocritical and uncultured to me. The exclamation point really adds class. —Michael Z. 2005-11-7 17:00 Z

No, I do not conbsider Oleg of Chernihiv is anachronism. Why should it be anachronism if creadible English-language sources apply Chernihiv exactly to the times of Oleg's life? If you have any conter-arguments, I would be glad to see them.

Exclamation signs is not so bad as lies. Please note, I am not the first one who mentioned that Irpen lies. (See above).--AndriyK 17:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

AndriyK, voting at talk:Oleg of Chernihiv have shown that Wikipedians somehow see this an anachronism and most of those who think optherwise are recruited by you absentee voters with no clue of the issue, just like those recruited by Yanuk and his fellow criminals in former zlochynna vlada. As for the real academic specialists, read my response to you at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions/Geographic_names#Text_of_the_Article as well as what almost every Wikipedian who established himslef my his contributions have been telling you. And please discuss things at the relevant talk pages, so that more editors can see you.

By your "you lies!" BS you are just making a fool of yourself. Better yet, do it at more public discussion pages than at my talk. OTOH, I do not object to your using my talk for showing off and I did not delete any of your comments so far from it. --Irpen 17:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I copied your answer because the discussion is not about the naming convention but rather about your dispute style and your ignoring of facts.--AndriyK 18:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

AndriyK, too bad that when you decided to join the discussion, your input is mainly a twist and a personal attack.

As for the links you posted, several are just WP mirrors that prove nothing. Link to Encartha is a dead link and I can't check it. PDF file from fco.gov.uk indeed uses Chernihiv for historic times, but it is hardly an academic publication and more like a CIA fact book (still notable but would be more important if it was a book by a historian). Your link to Britannica disproves your point more than it proves it. Yes, EB uses Chernihiv in Chernihiv article but, as I have shown at Talk:Chernihiv#Britannica.27s_use_in_historical_context, EB uses Chernigov in the articles of every historical person (and there are several articles like that).

The whole point about the text usage, is not about manipulating, but about writing articles. I wrote the Chernihiv article and you came in and the only thing you did was name manipulation. That's why a proposed an additional ethics rule at EE portal but too bad you don't support that because otherwise you would have to write things in order to see your favorite names, much harder than edit warring. You started to write an article about the principality and you started to use Chernihiv there. Too bad you abandoned that. The flexible rule might have allowed you to keep it but I guess writing articles is just too hard and not very interesting. --Irpen 01:36, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

This was you who started a personal attack on me instead of discussing the naming convention.

There was only one WP-mirror. I replaced it and added one more.

The Encarta link is not dead. Just pay $5 and you will read the ancient history of Chernihiv..

Why don't comment on the Columbia Encyclopedia?

You do not consider the publication by Eastern Research group of British Foreign and Commonwealth office as academic? What is more academic then? Do you think the people there do not have degrees in history or related areas? You just do not want to accept facts. This is the reason.

The new reference I added is a publication by historians.

I tried to write an article and I immediuately got your message that it'll be listed for renaming. That is the reason why I gave up until the issue is solved. Another my article was vandalized by your friend Ghirlandajo several times. As I learned from the WP-mirrors Chernihiv was used much more frequengtly in WP articles several month ago. Who replaced it with Chernigov without writing new articles? And now you blame me for "manipulating"!--AndriyK 18:29, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I did not say that Encarta's is invalid, I said that I cannot comment until I read it. The link you posted was not to an abstract which can be expaned upon supscription but to an error message. Maybe it is an Encarta's bug. I will check the new links you posted and will comment on them at Talk:Chernihiv. I don't know what you mean by learning of the past usage at Wikipedia from mirrors. All histories in WP are available as only the stuff like copyvios (like what you or your buddy used to add), threatening texts and other similarly inappropriate stuff are deleted from history too. Chernihiv article was written by me from scratch as you can check here and later expanded by other editors. You don't need to go to mirrors to find this out, check the histories. I have elaborated on Britannica's usage at Talk:Chernihiv#Britannica.27s_use_in_historical_context. I have elaborated on the Church debates at the appropriate talk pages too. Take the discussion there, so that others can see it if you have anything more to say.

You are wasting yours and my time by limiting this just to me and by trying to make your position more convinsing through a name calling or resorting to the Party of Regions tactics of recruiting absentee voters and/or revert warriors that would, like this user wrote "shoot under your command" (I hope they didn't use sockpuppets for that, I will try my best to have this whole matter indestigated). Your time will be used more effectively if you debate this at article's talk and see whether it is just me, or others too find your arguments unconvinsing. --Irpen 19:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Oleg of Chernihiv

Please think once more. Is it nice to have one spelling in the title and another one is the article?--AndriyK 20:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Current spelling of the title is caused by the rigged voting. Judging from the edit histories of the voters, more than a half of the voters that supported your moves are those recruited by you at Maidan and asked to vote a specific way. I am going to bring this issue up to have these votes suppressed or the results overturned or revoted and your behaviour sanctioned as soon as I get to this.

I have told you that I was surprized to see a Ukrainian patriot using himself the absentee voters tactics copied from Yanukovych's presidential campaign and urged those who opposed you not to respond your fraudulent action by similar calls at different internet forums.

In any case, you cannot force the results of the rigged vote on the usage in general. When and if real Wikipedians rather than those brought to help in revert wars and voting (and who left until the next call), so when and if real Wikipedians start to see that Oleg of Chernihiv is more appropriate, the usage will smoothly evolve as it did for Luhansk, Kharkiv, etc (with my direct involvement in the moves of these pages). However, I doubt that Oleg of Chernihiv will ever be used. If the English language usage ever switches to Ukrainian terminology, he will be called Oleh of Chernihiv. --Irpen 20:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If you doubt the validity of the vote, please provide the reference to WP Policies confirming your assertions. In any case, the present title of the article is Oleg of Chernihiv. Is it nice to use another spelling in the text?--AndriyK 09:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

It is not only nice, it is necessary.

Why have you removed that spelling completely in your edits? I'll never understand you fanatics, with a policital agenda or whatever your reasons are, who want to hide this information from people using search engines, using the quite common names they already know. Why in the world do you want to do that? Gene Nygaard 21:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I just would like to make Wikipedia conforming other modern English language encyclopedias. Concerning the altenative spelligs, they can be listed in the article.

There are also redirect pages with alternative spellings, so nothing is hidden from search engines.--AndriyK 11:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Holodomor

So, I was right about the ensuing battle for Holodomor, wasn't I? Sashazlv 06:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

You were! What do you think of it? On another issue, I would like to finish over the weekend. Drop me a note if you have any suggestions or drafts. --Irpen 06:09, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I am afraid not much can be done against a gang of schizophrenics. This shows how far they are willing to go. Just another example that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. I don't have the means to respond adequately.

I am now inclined to think that there are more productive ways to spend my time rather than participating in edit wars and trying to devise arguments for people who wouldn't listen anyway. I have much work to do elsewhere.

Don't cast your pearls before swine. Sashazlv 14:58, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

So, where do we go from here? I originally thought, and I am still inclined to think, that AA may have his heart on the right spot. But, somebody prescribe him valium and give him a book on basic logic. It's very frustrating. But, I am not yielding, I think discussing holocaust denial for almost ten years has given me the required stamina... Dietwald 20:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

thanks for pointing out what's going on there. I may need support, though. Dietwald 20:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Polish invasion of Russia

Not long ago you did not believe that creation of the "Polish Imperialism" redirect was a purposeful provocation by Ghirlandajo. I'm curious to see your opinion now, after a new redirect of his: Polish invasion of Russia. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 10:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Would you be willing to mediate the case ? I feel a bit uneasy doing this myself, as G. tends to call all Polish editors "nationalists" and I'd prefer to avoid this sort of discussion if possible. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 21:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I disagree with this redirect and I would be willing to mediate but it isn't very likely that all sides accept me as a mediator. Personally, I think that the "Polish Invasion of Russia" should be used for a different war, that it the Polish-Muscovite War (1605-1618). Reasons I outlined at that article's talk as well as the other alternative name (Russo-Polish War). --Irpen 23:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediation process, maybe?

Hi Irpen, please see my message Edit wars on the Talk:Oleg of Chernihiv page.

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

Copied a part of my reply from there: the A to M and N to Z idea is certainly unacceptable as a WP rule. Still, it's quite reasonable as a temporal solution to stop the edit war. From this point, I stop correcting/reverting the names that start with the letters from the second part of the alphabet (i.e from N to Z). This is also a good occasion to see whether the opposite party is able to accept any compromise in principle, or the edit waring is the primary goal of Irpen and alike.--AndriyK 09:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Coppied from the Ghirladajo's talk: I didn't start the war to stop it. If you don't revert an article, there will no more edit warring. It is as simple as that. Anyway, as I fully trust user:Irpen, I'm prepared to accept any compromise approved by him. --Ghirlandajo 11:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I am waiting for your answer. Do you accept any compropmize in principle? The let's agree for this temporal compromize and find the final solution by developing WP:NC/GN--AndriyK 15:39, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree on A-M, N-Z bs. I agree to discuss the naming convention and I am discussing it already. However, all versions there, so far, include historical usage, where appropriate. I am prepared to go to arbitration regarding your frivolous bad-faith page moving, redirect creation, vote fraud, copyright violations, disruptive behavior and personal attacks (including off-site forums). --Irpen 15:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

So you prefer to continue the edit war.--AndriyK 15:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I prefer to deal with your behavior in the way prescribed by the policies. I described your offences above. I haven't seen any change and/or appology. I agree on specific resolutions topic by topic, like St V's. As for your general pattern, you simply can't do this and come back and say "let's negotiate". Neither you would undo your frivolous moves/redirects, nor you would admit to vote fraud and appologize, nor would you appologize for the personal attacks. At least not yet. --Irpen 15:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I have to repeat once more "If you doubt the validity of the vote, please provide the reference to WP Policies confirming your assertions. If you cannot confirm your assertion, please stop slandering."--AndriyK 16:10, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

I will provide the evidence of this as well as of other policy and ethics violations by you soon, don't worry. And I don't mean just the two moves where you engaged into vote fraud. Others are made in a simial bad faith. As for "slandering", that's really funny to hear that from you. --Irpen 16:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

And when this "soon" is going to happen? You have been slandering since 9th of November 2005. You have had enough time to provide referencies.--AndriyK 16:24, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Józef Piłsudski's forces plundering of the Western Ukraine

No, I'm not troubled about it being mentioned as long as you think this is credible. I'm only interested to learn more and would be happy to see some sources supporting it, other than magazine articles. I don't have any sources that would be useful WRT whether there was siginficant plundering or not. What is plundering anyway ? Civilians killed or raped ? Villages burnt ? I hope Poles did not do it, especially that Piłsudski apparently respected Ukrainians, but it would be good to know. You said you'll try to research this when you have time and that's fine with me. Thanks. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 21:30, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Irpen

Irpen you should get another Bohdan order for helping new users like myself. Thank you for your comment and look forward to working on these projects--Riurik 23:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Allow me too

I, User:Alex Bakharev award this Barnstar to Irpen for his heroic work protecting Wikipedia from the Bad Faith Edits and Vandalism

I am SO glad you are back! While at it, is there a ribbon for this star? If not, could you make one for me? Thanks! --Irpen 01:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, take Image:WikiDefender rib.png. Thanks again. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 02:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Brutality of Poles 1918

I've not forgotten to look for the brutality of Polish against Ukrainians in 1918. I've looked up several potential sources, but so far found nothing notable. It may be because all these sources were of Polish origin. One of them menioned that the early fights were desperate and resulted in later hatred. However I was not able to find anything more specific, particularly anything that would imply that Poles were more brutal than Ukrainians. Have you had any success on this in the meantime ? --Wojsyl ^(talk) 22:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't checked yet but I remember. Could you take a look at talk:Bukovina, its history and several related paged? --Irpen 22:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have Bukovina on my watchlist, but at the moment: (a) I don't think I'm competent enough to voice my opinion, (b) you know I'm sceptic towards EB and prefer more scholarly appropriate sources. I'll watch for further development and hopefully learn more in the meantime. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 23:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a book on Romanian history in 19th and 20th centuries (Małgorzata Willaume, "Rumunia", Warszawa 2004, ISBN 8388542745) and searched for the information on Romanian intentions towards Bukovina in 19th century, but did not found anything firm on this (contrary to Transylvania). Maybe it's obvious but it can be difficult to find hard facts on this, other than personal opinions of individual authors. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 17:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too

Thanks Irpen. І Вас з Новим Роком! Веселих Свят! Ukrained 00:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Happy New Year! C Новым Годом! З Новим Роком! abakharev 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's to the happier one, Irpen! to you and yours - from me and mine :) thank you, so much. - Introvert ^talk 00:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Irpen. I'm adding my thanks and best wishes also. May 2006 be a good year for you and your close ones ;) mno 01:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Joining to everybody in thanks and wish you to keep up your titanic work! З Новим Роком і Різдвом!--Oleh Petriv 02:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not New Year for another four hours, but it's New Year by wiki time. Happy New Year! --Berkut 04:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

З новим роком. Thanks for adding an entry on my talk page ^^ -Iopq 06:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to see you around too! Happy New Year! 172 07:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Спасибо, Ирпенюшка! Тебя также с праздниками! А газ им всё-таки отключили... KNewman 08:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

very thoughtful of you:) Best wishesDietwald 19:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Irpen. Щасливого нового pокy!--SylwiaS | talk 19:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Best regards and thanks for the congratulation. I just want to let you know that after reading the replies on Zach's discussion page, I have decided to suspend my participation until the issue with advertisements gets clarified. My impression is that they (administrators) discussed it amongst themselves and agreed it would be "a lesser evil" to keep things going. As soon as the first ad is posted, I will quit permanently. I feel I was cheated out. Sashazlv 20:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy New Year to you, too ! --Wojsyl ^(talk) 20:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Спасибо за поздравление! И тебя тоже с праздником!--Pecher 19:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Apology

Irpen is awarded this barnstar for his particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia.

!מזל טוב

from Izehar

Hello Irpen, I've been thinking that since the "bad tempered anon bickering" incident, there has been a gap between us. I would like to apologise for having been on the wrong side of WP:CIV and hope you accept this barnstar for patching up. Izehar 23:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I, from my side, fully retract my remarks about the possibility of bad faith on your side (that is if I made any, which I don't think I did in relation to you anyway). Thank you for taking an extra care to check for the possibilities of open proxies. Could you show me how to do it? Next time, I will revert any contributions from such IP's on sight. --Irpen 23:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Holodomor

Thanks for the link to the Himka article! The link is especially helpful following the constructive suggestion by Dietwald on Talk:Holodomor: "What SHOULD be done is to expand the discussion on politization. The issue is unduly politicised, which in itself deserver a considerable discussion." [8] I'm also expecting to gather support for writing a much-needed entry on the Soviet famine of 1932-1934. Perhaps such an entry would be a strong candidate for Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week?

You're right about Andrew Alexander. I'm not too optimistic about the Holodomor since he is somewhat on the territorial side. Still, he has demonstrated an interest in adding well-sourced factual content and is relatively civil. We'll see how the discussion goes on the talk page. If it goes well enough, hopefully you will feel inclined to return to the article. Thanks again for the help! 172 20:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. If you get the chance, will you be able to restore the NPOV version of the Holodomor intro? Ultramarine kept on restoring the Andrew Alexander version until I'd used up my three reverts. Interestingly, he does indeed seem to be stalking me. Cold War, for example, was an article that wasn't on his watchlist until yesterday, when he probably found out that the article had been in my recent user contributions history. 172 20:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Also, thanks for the thought-provoking comments on nationalism and education in Ukraine. I'm about to leave my computer so my reply has to be too brief. I'll continue to try to do my best on the Holodomor article. In the meantime, I suppose we'll have to put up with more grandstanding from the usual quarters before much progress can be made. I'll be able to put up with them for at least another week, given that the famine is now such an important topic. Thanks again! 172 21:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Standartization of Kievan Rus' names

Прошу обратить внимание сюда, на мой взгляд проект достойный.

• Standartization of Kievan Rus' names

Kazak 07:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Unwarranted warnings

Perhaps you need to make sure that you compare the original with the current text in Ukrainian language prior to posting and reposting ridiculous warnings. There is no even remote semblance of copyright violation. Just imagination.--Andrew Alexander 08:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I did compare with the original. I will not be "reposting", I said enough. I just wanted to make sure you are aware of the problem with the text you keep restoring. --Irpen 08:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please post the results in that case here or on the discussion page. Which words or sentences are the same? Always ready to correct those problems.--Andrew Alexander 08:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

What I would like to do first of all, is to restore much of the removed information from the article deleted by your now blocked friend as well as by yourself. I made a committment to myself to get back to this article once the arbitration is over. If my expansion of the article will prompt a discussion and in the end it would be decided to restore the phrases you "borrowed" from wumag, we will discuss their modifications. I will need a little time to go over several months of edits to not forget good faith changes of so many users to be included. --Irpen 08:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Verkhovna Rada building, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

amusing entry

Irpen !!! Are you ukrainian nazionalist ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.22.217.116 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for support

Hi Irpen,

Thank you for your support with Novostroika. I admit there's a lot of issues with the article, and my comments on the request to delete page was that they're free to do as they wish. I am generally disappointed with the state of wikipedia, where if information is not necessarily relevat it is deleted rather than changed/moved. Best, mno 20:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

I like help out where I can. You've done some good work here. Tufkaa 04:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Avhustyn Voloshyn

Take a look there should be expanded, but some heavy POV-pushing is going on. (I started to neturalise it) --Kuban Cossack 22:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Statement of principles

"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred. --Jimbo Wales

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.5.124 (talk • contribs)

I don't mind anons editing. I object to using anonymous accounts for edit warring, that's all. Please edit. This wasn't an edit at all. --Irpen 20:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

First, in my humble opinion, it's wrong to focus on identity of editors (whether it's IP, or AndriyK, or Molobo, or somebody else). It's wrong to harass users by summaries like "I will put aside some time to expand the article to set you an example", "write at least one article if you decided to come back", and especially "seize messing up the texts others write". I see AndriyK's small original edition, and another edition proposed by Mzajac and introduced by AndriyK as as an attempt to introduce unbiased and neutral language into the article. If you even don't let a user to introduce a small edition, it's unethical in the same time to ask him to bring the whole article. And even if he'll never bring a whole article, editing what others wrote toward NPOV is still a plus, and it should be respected.

Second, by objecting "using anonymous accounts for edit warring", you basically acknowledged that (1) there is an editing war, and (2) you are actively participating in it. Moreover, once the edition by Mzajac was introduced I see you as the initiator of the recent edit war. (I don't know what was previously; I'm telling you my view on the current situation). Do you think that having a registered account should give its owner additional rights or power? Do you think that it's ethical for an edit war participant to accuse somebody of being unethical? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.5.124 (talk • contribs)

The problem with the conflict between AndriyK's version and the one which was there for months (admitedly written by myself) is that the advantage of the latter is explained in detail at the article's talk. Compromising is good but not for the sake of the compromise itself. Otherwise, we would have to "compromise" Ukrainian articles with the views that, say, the Ukrainian language is the dialect of the Russian or that UPA was a Nazi organization or that Holodomor was caused by bad weather. If someone just makes a random statement at talk, it does not mean that we have to compromise with it. Check recent edits by anon at Orange Revolution. I reverted him without even discussing them. In Khreschatyk the current version is explained and AndriyK failed to provide any explanation to the opposite. His reason is that he doesn't like it. Sorry, that's not good enough to force a compromise. Kuban kazak, doesn't like "I" in Kharkiv. I simply explained to him what's wrong with "O" in modern usage and he withdrew rather than insisting that we look for a compromise with "E". AndriyK just reverts such edits are not worthy of discussion in order to restore to the stable version. He does the same at Russian architecture and a whole bunch of other articles. In fact, for now, that's all he does. I am willing to put aside any issues I have with this editor and discuss things with him based on the merit of his points. He isn't making any points. Just attacks things that he happens to "not like". What should I discuss and compromise then?

Finally, that you edit the articles with ongoing conflicts anonymously is discourteous and unfair. It takes 1 minute to register a throwaway account but that would allow others to talk to you in case of disagreement. It would be best if you put yourself on the equal footing with others and reregister a stable account so that the dialog is possible and you can't pretend to not see what's being said to you. I am talking fairness to others only. But this is only as far as conflicting articles are concerned. Anonymous small corrections are totally all right. But please consider what I've said since you are obviously interested and able to contribute more than that and I know you will. Besides you know that you will. The only reason people actually leave WP is the edit conflicts or sudden sudden changes in life, not the "lack of time". It is too addictive. --Irpen 21:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of the issues you mentioned are well noticable. Personally, I didn't intervene on the Russian Architecture article, probably because while from one side I strictly support user rights to put the POV tag, but from the other, as you pointed out, it's also true that a clear statement on the reasons for the tag should follow. In AndriyK's shoes I would work on making his statement as clear and understandable to all as possible. A simple statement "I like it" probably should follow on the other side by a simple question "Why do you like it?". At best, it may follow by some arguments, but lack of discussion, or discussion over discussion, or discussion over author's identity are all worse. On the Kreschatik article it's a different story, and my 2 cents here I have already brought in. In the end, it's wrong to mix separate issues, and to bring any negative attitude toward an editor from one article to the other.

I apologize if my use of IP addresses created an impression that I am ignoring comments that people left on the discussion page for the particular IP I have used. I hope I read all the comments. And emails too. As you mentioned, some are leaving Wikipedia after a sudden changes in life, but some are aware that a certain negative change in life may come, and are working (not so successful so far) to avoid it. I don't see a point of creating an account, which we know would be essentially fake, for the purpose of few edits. Hope on your understanding on that.

P.S. I looked a little more over the Russian Architecture talk page. AndriyK did clearly state his objectives back in early December. There was a survey later in December, which resulted in 8 vs. 4 in the favor of keeping Kiev Rus architecture as a part of the article. I don't know Wikipedia rules, but in my view POV tag should be a tool for a minority to express disagreement with the majority. The majority's got the article their way, but the minory should have rights at least for a tag (claiming that the view in the article is the view by majority, which is not the same as neutral view). But then, should a view by minority be allowed on Hitler page? Tough question..

As for me personally, I am Ok with Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine are all claiming to be successors of Kiev Rus, including its architecture.

P.P.S. So, I read a few more Wikipedia rules and guidelines. According to Wikipedia:Resolving disputes, survey is mentioned as one of the ways to resolve a dispute. Also from there: "Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary". Reading more on the surveys Wikipedia:Straw polls, what I see is "Decisions should be made by consensus rather than a strict majority rule" (good goal, hard to achive; but in the end the rule is the rule), "A straw poll is just a tool for quickly probing opinions", and "A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority". Thus, there was a survey, but consensus has not being achieved. There are other ways mentioned to resolve the dispute: "Informal Mediation", "Discuss with third parties", "Mediation", "Requesting an advocate". As a last resolt, "Arbitration" is mentioned. But as long as the dispute is not resolved, POV tag should stay. It's both majority amd minority who should initiate further steps to resolve the despute.

Yes you are right and check how much time people spent on the issue in response to his tag, checking the academic sources. BTW, tagging was the second thing he did. The first one was moving it to another title Architecture of Rus, that is despite it goes into the Socialist realism times, and we his trademark dirty trick with artificial history to make sure his point is forced upon others. Then he pasted the whole chapter to Architecture of Kievan Rus without any acknowledgement of the authorship, making an impression that he wrote such a superior article. Only after that he placed a tag and it was given a fare amount of thought by the community.

Michael even took an effort to go to the city library and saw that in academia the approach is similar to the one taken in the article. What more you could ask for from the editors who listened to his objections and gave the matter such a thorough study? Third parties mostly agreed as well. If there is a bias all over the world due to a historic influence of the Russian scholarship in the historiography, the way to address it is in the new scholarly works, not in encyclopedia whose aim is to summarize the matter based on the existing knowledge, rather than to "correct" it. This is very similar to Kiev/Kyiv issue. Both are correct, Kiev is primarily used, hence we use Kiev. We mast defer to the mainstream view and mention the minority view, if they are substantial but clearly as minority view, like Holocaust denial in the Holocaust article, or the whether theory in Holodomor or that Russia is not a descendant of Kievan Rus' but of Finno-Ugric tribes in the North, like some fierce Ukrainian nationalists are trying to portray it. --Irpen 02:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"What more you could ask ...?" There is no consensus on the Russian Architecture article, and it's wrong to claim that it exists. AndriyK has never agreed. Can you prove that he is acting in bad faith? Is he actually acting in the bad faith? Other contributors, such as Yakudza, and A.A. supported the objectives in the survey.

In the end, even if somebody is an evil, should or should not we go by the rules? If not, then who are we?

What I am asking is that we go by the rules.

Yes, my point is that he is acting in bad faith here as he has shown in the past he is able to, like frivolous moves of the articles and falsified voting oto prevent moving them back. If someone throws a tag, we must study his objections first and address them the best we can. Nothing can prevent a bad-faith user from persisting by just saying "I don't agree". He cannot be allowed to screw the articles just because his views differ from the reality. One thing is ignoring someone's objection. Another thing is to persist with objections that were addressed just to stubbornly make a point. --Irpen 03:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Answered on Russian Architecture talk page, but it becomes not so productive.

Basically, AndriyK brought an objective, which was declined. And now you are saying "dispute closed. bring a fresh objective"? :(

Irpen, you are actually good in cooperating with people. Don't look for fresh objectives. Could you just give a fresh look on AndriyK? Please.

Irpen is not a Saint

Irpen's actions:

• Removed POV tag from Russian Architecture article when AndriyK who put the tag is blocked.
• Claimed that the tag is ridiculous, and consensus has been reached.
• Kept removing the tag for a dozen times and counting.

Saint's actions:

• Wait until AndriyK is unblocked.
• Welcome him back to Wikipedia.
• Remind that there is a POV tag standing on Russian Architecture article, and propose a few alternatives to finally resolve the dispute.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.5.19 (talk • contribs)

Well, not quite like this. That is I am not a saint for sure, but this is not how it was. I don't even remember whether he was blocked when I removed the tag because this was not a thing I was keeping in mind. There was a considerable amount of time (perhaps even a month) when there were enough ArbCom votes to see that he was going to be blocked and the date when the case was closed and the block applied. During that month he was almost inactive, except trolling at Alex's first RfA. If you reread the ArbCom, I did not call for blocking him. I wanted him banned from moving articles (which was done), from substituting the terminology by revert warring rather than proposing and discussing (which was also done) and to restrict his right to revert war (that is, say, 2RR per day rather than 4) which was not done. Stripped of his trolling tools, he might have started to contribute. I removed the tag because I saw the objections answered, no new objections were raised and the tag was there long enough. Besides, his faithful revert war proxy user:Andrew Alexander was around anyway.

I thought of welcoming him because I actually wanted to do it. The reason I didn't was that I thought that it would have just annoyed him. He sees me as a true evil, worse than Ghirla. The latter is just a Russian, it is normal for Russians to be bad in the eyes of a Russophobe. Myself being a Ukrainian and seeing the Ukrainian nationalism as repugnant at the same time, amounts in the eyes of some as a treason (I see any other nationalism repugnant as well). It's like Vlasovets versus a German, who was more hated at the time of the war? You can see even from talk:Khreschatyk, that I offered him to work things out and this was one of the countless times. He chose to bite a hand I stretched to him every time. I am not an ill-tempered person and I hold no grudge for his badmouthing me at en- and ua-wikis as well as at the outside forums and his emails to others. But if he sees me as such and I "welcome him back", he would just get mad because he won't beleive in my sincerety.

Anyway, if he starts writing articles, and I see how I can help, I will be around. If he just goes around spitting, reverting and deleting, I can't do much about that, can I? Besides, I had enough of his attitude and I have no intention to talk to him, unless absolutely necessary because every time it provokes another set of outbursts. --Irpen 09:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, about the Vlasovets and German. I must stress that being a Kuban Cossack, having a Volhynian wife and being Russo-centric bites hard. You see a minority of people in Ukraine (or in the Ukrainian diaspora) tend to think of Kuban as being an ethnic Ukrainian territory and its people being Russified and opressed. However my political view and historical account (and as is the rest of the Kuban for whom I can safetely speak) does not coincide with this "skazka" that he read somewhere. Of course he hates me just as well. Btw I should add that my wife's family back in Rivne are all going to vote for Vitrenko in the elections, which of course would conflict with another image of Volhynia being a nationalist haven, but then if you have events like these contributing [9], [10] I doubt there would be any nationalists left within a few years (and having lived there I can see how these words are gaining truth). Which will of course annoy a person with Svidomyi mentality, but then truth hurts. Любо братцы любо...--Kuban Cossack 20:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Kuban kazak, will all due respect to your wife's family (I know nothing about them), that they would be voting for Vitrenko speaks much of their lack of political literacy. I mean if their church was shut down and given to the rivaling faction and UNA/UNSO paramilitants helped that happen, I could see why they overreact in such a way. But Vitrenko is a total nut-case not worthy even of discussion on what's wrong with her program. This is as if you tell me that you vote for Zhirik (and if you do, please don't tell me about that). Anyway, let's get back to editing. --Irpen 21:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There voting for her not because what other choice is there? PR? Maybe, but again Yanukovich has lost his momentum that I once respected him for (particulary at Severodonetsk congress). Now he is playing all of the strings at once. Definetely not NSNU or BYuT, they had enough adventures for their old age during the past 1.5 years. Everybody else will never make a majority to make a difference to the future of the country. Vitrenko on the other hand has a clear programme (which other parties clearely don't) yes it is ambitios and yes it is extreamely overslanted, but then desperate time do call for desperate discisions, at least so far she did keep her word to the public and I do respect her for that. (BTW all this logic is not mine but my wife's who is telling me all this for the whole past year). Me I only vote for KPRF, and boycott presidential elections, although I will support Lukashenko if he runs for Russian president, but you are right, back to editing. Have a look at some of my new works with the Azerbaijani and Armenian colleagues (despite the friction they exhibit towards each other). Baku Metro and Yerevan Metro. --Kuban Cossack 21:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW have you seen this? --Latinus 19:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Amusing, huh? --Irpen 19:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What amuses you?--AndriyK 19:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

We are all learning., which is good. With that tag on Russian Architecture, he did mention on the talk page that the consensus has not been reached. And that's what the situation is. His objections were discussed, but neither they were satisfied nor he withdrew them. The dispute is still there. Claiming that it's not only make it worse.

I brought the welcomimg issue only as an example. As you are saying, you considered it, which is good. The bigger issue that you are editing the same articles. You need to deal with each other.

If he sees you as a true evil, then it cannot get worse. It can only get better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.5.124 (talk • contribs)

Anonymous, you don't need to tell me how to be nice. Modesty aside, most people don't consider me ill-tempered, either in life or at Wikipedia. I will deal with AndriyK's edits based on their merit, not on what I think about him. So far, there were no edits. Just reverts and I explained what was wrong with the versions he was reverting to and he gave no answer. Once he makes a first new edit, I will deal with it totally based on that edit's own merit. --Irpen 21:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the reason to blame me for Rusophobia? Can you give examples of any my rusophobic edits, comparable to Ukrainophobic or Belarusophobic edits of yours and your friends?--AndriyK 08:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sure I can find specific edits of yours but your crusade by itself, pretty much outlined at your arbitration, speaks much already. I never made a single Ukrainophobic edit. Moreover, the curious and impossible combination of accusations I've heard towards myself (like Ukrainian nationalism, Ukrainophobia, Russian nationalism, Russophobia, etc.) just convince me that I am doing the right thing. That my view that Ukrainian nationalism is repugnant (like any other BTW) annoys Ukrainian nationalists is not surprising. You've been told by several compatriots of ours (including the anonymous editor here) that you are mistaken in calling me all those names. That you, nevertheless, remain unconvinced is telling.

I suggest you go to Talk:Russian architecture and outline your specific objections to justify your tag and not in a general rant-like form, but with a specific point by point list. Otherwise, please don't complain if it is removed as unexplained.

You were extremely rude in the past and such things, you know, stick to memory. In any case, as I wrote earlier, when I deal with any specific article disagreements with you I am putting this all aside. Please start writing. It's about time. --Irpen 08:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

most people don't consider me ill-tempered, either in life or at Wikipedia

This is because you so rancorous and revergeful that the people afraid to say you what they think.

Nobody would like to repeate my fate at Wikipedia and, I'm sure, there were similar examples in the real life.--AndriyK 08:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't prove anything to you regarding the real life. All I am saying is that's how that is. I have no revengeful passions against you whatever you think. If you can't take my word for it, I can't do much about it, can I. Now, please edit Wikipedia. --Irpen 09:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I never made a single Ukrainophobic edit.

You apparently have mamory problems. I have to remind you [this one]. Here is something from your Belarusophobic friend: " The so-called Belarusian".--AndriyK 09:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You are lying and anyone can check it. Sasha earlier presented you the analysis of this [11]. To remind you, that text was not written by me. I simply restored it after your repeated blanking because we cannot afford blankings in Ukraine-related pages: there are too few contributors. In the end of the day, it was me who rewrote that phrase while you were just repeatedly blanking it running your traditional revert war. That reminds me to restore other stuff from that article you and your rv war proxy blanked. I will get to that ASAP. --Irpen 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, the curious and impossible combination of accusations I've heard towards myself (like Ukrainian nationalism, Ukrainophobia, Russian nationalism, Russophobia, etc.) just convince me that I am doing the right thing

No, this is because you hate both Ukrainians and Russians (as well as Poles, Romanians etc.). This is where you differ from Ghirla. He is in permanent conflict with nearly all East- and Central- Europeans, but he loves Russia and writes excelent articles about Russian History. You do nothing but provoking conflicts between wikipedians. My relations with some Russian wikipedians would be much better if you did not urge them "to go into the edit war" against me. This is the reson why I consider you much more evil then Ghirla, not because your Ukrainian background.

(Still, I liked your analogy between Nazism and Russian chauvinism and between yourself and Vlasovets ;))--AndriyK 09:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK, you just try to offend me in the worst possible way. It won't work. It worked in the beginning, but I developed the immunity to your offensive language. Don't waste your time making a fool of yourself again. Besides, it may get you in trouble some day. Your last arbitration was not prompted by your rudeness but by gross disruption of Wikipedia through the move fraud, followed by vote fraud and combined by relentless edit warring over anachronistic terminology substitution caused by your Russophobic desire to purge any Russian names from Ukraine related article even at cost of introducing anachronisms. However, while we were at it, the evidence of your rudeness only made the case convincing in the eyes of the arbitrators that, at Wikipedia, you are nothing but a troll with an agenda. Since your return, you resumed exactly what you were doing. I suggest you reconsider this.

Start writing articles and we will discuss them if I disagree with something in them. Bring up your objections civilly if you disagree with what I write in articles. Do not troll the talk pages with new outbursts. Finish writing about Vasyl Stus. Finish Polkovnyk. Write Povazhny kozak or write whatever you want. Put your agenda, whatever it is, aside and you will find a totally different attitude from everyone. That said, I will not be responding to any more of your offenses. Have a nice weekend. --Irpen 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I would started to do it months ago, if you would not follow every my edit and mess it up.

You see, there are a lot of clever, qualified and nice people at this wiki. They can correct my edits, if I make mistakes, or criticise/discuss my edits at the talk.

On the other hand, there are more than million articles, most of them could be improved. So you can find enough things to do. Why among million of the articles you chose those that I created or edited recently?

Please find another victim of your persistance, so that I could write articles instead of wasting time for pointless discussions.

Please, think about it.

Have a nice weekend too.--AndriyK 19:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK, I do not follow you. I have better things to do. I simply concentrate on Ukraine (my homeland) and its history at Wikipedia as you also seem to be. That's why I initiated the Ukraine portal and do the best I can to have Ukraine covered. Your edits happened to be falling on my watchlist and I reacted to them based purely on the edits, not on who it was. Now, lets return to editing. Again, I have no intention to have your past and present offences anywhere in a way to resolve any specific edit disputes. --Irpen

Are there no other Ukraine related articles you can work on?--AndriyK 19:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I choose the article that interest me most. I honestly don't care about chasing you or anyone else. If you think otherwise, file the RfC or an ArbCom because Wikistalking is considered a serious offense. File a case and see how it goes. Better yet, return to article's improvement. --Irpen 19:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there another way (except RfC or ArbCom) to get rid of your chase?--AndriyK 20:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I am not chasing you. I do not care about you. I care about articles that have reasons for me to care for. --Irpen 20:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Irpen: This was too far from article discussion.

Why you did not care for these articles during several years you are there, but you start care just I have edited/created them?--AndriyK 20:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of Ukraine-related articles are and were on my watchlist. Will you please stop pestering me with questions? --Irpen 21:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK: It's a pointless discussion. He does care about articles, regardless who created or edited them. It's a public project.

Let's move forward. It looks like we don't have anything better to do. :(

Here we go again, speak for yourself. How many articles have you written wholly and originally (trolling like Russian Architecture or the attack on Ukrainian and Belarusian languages do not count)? How many stubs have you expanded into fully-respected articles. How many images have you uploaded? Where is the long awaited Drogobych Oblast and Moldavian ASSR [12]? Irpen actually writes articles as opposed to you trolling on them. --Kuban Cossack 17:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Kuban kazak, this discussion is pointless. Let's put a line here. --Irpen 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Kiev Expedition

Hi Irpen, I'm surprised that you reverted my move. You participated in the discussion on the board, and you didn't voice any objections to the name I proposed. What don't you like about the title? Appleseed (Talk) 00:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am just writing a note at the article's talk. Give me 5 mins. Let's continue the discussion there. --Irpen 00:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to let you know that a week has passed without any comments, so I have moved the article. Appleseed (Talk) 19:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

PLC refs

I really want to thank you for going over the article and pointing out where online citations are needed. On this subject, could you provide a link for your (I think) ref #7 (Britannica, Union of Lublin - middle of the 2nd lead para)? Btw, you've called my request for citation for Kiev Rus 'pestering' yet you have asked for same data in the PLC article. As I have provided that date for PLC article, can I assume you'll go back and add the relevant citation to the KR article? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There is an important difference. PLC is a FAC and Kievan Rus needs much more basic work than referencing of a well known info. While useful, it is not the most productive way to spend time. We live in a real world with real time contraints. More at Talk:Cossack#Alliance is a POV, Talk:Kievan Rus'#Common sense in tags demanding for refs. --Irpen 07:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you a serious editor?

Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability carefully. Now you have to options:

1. Act as a serious editor: replace the {{fact}} template by a reference confirming your statement about Stalinist style of the Verkhovna Rada building or remove the unsourced information;
2. Or you can proceed in your usual way: start a new edit war [13] for removing the {{fact}} template and ask your pals to participate [14]. Than you may blame your opponents for rusophobia, nationalism etc., as you usually do.

What will you choose this time?--AndriyK 19:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop pestering either at Verkhovna Rada or at Vasyl Stus or at other articles. Write article rather than troll around trying to drain those you view as "enemies" into the tiredom. Any article can be disrupted by continues pestering disguised as "calling for sources". Often reasonable, requests for sources should not be used as as tool to disrupt. Any number of fact tags may be thrown into any articles at any time. There is a difference between legitimate discussion and trolling presented as "requests to cite sources". Don't disrupt Wikipedia. There is such a thing as Common sense. While indeed hard to strictly define, it is useful to remember that such notion exists. Most reasonable people can agree on things and this creates a set of implied rules called ethics. While impossible to define and write as specifically as wikipololicies, Wikipedia will stop functioning if more users start behaving like yourself. Please reconsider. It is very disruptive and harmful for the project.

And don't resort to your usual "it's all your fault thingy". You really don't want to bring this up to the wider community to decide who is at fault here. I am not threatening you with another formal action. I don't want to fight with you or take any such steps because it is time-consuming, nerve-wrecking and, I think, your contributions may be potentially useful for the project. You've got answers at both talk pages, Now, please give a thought to my suggestions and do some new content editing instead of fighting all the time. At least you wrote an Vasyl Stus article now. That's already something. --Irpen 20:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Would not it better to give a single reference instead of writing two long paragraphs about ethics, Common sense and bla-bla-bla? Or you do not have any reference and the "Stalinist style" of the Verkhovna Rada building is just your own fantasy?--AndriyK 12:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"Any article can be disrupted by continues pestering disguised as "calling for sources""
"Any number of fact tags may be thrown into any articles at any time."
This is exactly what your friend does [15].--AndriyK 16:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo

I've just blocked Molobo and he isn't taking it well. Oddly enough. If you felt like having a word over at his talk page I'd be grateful, as you've been a moderating influence in the past, I think (I'm not very sure how the factions or whatever around this line up, so please forgive me if I'm embarassing myself here). If you have any comments on his block, I'll listen (reply here, SVP) William M. Connolley 22:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

William, thanks for your message. I will try my best to help sort all this mess out. I am out of time right now being busy at work, but I will be able to help I am sure. In the meanwhile, Molobo's block may help to cool off some passions as well as Molobo's head too. I think he hates me less than many of his other opponents, if at all, and I also want to end this mess. More soon, --Irpen 23:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've moved the discussion to WP:ANI, btw William M. Connolley 09:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Res to talk:Soviet partisan

Please let me know which articles (and preferably which edits) do you want me to look over, and if the stuff was pasted, where from. I don't have time to stalk Molobo and check on his every edit. As for that pic, I know you had good intentions and in that particular case others overreacted way to strongly - and when Ghirla joined the outcome was a mess. Happens - and I think we have it fixed somewhat (although the photo issue will not be resolved until we have an article about London victory parade and why Polish forces in the West could not take part in it). As for tags, in that particular case I think 1 of them was not needed, but there were six facts that I really wanted to see referenced. Yes, tagging creates more work - but useful work. In other news, I can check the English spellings in Davies WERS book you requested, but plese let me know exactly what names (index? page nr?) you want me to look at, so when I go to the library I can do it as quickly as possible.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Hotel Ukrayina

I started on it Here nothing much yet, but the link is 100% ace with all those pre-1973 photos. Would give a helping hand?--Kuban Cossack 19:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I will, but I can't promise a definite time frame. Too much work these days. But thanks! --Irpen 19:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

SuperDeng

Look at his contributions. What you will see is a POV warrior who has been blocked before for his behavior under this user name and also as DengXiaoPing. So this isn't new. Deng's a user who assumes the worst in users, who thinks he is correct 100% of the time despite evidence to the contrary and who uses personal attacks to try to get his way. He's very good at calling people "liars" and telling them that their views are "irrelevant" and he often says "of course you are wrong" to people who disagrees with. If you would like specific diffs, I can get them for you. He has spent the last few days virtually stalking User:Kurt Leyman and reversing virtually every edit made. And as I said, he's been blocked for this behavior before, so this is hardly an isolated incident. I stand by my block. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I see now that you have quite strict standards in defining what constitutes a PA, and how severe it has to be to become a blockable offence. In the future, if I see POV-pushers who resort to personal attacks, I will know who to contact. I was sick and tired because of some fellows here. I thought that once I don't want to spend time compiling RfC and ArbCom cases, I have to accept that there is little I can do about some some uncivil and abusive POV-pushers short of starting to write-up RfC's using the time I would rather spend writing articles.

Now I know that I should have contacted you. I sure will from now on. Regards, --Irpen 03:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. :) Yeah I apologize for the block log. I tried to give the most recent example of his behavior instead of the most representative. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Quick note

As you already know, Molobo will be taking a break (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Molobo_blocked_for_disruptive_edit_warring). Hopefully this will lower the temperature in Polish-Russian and Polish-German relations on Wikipedia, so to speak.

I hope that the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Warsaw controversy that we had such a long argument over is now resolved. Reading back over my comments towards you I see that I have used some words that might have hurt your feelings. I should also not have claimed you acted in bad faith. It is not my place to judge the motives of another editor. For all this, I apologize. Balcer 22:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, no problem at all. Your responses were very civil and I really value your contributions a lot. Would you please help to resolve the controversy over History of Poland (1939-1945). The article underwent drammatic POV pushing. The image of Soviet tanks liberating Lodz I found was blanked several times by multiple users, the info about Molotov's phonecall congratualting Nazis as well as the Brest parade doesn't belong to such a wide article, the whole section about "Treatment of Polish citizens by evil Soviets" doesn't belong to such a broad article as well, etc. Please turn your attention to this article. I will be trying to bring it to normalcy, but I expect a new wave of attacks by Halibutt :(. --Irpen 22:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I will try to find time to take a look at that article. The controversy over "Soviet liberation" is for me a little bit silly, as the perfect compromise exists. One can simply talk about the "Soviet liberation from the Nazis", which is factually accurate, and also does not suggest that the Red Army brought Liberty (note the big L), which certainly was not offered by the communist regime imposed next in Poland.

I must disagree with you the second point. It is undeniable that half of the territory of prewar Poland was under Soviet control in 1939-1941. The fate of those territories and the people inhabiting them definitely must be discussed in the article about the history of Poland in 1939-1945 years. The Soviet annexation of those territories was only slowly recognized by the international community as the war progressed, and was not really acknowledged until around the Yalta Conference in 1945. Even then, only the population transfers which followed thereafter finally removed those territories from being within the scope of Polish history. It is entirely natural to discuss the issue in its own section, though the title could be changed if it is not neutral. Balcer 23:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, please view my answer shortly at Piotrus' talk. Thanks! --Irpen 23:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, and, yes, I was proposing the exact same solution you just said regarding the ocntroversy of "Soviet liberation". I kept saying "liberation from Nazis", not just "liberation". Just check the article's talk! Piotrus was inclined to agree. Molobo of course not. Halibutt, who lately got inclreasingly radicalized, was also staunchly opposing to any word that might have given any credit to those evil Russkie and even made a mockery out of the image (see this.) --Irpen 02:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

State-mongers

Unfortunately we don't have the text of the original speech in Polish (I am guessing it was given in that langauge), so we really have no idea which word is the best here. I would go with "politicians", given that "state-monger" is a rather obscure word which is not listed in mainstream dictionaries (Webster does not have it in its main online edition) and sounds really awkward. It seems to be an archaic term and it is not even clear if it has a negative connotation in English.

Still, I see your point, and if you want to go back to state-monger, be my guest. I still think including the whole quote is problematic. Balcer 11:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on Balcer, Molobo is gone and someone simply has to continue his mission to insert lengthy citations from dubious sources anywhere they please. //Halibutt 11:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's funny you said that, Halibutt :). But I am pleased you are watching my talk page. Please be my guest. Not only I don't mind, but I encourage you to stay around. Thanks! --Irpen 15:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Дуже дякую

conferred by Khoikhoi

Thank you again for you help today. Next time Bonny comes back, I'll know who to contact! ;) —Khoikhoi 01:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't mention it (Ukrainian: не варто подяки) :)!. But also do ask others as well because those who fight Bonny's socks don't make new friends among more reasonable Romanian contributors who still unfortunately make use of him as a battering ram because he promotes the right POV despite in the wrong way. I am not generalizing over an entire community and I don't want to call names here as well. In any case, we should spread the duty of guarding WP from bad-faith users somewhat evenly. That said, as I always did, I won't hesitate to do all I can to keep such fellows at bay. It's just that if more people actively get themselves involved, life would have been way easier around here. --Irpen 01:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I already asked Ghirla, who else do you think we need help from? --—Khoikhoi 01:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The good place to consider would be regional notice boards, like the urgent announcement sections of Portal:Russia/New article announcements, Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements and, yes, a Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. Some Romanian users feel ashamed by such compatriots and may help as well. Cheers, --Irpen 01:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks again. --—Khoikhoi 02:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Red Army

I should say that I find your revert back into Soviet propaganda version deeply disturbing. But moving onto less personal observations:

• my mistake with dupe para, I was confused by the Number 6 sockpuppet (?) edits (check that user contribs...)
• Brest parade existed in the article before my edits ([16]) and was expanded into a whole para by Number 6. And yes, I'd agree it should be moved into a separate article and doesn't deserve anything in RA article but a link (when subarticle exists, of course)
• your "theats" about the Rydz Kiev parada are getting boring. Write the article if you wish, stop bothering others with it otherwise. Complain to Number 6 if you wish, he can use a talk page :>

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 05:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, what threats? I have no intention to write a separate article on Rydz' parade and it is not a threat in any case. It is encyclopedic, but I have more urgent tasks. My question is how large should be the breadth of the article that include such peculiar events. I only added Rydz' parade to the Kiev Offensive where it is no doubt relevant. My question is whether you think it is OK to add this info to the PSW and History of PL article. And if not, I request the info on Brest parade also out of broad articles.

Your revert of Number 6 was done as if in haste. When I followed on Molobo's article, I almost never reverted him wholesale but tried to merge whatever I could from his edits into the following version. If you join and article, spend an adequate time there, that's all.

I still hope you will help me with the mess of massacres article titles. --Irpen 05:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you will notice that I did kept some of Number 6 information. Nonetheless he seem to be engaging in full scale trolling on that article, and he is reverting your version too. Although I consider him a rather obvious troll/sockpuppet, some assistance in dealing with his vandalism would be appreciated. As for Brest parade, to which articles the information about it should be moved? Currently PSC seems like the most relevant place.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I think the parade belongs to a narrower Battle of Brześć Litewski article. Similarly, I didn't add the Rydz' Kiev parade and vandalizing Kiev to an entire PSW article, only to an article devoted to a narrower episode of it. --Irpen 03:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that the details of the parade should be in BoBL, but the parade itself can be of course mentioned and linked from other relevant articles. As for Rydz parade, is there any article more detailed then Kiev Offensive that it could go to? If not, then KO is the place for it (for now, at least). I don't consider writing about either of them 'vandalizing'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidate

My protege - Dnieper Hydroelectric Station, if we can't put it on the main, we can certainly put it on the portal where the Hero of Ukraine featured article is long in need of replacement. --Kuban Cossack 13:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding the article. We can certainly feature it at WP:DYK at the maimpage. At some point with can expand it to WP:Featured condition (well woth it IMO) and then place it to the Portal as a feauted article. There was some talk I remember that discourage the usage of the "Featured article" wording even at narrow context (like portals) in order to keep the prestige of the real WP:Featured mark. As such, if we replace the Hero of Ukraine by any other article, we will have to change the window name from the "Featured" to "Selected" article wording since H of UA is the only UA-related trully featured article we have. We might though apply for a WP:Good approval stamp and have a separate window to list such articles. Thanks again. Sorry, I've been busy lately and didn't do much of what I planned to. Regards, --Irpen 01:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Khreschatyk

Irpen, may I ask why you insist on your version of the article? I know, you started the article, and it was DYK, but the particular paragraph in question doesn't look like been initially written neutrally. Previously, there was an edit war about the paragraph; as a result a quite reasonable version by Michael gained support, the version written better than yours. Now, after a month since the conflict, you are bringing the issue again, providing not a single additional argument, nothing at the talk page, and yet insisting on your version of the paragraph. You don't like a shorter version of tne paragraph, you don't like a longer version of the paragraph (listing all the forces), it seems like you only want to see your version of the paragraph. Or, am I missing something? --Anonymous, 19:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Short version is too abstract, long version is too long and no need to explain them. Irpen's version is just right.--Kuban Cossack 20:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Irpen's version has minor problems like typos and duplicate links to the same page (Kiev offense), and one significant proplem as it's biased in describing differently Ukrainian forces vs. other forces. Michael's version, and the version with listing all forces are both describing all forces in pair. This is what makes these versions superior compare to Irpen's version.--Anonymous 20:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How is it biased? Different Ukrainian grupirovki and Bolshevik, German, and Polish forces. Do the Ukrainian grupirovki even deserve to be called "Ukrainian" considering that there is little to bite on when one says they represented the Ukrainian population. It is a fact that Ukrainians fought in ALL of the armies and militias listed above. So in that case the term several short lived Ukrainian states is fully justified in dealing with those times. --Kuban Cossack 21:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

134, compromise is a good thing but there must be some reason under each of the opposing version between which we seek a compromise. My version is explained at article's talk. AndriyK's version is not explained at talk despite my persistent calls to him. A while ago he said that "short-lived is scornful". To this I responded and others agreed that this is just BS. It's purely factual and not scornful. He came up with no other reasons. Michael, being a nice guy, offered a compromise just for the sake of accomodating AndriyK. I disagree with such motivation. Compromise should be made for accomodating between two reasonable versions, not two or more people. We've got no explanation whatsoverer from AndriyK on his persistence (exact same situation in Russian architecture). As such, there is nothing to compromise with so far.

Typos? Correct them by all means. Twice connected to Kiev Offensive? Because we are talking about two parts of it: victorious Polish part with the parade (linked to the K. O. section about Polish victories) and Poles defeated part (linked to another section). --Irpen 22:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, you see Michael's version as a compromise. And in fact it was some sort of compromise. But what you are completety ignoring is that Michael's version is better than yours. Why? I personally explained it at the article talk page [17], and I wrote it above. You are not listing the forces in pair. Bolshevik forces also acted under umbrella of different short-lived republics, like Donetsk-Krivorozh Socialist Republic, and similar. They took Kiev a few times, and were driven out a few times. You put it all under Bolshevik's name. Then what's wrong to put the Ukrainian forces similarly? I've never seen your answer to this simple question. Or, as Kuban Cossack says "short version is too abstract, long version is too long, ... Irpen's version is just right". This is a way better explanation compare to critisized by you "I like it", don't you think? :)

Kuban kazak, these short-lived Ukrainian republic forces were Ukrainian because they represented Ukrianian states, that is the states which named themselves as Ukrainian national states. Similarly, Bolsheviks named themselves Bolsheviks, and we call them so, dispite some of them (actually, not so many at that time) being by nationality Ukrainians. Do you want to change "Bolshevik forces" to "predominantly Russian Bolshevik forces"? I don't think it would be a good idea, as the forces were driven by the common idea, not common nationality, but if you insist on national clafirication it may be added. --Anonymous 00:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Although Bolshevik states did operate under a wide range of individual republics, they were nevertheless ultimatemately answering to the SNK, hence the Bolshevik Umbrella is suitable to be used in all articles. Ukrainian on the other hand is more abstract, not because of nationality wise, but because they all stood for different ideals of Ukrainian future. In that case we might want to put Pilsudski's puppet Petlyura under Polish forces? Irpen's version is correct and stable with no questions. --Kuban Cossack 00:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Independent Ukrainian state was the common driving idea of these Ukrainian states. Unfortunately, they did disagree on details. --Anonymous, 01:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately or unfortunately is a discussion for political forums not wiki. However even you refer to them as these states so what is wrong with the umbrella that Irpen has been using ever since the start. --Kuban Cossack 01:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

==Happy Easter==

Khristos voskrese! --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't know if you celebrate Orthodox Easter, or not. If you do, Happy Easter, if you do not, Greetings to you, and Best Wishes anyway! Dr. Dan 21:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan! --Irpen 06:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oleg of Chernigov

I think AndriyK just got himself a sock [18]. --Kuban Cossack 16:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming

Well, it just looks that I am so much more cruel than you are :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 17:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Our discussions

I was going to commmend you on your remarkable civility and, as always, amazing dedication to WP. I will alternate my postings, but am generally more interested in improving the state of dance and music articles. I marvel at the combined work of all the Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian members. Sure there will be times to disagree about certain articles, but the manufacture of content from that area is stagerring to be sure.

Thank you for the additional links about language issues. The present system seems ill-suited to stave of our stubborn-headed colleagues (we all have some in our respective communites), and I hope discussions will lead to further reforms. I hope you realize by now that I am not the type that intends to begin any warring, but I am known to back up others when their actions seem sincere. Good luck with KK; he seems like he would make for a good time out with friends :)

Not a big fan of the Ukrainian Canadian dialect. But I would like to tackle Ukrainian Americans at some point.--tufkaa 23:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

PD-UA-exempt

Would the images on this official site qualify for such a tag? As the company is state owned. If yes that means that I'll be able to do all the stations of the Kiev Metro and then it WILL altogether become a featured article. In the meantime I still would like to upgrade DnieproGES to the FA standard and nominate it. --Kuban Cossack 13:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Kazak, any Ukrainian logo qualifies. The law speaks inclusively of symbols and signs of enterprises, institutions and organizations and does not even say "state only". Reread the tag, item d)--Irpen 18:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I meant photographs! I could not care less about logos.--Kuban Cossack 19:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, got you wrong. Give me a couple of days to email them with the request for permission, which I don't expect will be a problem. You could email them too, but I think it is more courteous to write to them in Ukrainian rather than in Russian. So, I will gladly do it for you. --Irpen 19:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually they had a Russian version which after their update back in late 2005 was purged. I e-mailed them a few times and got no reply whatsover. Given how often they update I cannot promise a reply. But go to the Dnepr station and have a look the photo there is the same as in our wiki. I think that might reply that all of their photos are in public domain...--Kuban Cossack 19:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Still, I will email them again and we'll see. --Irpen 19:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheism

You keep complaining about this article. But why not just follow the Wikipedia practice and edit it, introducing changes which will make it less POV? This is the Wikipedia way, after all. Be bold. Sitting on the sidelines and telling others to fix articles is not going to accomplish anything. Balcer 03:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not a specialist enough in international politics. The editors who are, and who wrote it, are Poles. So, I chose the best venue. I also asked user:172 to look at it. If he gets interested, the normalcy of the article is them assured. --Irpen 03:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Amusing message

Insidious games at Soviet partisan

Irpen, what freacking games are you playing in??? What the hell does this nasty comment mean? And where is fucking logic in your edits to that article? You kept (although biased) my important thesises, but reverted other non-political issues like terms in the lead. So what are you trying to do? Promote some point or just provoke a conflict?

Discuss issues before changing them in the article. Or you'll get a real war till the last drop of my blood you mother fucker!!!AlexPU 07:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow

That's the most amazing message I've ever seen at my talk and I've seen a lot. I regret my first thought to remove it. Better yet, I will keep it. Let it shine! Thanks, Alex! --Irpen 07:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I figured I place links here to the past messages from the same contributor left at my talk that are now in archives and not in the plain view:

• November, 2005: original, "modified"
• March 2005 a nice welcoming me to Wiki

That's it for now. --Irpen 08:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Your request of evaluation

Hi. Yesterday you requested my evaluation of your behaviour, and here it is:

• you ARE "the shame" in Wikipedia
• but you can't be "a shame on the Ukrainian community" since you don't belong to such

In case if you need assessment of your activities, just use a special purpose register here. AlexPU 06:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I am moving your entry to a desginated section I specifically marked for you at my talk. I don't remember requesting your opinion of myself since you made it public at your disgusting talk page. Since you expressed it, I stopped caring. If you keep trolling, you visit here will be short. If you somehow undergo a major transformation and manage to stay, this would be just fine as far as I am conserned. I don't feel good though being a subject of your obsession. Not that I care myself, but it is rather unhealthy for your own sake. --Irpen 07:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, stop it. Irpen, don't call his talk page "disgusting". Alex's user page is one of the cleverest I've seen, better than yours. Irpen, don't build a wall. KPbIC 07:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

His user talk is an attack page as well as most of his entries into the article's and personal talks. I have a wall between myself and people with a filthy mouth. There is nothing to build. When he makes edits or suggestions outside of his crusade venue, I will respond disregarding his past offences, as I did just today at talk:Viktor Yushchenko. When he just plainly trolls, he is just banging his head against the wall. I have enough patience to stand through far worse things than his bad mouth. --Irpen 07:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you don't have a wall between yourself "and people with a filthy mouth". If you were you would have treated Kuban Kazak differently.

You are trying to build a wall with AlexPU and came to the point at which you release yourself from any productive articles' discuss with AlexPU. That would be a wrong point. KPbIC 07:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear 134, your comparison of AlexPU with Kuban kazak is totally improper because:

• I did chastise KK rather strongly after his spats of incivility (which apparently worked, btw) and if he keeps being uncivil Ezhiki will block him sooner than any other admin and if he gets blocked, I would never interfere (this has been discussed)
• Kazak, compared to AlexPU is a teacher in the good manners school.
• Most of Kazak's contributions at talk pages are civil while almost all talk entries by AlexPU range between incivil and horrific (like the one above that beats all the records).

I don't remember seeing you criticizing AlexPU on the issues (from which I infer that you view him uncivil but with the right POV). At the same time I gad frequent disagreements with Kazak (and Ghirla) on the article's talk pages. Examples are abundant. That said, I do treat each edit from any editor even guilty of whatever trolling in the past based on its own merit. Examples are abundant but if you doubt that, let me know and I will give you diffs. Best, --Irpen 01:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

AlexPU definitely has some specific knowledge, and he is a journalist, so it would valuable for the project if he is around. He basically created the article on Rudnev, adding that story on Kovpak/Rudnev conflict, which probably the other had no idea of, and on which I actually put “fact” template, as without a reference the story sounds questionable. Also, speaking on who should be a teacher for whom, it seems that AlexPU has got your civility message pretty fast. But we will see… KPbIC 20:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

AlexPU claims that he is a journalist but his Rudniev article is a bunch of unreferenced speculations and conspiracy theories. It also included false claims, like his beeing not a communist. I am writing a replacement now. I would love to see the material restored in the referenced form. He got no message on the civilty whatsoever. I've been here longer than you and I've seen this editor. That he simply makes no edits now is the reason why we don't see his diatribes. As soon as he is back, they will resume. Fortunately, Wikipedia has got much less tolerant to such behavior lately. More often than not we see instant blocks of some fellows without even an ArbCom. If he returns as a civil editor, that would be a different story. --Irpen 20:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Partisans

Oh, a novelty, I was not reverted on sight... Anyway, the borders did not change officially until 1945. So, the section is legitimate where it is as Soviet partisans operated on Polish territory. It was not until after the war that the areas were ceded by Stalin to himself. Feel free to merge some info from the sections on Baltic States, Ukraine and Belarus to the Polish section though. //Halibutt 18:39, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I do not wish to discuss anything with you, the article is all yours. Feel free to reword it the way you feel fit and add as many liberations as you please. //Halibutt 18:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, please! I am trying to talk here. If you want to exchange barbs, pls go to Wilno Uprising and/or Volodarka where we seem to not have a common ground. I am always trying my best to be reasonable. I think that either the article needs restructured or your material belongs to other section. I could take time and rewrite it but I am really busy and you know your stuff better anyway. So, why not consider my suggestion to add the material to other sections yourself? Spitting is of no use for the articles. And, BTW, you know that I prefer to talk in the one place. If you transferred the discussion to my talk, fine, let's continue it here. If you prefer not to talk, than don't. But next time, I would prefer to see a response at your talk (see a message on top of my page). This is a non-controvesial request and I don't see what prevents you from doing it.

Anyway, that's secondary. Please give a thought to my suggestions on the partisans article. That fellow's approach leads to the dead-end, as of now. Your edit, OTOH, brings some referenced material. I like information and want it in WIkipedia no matter what you might be thinking. --Irpen 18:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of the Lower Dnieper

It seems that in the discussion you are using as an argument the fact that AndriyK has contributed less to the articles in comparison to your contributions. While it's correct, hope you would agree that switching from a subject to personalities is not so civil. KPbIC 04:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems wrong. Please reread what I said. --Irpen 05:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My concerns came from the following, which as it seems has nothing to do with "liberate vs. take" question discussed in the talk:

• "I am still waiting for AndriyK doing the first non-revert edit for weeks or so. Probably, I am out of luck. --Irpen 19:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)"
• "I am saddened that AndriyK still does nothing but POV-pushing revert wars. Please write something rather than damage the work of others. --Irpen 18:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)"

If I misinterpreted something, I appologise. KPbIC 07:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you misinterpreted which is easy if you take to phrases out of context of an entire discussion. --Irpen 01:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Please watch your language

Irpen, people complain that this edit harasses User:AndriyK. You have been on Wikipedia longer and done more than me, so you should know that we are expected to express our negative opinions about other users only on RfCes and keep the name calling (even such mild as Don Quixotes) strictly to the personal communications. You may want to edit your message and/or apologize to Andriy. abakharev 01:36, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Alex, thanks for caring for the civility at Wikipedia! I fully share your concern and appreciate you reminding me to keep my cool. Most involved with the Eastern European history article can always use such a reminder and myself included.

As far as the specific difflink is concerned, several qualifications are in order. First of all, my expressed opinion that certain users put a shame on the Ukrainian wiki-community was based entirely on those users incivility. Three users I named are notable for the fierce personal attacks on their opponents, and especially, perpetual bad faith accusations (applies to all three). Two of the three users mentioned in the difflink above while engaged into attacking the others are also guilty in using an extremely horrific language unacceptable not only in Wikipedia but even at the internet fora, where the civility rules are much more laxed. One example is just above, more can be found in checking that user's contributions and in AndriyK's arbitration case.

As such, my statement is basically that those with the filthy mouth put an entire community they claim to represent in the bad light. If you find it disputable, please let me know and we can continue this discussion.

Also, I notice your message starts with the "People complain" thingy. I checked the contributions of those three involved users and haven't seen their complaints. Moreover, no entries at WP:AN/I, no RfC's filings, actually nothing. So, I guess one of them, and I can even guess who, contacted you privately, picking up on you recent (too mild, IMO) warning to the owner of an extremely filthy mouth trying to embarrass you into getting involved and "prove your fairness and even-handiness". Caught in this embarrassing situation in a trap set by the bad-faith user, you rushed to "act", and perhaps didn't check what was going on thoroughly enough. If AndriyK, instead of contacting you, brought up his request at WP:AN/I, the issue would have been investigated and seen by anyone uninvolved as a hollow one. He might have been even warned himself for trolling. This reminds me of a similar clumsy trap [19] [20] set against you earlier by user:Ukrained. A striking similarity! Please take investigating the complaints you receive more seriously.

Finally, I would more than welcome any of the "offended" to file an RfC against me if they see my entry as a personal attack, harassment or such. That in the months of being here they found nothing to instigate any action just shows how much merit their accusations have.

More of passionate responses of those involved would not surprize me. --Irpen 01:43, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing the tag does not resolve the dispute

Dear Irpen, if you disagree that the difinition of Ukrainization in the corresponding article is an Original Research, please proviode the reference to a creadible source where this definition came from.

Removing the OR-tag does not solve the problem. If you do not agree with me that the definition should be taken from a creadible source rather than invented by a wikipedian, let's go through the dispute resolution procedure. (see WP:DR).

In any case, the tag should be there, until the dispute is resolved.--AndriyK 08:56, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Some tags where unexplained, others addressed at talk already and yet others were purely trollish as it was clear that you didn't bother to read the cited sources. However, your tagging spree has to be dealt globally similar to your past moving spree. I will give you that. --Irpen 21:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hello, Irpen, and thank you for vote on my recent RfA! With a final vote of 62/2/4, I have now been entrusted with the mop, bucket and keys. As I acclimate myself to my new tools, feel free to let me know how you believe I might be able to use them to help the project. Thanks again! RadioKirk talk to me 05:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

History of Russo-Turkish wars

I have restored the article History of Russo-Turkish wars. If you do not like the content, please go through the AfD process. -- Petri Krohn 10:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a straw poll going on now. Let's see and discuss it there. My goal is to preserve and not remove the information. Please continue at the article's talk. --Irpen 21:30, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This [21] is acceptable, maybe even good! Let's keep it that way :-) -- Petri Krohn 16:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Dialog

Thank you for contributing on Alex's talk page. I gather that both you and Alex see Ghirlandajo's actions as rather harmless. It is easy to come to that conclusion if you are not on the receiving end of them. As for Ghirlandajo being a prolific editor making some very useful contributions, that might well be true, but it does not change the fact that his contributions and attitude in articles related in any way to Poland are counterproductive and divisive.

As for Ukrainization, I am afraid that I completely lack the knowledge about the issue to make any useful comments. Balcer 12:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, still pls take a look at the article and it's talk from the common sense perspective as well as the discussion at its talk when my opponent who follows me from article to article brings up an issue of the Original reserach. The article is well-referenced, BTW, so you may get a clue over the issue on the fly and not from the article but from the refs.

As for the "receiving end" issue, no. First of all, I've been on the receiving end of the Halibutt's offenses. This is a simialr example when having to take the less than civil behavior from otherwise a prolific editor (having to take AlexPU above doesn't consern be at all). Moreover, I thought of starting an RfC over that too and I am glad that I didn't because it is the content that matters first of all. My point is that the Ghirla disputes are the content disputes and should be treated as such. Let's continue this discussion from this perspective. --Irpen 21:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Then it was not you to call me a troll, a vandal, a known POV pusher, and so on? And it was not you to follow most of my articles, add tags to stubs and so on? Finally, wasn't it you to go around and push your POV at all cost, often in violation of an established consensus? I'm sorry then, I didn't know we have two Irpens here. Though you might want to start a RfC on me, feel free to. //Halibutt 18:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, see above. --Irpen 18:38, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Since I am asked to comment. I find it distressing that two reasonable editors such as yourselves have gotten themselves into this neverending conflict. I have not kept up with all the twists and turns of it. The centerpiece of it seems to be arguments about small details (battleboxes etc.), which do not seem that important to me. I have little advice to give, except for this one suggestion. Could you please let bygones be bygones, so to speak. The Battle of Wolodarka has not been edited for 3 months now. Is it really such a great bone of contention still? If you keep dragging out old disagreements, the conflict will never end. Balcer 20:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, I don't know about my opponent, but from my end this has nothing to do with Volodarka. Moreover, following the Volodarka, I still voted support on Halibutt's RfA and spoke highly of him [22] at that time and many times after that which I think is telling. As for the new Halibutt's diatribe above, too bad he doesn't provide diffs as I don't recall ever calling him a troll or a vandal. I do consider some of his edits trollish, and I said so at times, but that's not the same thing as calling someone a troll. The latter is an editor who does nothing but trolling. Halibutt is clearly a great editor, just a short-tempered one and with strong certain views. Just for one example, see the games with the Soviet tankists in Lodz picture or an attempt to use the copyright issues to get an upper hand in a POV dispute. Still times after that we discussed things normally even after Halibutt started to "use popups" to revert me even after I requested clearly not to do it. I would rather not continue this discussion. When (not if) new issues arize, I hope they will be resolved on their own merin. OTOH, if they won't, Balcer, please follow up on both of us and the issues as well. --Irpen 23:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Something nice for you

[23] What do you think? (reply to the e-mail as well); Speaking of which did that Kiev Metro site answer you and can we use their photos? --Kuban Cossack 20:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen Kiev Offensive on Main Page? If not, take a look. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:43, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks, I missed it. I wonder who wrote such an amazing DYK proposal :). While the "Victor's parade" with its perception as well as vandalizing the city would have been some much more amazing and unknown pieces of trivia. --Irpen 07:48, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Another gem for you: Iona Yakir. The information could use verification, to say the least. Balcer 21:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Image:Crimean War 1853-6.jpg

I don't appreciate being accused of Copyright Paranoia and of damaging Wikipedia. That usually applies when an old image of unknown provenance with unclear copyright status is listed for deletion. But in this case things are crystal clear. This image comes from a very popular atlas, which I have used frequently myself and which is available in bookstores as we speak. You can buy the newest, unused 2004 edition yourself from amazon.com right away. It would really be great if we could scan all the images from that atlas and put them into Wikipedia under fair use, but that is just not how Wikipedia works. Balcer 18:45, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, in no way I wanted to offend you, who I consider the most neutral and reasonable Wikipedian writing in the field of Polish history. I still think that removal of the important material from the articles is damaging Wikipedia and I don't see that image threatening. Let's see what others say at its talk. If it gets deleted, I will not make a tragedy out of it. If some of the mapdrawing editors make a Wikipedia map while the drawing is still up to use for that, it would be great. --Irpen 19:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Crimean War - Black Sea theater

Thanks for the kind words. In my mind there are very good reasons for keeping Wikipedia free of clearly copyrighted images that cannot be shown under any valid license, and keeping such images out is a service. It is vitally important for Wikipedia that it maintains its reputation as a source for images which anyone can confidently use without fear of being sued for infringing copyright.

If the image gets deleted, I uploaded another one to Commons which may replace it. It is not as good because it does not show the military operations, unfortunately, but it is better than nothing.Balcer 19:16, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheism

Sorry I haven't been able to work on the article! If you need help, John Kenney, Slrubenstein, Jtdirl, and Rjensen are also historians and/or social scientists. 172 | Talk 06:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Will contact them. --Irpen 06:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

С Праздником!

НАШЕ ДЕЛО ПРАВОЕ!
МЫ ПОБЕДИЛИ!

--Kuban Cossack 00:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

С Днём Победы!

С ДНЁМ ПОБЕДЫ!

File:Georgian ribbon2.jpg

9 МАЯ 2006

Поздравляю с великим праздником - Днём Победы! Ура!

Cossack 02:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks :) I am not leaving, but I don't have as much Wikitime as I used to, so I tend to pick random short articles and uplift them when I have a few minutes :) Ahasuerus 03:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Victory Day on MainPage

Hello, Irpen. I hope you approve of my latest edits at Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/May 9 & Victory Day (Eastern Europe). Let me, or other admins like abakharev, know if there are still problems on the MainPage. Thanks. -- PFHLai 09:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hotel Ukrayina update

Look what I found yesterday

• Ать
  Ать
• Два
  Два

Йопт, how was it possible to ruin such a design? --Kuban Cossack 16:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC) You SHOULD archive a good half you your page

Zhukov

Hello

Could you please take a look on the Talk:Georgy Zhukov page and add your two cents to the matter (Deng 18:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC))

Allowing You

Bolshoi spasibo!!! Eto ya nye ozhidal!--Smerus 14:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

DYK!

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Olimpiysky Sport Complex, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Good work on destubbing this one. ++Lar: t/c 02:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Victory Day

Discussion regarding revert has been left in the Victory Day (Eastern Europe) article discussion.

Catskul/Andy 06:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Warsaw uprising.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Warsaw uprising.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Thuresson 14:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Wee, copyright paranoia team strikes again. At least they left you a message. I hope you can provide then the info they need.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:46, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Могила

Ответ тут.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainization

Would this and this (scroll down to Лингвистический лохотрон) be of any use to you?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Kiev Offensive

I presented a list of reasons why the current paragraph on "Poles vandalising Kiev" cannot stand, based on the currently given sources anyway. Please respond to the points I made. I believe they provide good grounds for completely removing that section and the references backing it up.

I also have a general question: what is your opinion on using books published in the 1930s in the Soviet Union as sources, especially when they are books on controversial, politically sensitive topics? I also wonder how you would feel about using sources published in Nazi Germany during the same period. Balcer 20:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I will respond to your points at the article's talk. I will also find more references. The mauradeering of Polish troops in Ukraine is not at all as obscure and little known as it may seem if you base your opinion solely on the Polish books.

As for using the POV sources in general, there is a distinction between using their facts and their interpretations. I would not use the conclusions and interpretations of events provided either in these books, nor in Polish books of that time. However, as far as the mere facts are conserned, I think they may be usable, if sourced, unless they clearly make no sense, so that it is obvious that even facts themselves are fabricated. I am similar cautious in using not only Soviet sources but some of the modern Ukrainian sources. I recently read the article about this very war in the Encyclopedia of Ukraine and was amazed by an amount of ommitted info and POV presentation. But I would still use its facts when it says that something happened and there were that many Russians and that many Ukrainians in the Red Army or elselwhere. --Irpen 20:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome, Irpen. I am utterly new at this, so forgive any missteps. Despite our disagreements I value our interaction; it is always pleasant to deal with a well educated person on an interesting topic. Faustian 20:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome and thanks for your input. --Irpen 20:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Zalissia and Yasenivtsi

Hello! I am seeking detailed information on the history of the villages of Ясенівці and Залісся (Золочівський район, Lviv 'oblast'). They may be in English, Polish, Ukrainian or Russian. Zalissia was called Zalesie in Polish. Yasenivtsi (also spelled Yasenovtsy, Jasenivci) was spelled Jasienowce, Jasieniowce and Jasionowce in Polish. The only information I've got come from Slownik Geograficzny Krolestwa Polskiego 1880-1902 and Księga Adresowa Polski(=Poland Business Directories) of the years 1891,1926-1930 - there are some population data and some surnames. I have placed these information at uk.wikipedia.org (Залісся, Ясенівці). So far, the largest source on them is there... I would be grateful if you could help me and provide me with some additional information on the history of these villages. These may be some Ukrainian encyclopedias/glossaries/guide-books entries. Word or scanned documents. I am willing to help you in the things you are interested in... I may look up some information for you. Have a nice day! --Riva72 21:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Liberate

Thank you for your kind words in the discussion, btw. I 've had a crazy day involving 8+ hours of travel. I'll think about the question of "liberating" Russian cities over the weekend and be back online Sunday night at the latest. Hope all is well. I'll let Grafikm know as well.--tufkaa 02:54, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, could you moderate your friend? //Halibutt 09:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you could contribute

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_World_War_II

Article now presents a picture that Germany was the main victim of WW2, nothing is mentioned about the enourmous devestation made by German armies in WW2 in terms of infrastracture, industry that needed to be rebuilded after WW2 in territories of Poland and Soviet Union, the claim of organised rapes is being repeated. The Red Army rape claims are repeated. Perhaps you know the date on destruction in SU ? --Molobo 17:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Stalin page

Can you add your 2 cents to the Stalin discussion page. (Deng 21:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC))

More questions

I wonder how you would square the claims the Poles blew up Kiev's railway station in 1920 with information given here and here. My Ukrainian is not that great, so please use the information contained in these links to make appropriate changes in Kiev Offensive article. Balcer 21:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Now let me ask some more questions about the Poles blowing up the Kiev electric power station. How come there is no mention of that in this timeline? How come it is not mentioned in this detailed article? Again, my Ukrainian is rudimentary, so insights would be appreciated. Balcer 23:23, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I look forward to your reply. I hope these links demonstrate that, given that this is year 2006, there is a large number of various Ukrainian and Russian language links covering even minute details of Kiev's history. The fact that, excluding the Kiev bridges, no evidence of "Poles vandalising Kiev and making the city unlivable" can be found in such Kiev-related links, leads one to an unescapable conclusion that such an event either never occured, or was so insignificant in scale that it does not belong in the Kiev Offensive article.

Let's remember that we are not arguing over some small detail here. As it stands, the Kiev Offensive article accuses the troops of one European nation of maliciously vandalising the capital of its neighbouring nation in relatively recent past. If that really happened, we probably need a whole separate article on it, and I would definitely support one. But if such events did not happen, or are at least vastly exaggerated, then inserting claims to that effect amounts to propaganda which results in encouraging dislike between two countries and nations.

Poland and Ukraine are making large strides towards resolving the historical differences between them (for one example, see the recent Pawłokoma massacre article and feel free to add to it). Let's do our part in this process, which I hope you support. Balcer 12:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Still waiting for your comments. If you don't have time to respond, let me know, and I will modify the article in accordance with the information from these links. But I would prefer your input since I don't want to introduce errors due to my faulty translation. Balcer 04:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Balcer. Haven't got to this yet. But it's high on my list. Just give me a little time. Also, in connection to my previous message at your talk, this is another interesting reading. Is this typical attitude in Polish press, I wonder? --Irpen

I honestly don't know as I don't read Polish press regularly. Wprost is famous for its sometimes provocative graphics though. Anyway, let's resolve the issue at hand, since Polish Soviet War FA will be on the front page soon, and so one of the main articles it links to should have its controversies resolved before then. Balcer 04:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean graphics, I meant the text. I have a translation and found the article totally disgusting and there is much other similar stuff coming from that paper. If PSW is going to the mainpage, it should get the utmost attention now. I am sorry to see such a POV article to be at the mainpage soon, but I will try to do what I can to have at least some problems addressed. --Irpen 04:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The Polish press is what it is, and it has nothing to do with what we are doing here. Just to be clear, I think that article is idiotic. For what it's worth, I have not read Wprost in years. Let's fix the Kiev Offensive article. Did the links I included above change your point of view on the issue? Balcer 04:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I see those links don't mention these events. However, the power station links don't have a word for an entire 1910-1955 period (no doubt other notable events took place at that time). The railway station links speak generally about the building of the station and not the junctions infrastructure. I don't think Poles blew up the building as I see them as no vandals. The article makes sourced claims, and goes into length explaining that claims are restricted to particular sources only. I've seen this claimed made elsewhere on the web and I can't remember sites. Will need time to dig them up if you insist on more sources. More on that paper: [24], [25] and this is just a small part (in no way I want to say this is related to K.O. but this is in regards to another dispute we had). --Irpen 05:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if it does not say much about events between 1910 and 1955, the implication must be that the building survived those years, and was not blown up and completely rebuilt. If that happened, I think it would have been mentioned. Furthermore, destroying "junctions infrastructure" conveys a slightly different meaning than "destroying a station", don't you think? Again, destroying railway tracks by retreating armies was standard practice at the time, and cannot be called vandalism by any stretch of the imagination. Balcer 13:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is that obviously historians are human beings and they make mistakes or have their biases which lead them to overemphasize certain events. Even when I read a historian like Norman Davies, who I greatly respect, I find that his books often contain various errors, especially when he devotes only one sentence or paragraph to the subject in passing. Based on the evidence we have, don't you think that the same might have happened in this case?

Let's be clear here. In this age of Google, which is able to search Ukrainian and Russian webpages, it really ought to be possible to find some websites devoted to various aspects of the history of Kiev, which would mention the "vandalism" of the Poles destroying the civilian infrastructure of the city (other than bridges). If such websites, or other books are not found, and the only thing to go on is one paragraph in one book by one author, then this is simply not enough.

As I said, the allegation that one nation vandalised the capital of another is a serious one. It cannot be made based on one paragraph in one book. That is not enough. So, if more evidence is not presented, I will fight for the complete removal of that passage, sourced though it is. The other possibility is to include a citation, but with a full explanation that no other confirmation of this supposed fact can be found. Balcer 12:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, we are not talking about "vandalism" here anyway. It is a POV term at any rate. What objects of the city's infrastructure were destroyed by Poles is the issue here, no more, no less. Yes, I've seen other writings about the Polish actions in Kiev on the Net in the past. That prompted me to look for a serious claims on that and that's how I found the Meltyukhov's reference. I plan on digging up other sites where I saw that (I don't now remember) as I didn't save them preferring to use a serious books rather than web-sites to support the claim. Due to your persistence, I am going to go find other refs.

Since your point here is that the claim even referenced to an otherwise acceptable source can be removable if, in view of anything else, it makes little sense, may I ask you to take a look at the statement at Halibutt's Treatment of Polish citizens by occupiers that as late as in '39 Soviets used "Dicatorship of Proletariat" slogans during the Sovietization of Western Ukraine annexed from Poland. This term seems a total anachronism for late 30s' as I explained at talk (Search for "Dictatorship" string if you can't read an entire talk page). Halibutt sources this to some book but I have a feeling that either he misquotes (non-deliberately) or the author messed up. In the meanwhile, I will check the ru- and ua-nets for more evidence on Polish behavior. --Irpen 18:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

You might also want to check the latest Polityka weekly, where it is argued that it was not until Khrushchev that the dictatorship of proletariat idea was dumped, along with some other ideas of bad old Lenin. //Halibutt 19:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's just use common sense once in a while, instead of trying to establish some universal rules which will lead to ridiculous outcomes. A single scholarly reference is probably enough to establish some obscure detail, such as when some Communist slogan came in and out of use. On the other hand, if only a single reference mentions an event such as the "vandalising" of Kiev (Meltyukhov talks specifically about "vengeful vandalism") which, had it happened, would have had profound and wide-ranging impact and thus ought to have been mentioned in other sources, both in books and on the web, and yet it is not mentioned, then the reference might be wrong. Especially if it is a reference writing about a much wider subject, which can only spare a few sentences to the event it claims supposedly took place. But if you can dig up other references, that would be great. On the other hand, the fact remains that credible websites which should have mentioned this event had it happened in fact do not.

Again, I must stress here that it is not sufficient to show that some vandalism took place. It must also be demonstrated that this vandalism was significant enough that it merits being discussed in the Kiev Offensive article, as opposed to History of Kiev, where it definitely would belong.

As for the dispute between you and Halibutt, how the heck did you get into an argument about a particular communist slogan? Since when did communist slogans correlate with reality anyway? Balcer 22:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

{{Ukraine-hist-stub}} and category

You appear to have recreated this recently-deleted "stub type", with the unenlightening edit summaries of "cat" and "recat". What gives? Alai 07:33, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't get the question. You think the stub category should not exist or what? --Irpen 07:34, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Given that it's still undersized, still unproposed, and now is recently deleted to boot, the question is, "why should it exist?", if that wasn't clear from the original. Alai 16:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I will make sure it is populated from "Ukraine-stub" which is definetely overpopulated. Most countries have a history stub cat separately from the country stub. The History of Ukraine is rich enough for events, existing articles and article to be to make sure the underpopulation won't be a problem. Regards, --Irpen 18:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Can I refer you to WP:STUB? (As well as once again to WP:WSS/P.) Ukraine stub is not overpopulated (by stub-sorting custom and practice generally considered to be over 800 stubs), so there's certainly no pressing need for this type. Your recreation clearly is underpopulated at present, nor have you even said whether it'll have the normal creation-threshold of 60 stubs when you're done populating it. Alai 02:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So, why not delete the Ukraine-stub (underpopulated as you say) as well and retag the articles by "europe-stub"? That it is a useful cat is clear because lumping Eternal Peace Treaty of 1686 in the same category as the modern Republican Party of Ukraine would create confusion and prevent editors who specialize in Ukrainian history and editors who are interested in expanding articles on more modern Ukrainian issues from easily finding articles waiting for them. I really don't uderstand how you don't consider the stub useful but harmful. Maybe we should solicit opinions on Portal:Ukraine board. Would you object? --Irpen 02:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I said that Ukraine-stub is "not overpopulated", not that it's underpopulated; there's a considerable difference. No one is objecting to a Ukrainian history category, but why are you persisting in creating a stub type, without apparent regard to the stub creation guidelines, or indeed, the stub proposals page -- ever considered "soliciting opinion" there? This has all already been thrashed out at SFD, and deleted accordingly, and you've said nothing to indicate why the judgement should, or would, be any different now. By all means consult the Ukraine portal, but I'd still appreciate you addressing my material points. Alai 03:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: WP:ANI

Heh, that is because of the edit conflict between you and me lol... Anyway, I reworded my statement accordingly. Cheers, -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Ukraine hist-stub

I have just re-speedied this stub. The vote for deletion was 6-2 in favour of its deletion. More specifically, several of those votes were "populate or delete" - that is, get the stub up to threshold size (60) before the end of this debate or delete of it. There were far fewer than the required number of articles at the end of the deletion debate, therefore it was deleted as per the comments of those who took part in the debate. Even now, several weeks after its deletion, there are less than half the number of stubs that would be needed for this template to reach threshold. If at some point in the future you believe there are enough stubs for this stub type, feel free to re-propose it at WP:WSS/P. DO NOT simply re-create a template that was deleted by due process, otherwise it may be taken as an act of vandalism. Grutness...wha? 08:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The stub was deleted in violation of due process. Here are the vote results: 2 keeps, 4 "populate or delete". Even if you count the latter as "delete", 4 vs 2 is not a consensus (it was not 6 vs 2 btw which would also not have been a consensus, btw). The stub was around for a while rather than created recently. To address your conserns, I populated it yesterday and it reached 30 entries. Quite a resonable number. I can open my Ukrainian encyclopedia and create 30 Ukrainian history stubs in one day, if this is what you insist on, but IMO pity stubs harm Wikipedia more than they help it. In summary, the stub (and the cat) were created a while ago. They are not recent and it was deletion, not the creation, that violated the process. 4:2 is in no way a consensus. For more, please read my discussion with Alai right above. --Irpen 17:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

... in which you don't trouble to answer any of my concerns. If you feel the original closure was improper (obviously I'd disagree), take it to deletion review, don't simply keep recreating it. I really don't see how a 2:1 ratio in favour of deletion is a sensible basis for this to exist, though (and that numerical analysis neglects the lack of actual arguments behind the two "keeps"). Or better yet, wait until there's an actual need for a separate stub type, and then bring it to WP:WSS/P. Alai 18:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to use this stub and vote 'keep' if I am appraised of any similar vote.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Russo-Turkish War, 1877–1878

A bunch of Russophobes keeps attacking the article. Please intervene. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

East-west Ukrainian dissimilarities

Greetings, Please see my comments on the discussiuon section of that stub. As time allows I would like to contribute to that page. As I mentioned, regional differences seems better (it's more than east/west - central Ukraine is as distinct from Galicia and the Donbas). And perhaps writing about how these differences impacted history can be very important. I'm thinking of making a section on the events of 1917-1921. regards Faustian 20:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

WU1794 Russian generals

I recently expanded the Warsaw Uprising (1794) article, and I added two (probably polonized) names of Russian generals. I hope that you can correct them, maybe link to existing articles (for the first one I couldn't even find a first name). The first one is gen. Chruszczow whom Igelstrom sent from Warsaw to intercept Kościuszka with part of the W. garrison, the second one is Ivan Nowickij who was apparently stationed nearby or part of the garrison. If you could add names of other prominent Russian commanders that were involved in the event, it would be great: currently majority of the names are Polish. PS. Perhaps you could also add names of the Russian commanders to other battle of the K. Insurrection?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar

I have not thanked you yet for the honour you gave me. Thank you very much, I really feel very honoured and will carry your barnstar wherever I go... :-) --Daniel Bunčić 06:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Sukh's RFA - Thanks!

Thank you for your vote on my RfA. Unfortunately there was no consensus reached at 43 support, 18 oppose and 8 neutral. I've just found out that there is a feature in "my preferences" that forces me to use edit summaries. I've now got it enabled :) Thanks again. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, you are a cunning anti-Ukrainian intrigant

Re: Ghirla's barnstar:

Irpen, I wouldn't allow him if I were you. Ghirlandajo is a strictly anti-Ukrainian editor. E.g., he advocated Crimea's parting from UA several times. Being civil with him ... OK, but being friendly? And that Soviet цяцька was in fact given to many anti-Ukrainian figures in real life. I think this is not funny, Андрій, this is disgusting and blasphemous. By allowing him you declared yourself not only pro-Russian, but also an anti-Ukrainian editor. Feel free to erase my comment till anybody else notices it (like you always do with the truth). Ukrained 08:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, you removed a necessary and explained tag from Ukrainische Gruppe Nachtigall, just to have me substituting them with others, slightly different, hours later. This was a technicality which you could do easily. So, you didn't see an evidently bad Ukraine-related page? Or you wanted it to stay such for purpose? You were saying ... I'm as Ukrainian as... what? Ukrained 08:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Dear Irpen, moving my second comment to pick it out of context was a dirty trick, although it failed: these two comments are not contradicting if regarded in a context. Please don't do such cunning things to my posts anymore. If any comment of mine would be treated in such an intriguous way, please prohibit me of editing your talk at all (I'll admit such ban and won't file any complaints). What you did was so unworthy :(... but kept in editing history forever :) Ukrained 18:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I will respond to all this when I have time. Let me just say that you are as wrong as you always are assuming bad faith of others. While I am tired of this, I since I know this habbit of yours well by now, I don't care much. Later, --Irpen 19:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Vandal on Ukrainian Insurgent Army Article

Is there a way to block an anon vandal relatively quickly? Some guy keeps adding an offensive, unsourced photo there and I've grown tired of reverting it repeatedly (as have others). Regards, Faustian 18:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Davies WERS

I have it now next to me. I think I already asked you for a list of terms to check, I am sorry if you gave it to me but I can't find it now - I remember we talked about the list...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! First of all, I would like to know the names, Davies uses in the English (original) version of his book for the towns/villages listed in Template:Campaignbox Polish-Soviet War. I am almost sure that Wołodarka, Nowochwastów, Wasylkowce and others have to go from en-Wiki to pl-wiki where no one in sane mind would object to them. Check the table for other names (Mironówka anyone?). I would also be very much interested whether he mentions such thing as the Battle of Wołodarka and, if yes, whether he mentions a "Polish victory" there. If you could hold on to the book for a while, I will come up with more questions. Please keep checking out my talk once in a while. There will be plenty of entries, including by myself, in response to some comments as I have missed replying to several on time due to real life things. I really appreciate that so many people, read my talk and care to comment. I know you are busy with other things than scrutinizing my talk, but just check for responses, if you can. I find it extremely important that the questions and answers are kept at the same page. Regards, --Irpen 21:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Irpen

Since you haven't presented any sources that would support the view that Ukrainians were polonophobic I deleted the information. While some of it might be historically correct I don't see any connection to expression of Polonophobia. --Molobo 23:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I never said Ukrainians were Polonophobic. Personally, I think Ukrainians are very tolerant to their neighbors, including the Poles. I added the context to the statement that the hostility to Poles you refer to were all due to the Soviets. At the time, all minorities to the East of the Poland had every reason to have an issue towards Poland. This info is relevant to the article. --Irpen 00:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Please discuss the articles at the relevant talk pages so that others can see. I am delighted that so many people scrutinize my talk and even its history (seriously) but not all editors who watch the article would stop by at my talk, to see our discussion. --Irpen 00:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I added the context to the statement that the hostility to Poles you refer to were all due to the Soviets The statement is unsourced.I removed it.Since you insist on putting it in, please give source.Otherwise I shall remove it again. I never said Ukrainians were Polonophobic. Then I see no reason for your edits there. --Molobo 11:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:PSW

The article is assumed to be ready for mainpage when it passes FA, if one disagrees there is the FARev and FARC processes. If you have any complains about the artcle being NPOV (and remembering it passed FA) may I suggest discussion at talk? I promise a swift reply. Volodarka: as I replied on talk of PSW a minute ago, it is not in index under V/W, where should I look? I'll check the other three in a minute. As for other articles, perhaps this will shed the light on my opposal to your edits: in PSW we should use the same words for P and S (if possible): I can agree that P. occupied some territories but Soviets did the same. In PSC and HoP39-45 the equivalent wording can be applied to S and NG, but this logic certainly is no basis to remove the wording and whitewash Soviet actions of 17th September.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Update: none of those three is in the index. Anyway Davies uses some strange Polish/Russian (transliterated into English) mix, for example we have Węgrów, Wieprzów and Vyazma and Uzhorod. If you are looking for some of the answers for Russian/Ukrainian spelling issues, I can give you more examples but I am afraid I can't tell the difference myself.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Recess Time

When I was a child, I saw a cartoon where two guys were fighting, and a third guy tried to stop them. He said, "Gentlemen, gentlemen, let there be peace." They then proceeded to attack him, instead of fighting each other. I hope that's not what is about to happen to me. Irpen and Piotrus, I value your contributions and imput to Wikipedia. I value your intelligence, and I understand the perspectives from which both of you are coming from. Aftr reading certain spats you've had recently (like in the Polish September Campaign talk pages), I think you both need a small recess or mini vacation from each other. Leave it alone for a while. You'll be glad you did. Dr. Dan 03:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dan! It'll be allright unless others (not yourself but other others) join. I got another good vaccination lately (see entries several topics above) and I am even calmer in such conflicts lately. If it comes to worse, I will simply stop editing that article for now, POV-tag it and explain the reasons at talk. I simply try to avoid it by all means since it is rather unprecedented to have a mainpage article POV-tagged. But I believe, such controversial topic articles at the Mainpage are equally unprecedented and, perhaps, too early. Piotrus did I huge amount of work for this article, but maybe such controversial topics cannot be possibly fully NPOVed. Thanks anyway, --Irpen 04:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:POINT ?

Hi, I'm sorry to see that with this edit you have removed the map illustrating the war. What was the purpose of this edit ? What's happening to you ? --Lysy^talk 16:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, there is not WP:POINT here whatsoever. I don't understand your removal of the image from the infobox in both articles. Please explain yourself at the article's talk if you intend to persist. --Irpen 17:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I have specifically decided to use your talk page, as I'm addressing you personally. I have noticed you're editing several different articles in the same manner, replacing images with maps or vice-versa. If however you're not willing to discuss this here, that's very bad and would definitely make me feel sorry. --Lysy^talk 18:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If all that interests you is my own views on these, I have no problem explaining them here. However, I would like to discuss the article-related issues such that other interested parties may take part. Please see my recent entry at talk:PSW on the infobox image. --Irpen 18:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem that I have is that your edits at Polish-Soviet War and Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618) have different nature, and it's therefore difficult to discuss both at talk:PSW. I do not intend to offend you but I think your removal of the map from Polish-Muscovite War (1605–1618) is on the verge of trolling. At PSW we simply do not have a good single map to illustrate the article. --Lysy^talk 18:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, trolling is a very serious accusation and you should be sure what you are talking about when bringing it. The map is duplicated in the down in RPW. Similarly, in PSW, when I put the map to the infobox, I moved the prop pic you seem to like to the appropriate section where the battle is described. I also tided up the images and took great care to make the layout look more organized. You reverted on the spot without discussing. That's a bad faith edit. Please care to check the matters before jumping into accusing other editors, like some here like to do. --Irpen 19:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

'trolling is a very serious accusation' - true, but considering that you accuse Molobo of trolling in almost every post or edit summary when you meet him, aren't you using double standards? And for the record I also think your actions here are breaking the WP:POINT.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

If this can't be called trolling, I don't know what can. I don't "accuse" Molobo of trolling as frequently as you state because he is not trolling that much. When he is trolling (like above), it's a different story. As for your accusation of WP:POINT, please elaborate if you really want to make a record. As far as I remember, I made this edit. By it not only I replaced the questionable painting by a neutral map in the infobox (note that I didn't remove the painting, but moved it to an article section) but tidied up the images layout, organizing them in columns rather than having them messing up the text making it horribly looking. The main thing of that edit, however, was not tiding up but NPOVing. In no time Lysy not only reverted me, restoring the questionable image in the infobox, but claimed in the edit summary that this was only a "layout" restoration. Now, who was acting in bad faith? I hope no one, really. --Irpen 05:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

do you have better information how to spell Cecilie of Mecklenburg-Schwerin?

Kindly then share your knowledge in a constructive manner, telling exactly what is the solution and what are its reasons. A summary opinion does not help. Marrtel 08:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I was referring to Mikhail/Michael issue. All I requested is you raise the issue at talk before moving. How can this hurt? --Irpen 09:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Ochkarik

This user has recently done some minor damage to the articles on my watchlist. He doesn't seem to be a vandal, rather a newcomer who doesn't know yet how to properly edit articles. Sashazlv 20:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Based on my experience with this user, he does not know much English, is somewhat slow on the uptake when it comes to understanding/following guidelines, and is not very sociable (meaning you'll be lucky if you get a response from him). He isn't really a novice to Wikipedia (he's been editing ru.wiki for a while now), but he is somewhat new here. Just thought this information may come handy.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 20:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

WP:PUI

Hi - I have removed the Image:Warsaw uprising.jpg section of the PUI page since the image has been deleted. The discussion can be found here and the summary from the file deletion is:

03:49, 27 May 2006 Nv8200p deleted "Image:Warsaw uprising.jpg" (Removed non-free image per WP:PUI on May 12, 2006)

If you feel the deletion was incorrect, please start by contacting Nv8200p directly. If there is still a disagreement, the issue can be brought up at WP:DRV. Thanks -SCEhardT 18:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Bij Bolszewika

I am sorry but I don't understand Russian what do these words mean which you used: it meant "kill", similar to Russian "Bey polyakov" or "Bey nemtsev".? I don't know about Russian language much since we no longer are forced to learn it, but in Polish bij means to beat up somebody. Cheers. --Molobo 19:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

So Molobo that would meant that learning Russian had some use...;) Anyway you are right in your hypothesis, bey literally means beat or in context of the slogans it is metaphorically reffered to as attack the enemy, and indeed does not imply murderous as Piotr picked up. Bey Nemtsev - attack Germans. Bey Nasmert - Fight till their death, does imply murder. --Kuban Cossack 09:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So Molobo that would meant that learning Russian had some use...;) Since it was Irpen,perhaps he should learn Polish ;) --Molobo 10:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Bij, which even sounds similar to beat (and may have common roots perhaps) has also similar meaning. I don't know if the translation on the page you got it from is wrong, but bij really means 'to beat' (although for language sake I'd translate it as 'fight' into English). I could go on, but the bottom line is that just as in English words 'beat up' or 'fight' while they imply struggle they don't imply murderous intent. PS. In Polish to kill is 'zabij', so if the placard said 'zabij bolszewika' then we could translate it as 'to kill bolshevik'. Yes, it is a minor issue, but one that we can resolve pretty quickly I believe. Something simple we can both agree on, I hope?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:08, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that false friends can occur between closely related languages. Balcer 09:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I know that PL bij = RU bey literally means "beat". I was talking the closest in context translation, not the literal one. "Bij Polaka" or "Bij Bolszewika" in the context of war certainly doesn't imply "beat" or "kick his ass". In the war it implies killing the enemy. Do you see this differently? --Irpen 05:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte

See Special:Contributions/Vlachul. —Khoikhoi 18:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Polonization

I'd like to congratulate you on your Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth section of the Polonization article. Very well put ! --Lysy^talk 18:18, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I am wroking on it as we speak and I hope you are not being sarcastic. --Irpen 18:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm certainly not. --Lysy^talk 02:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Prometheism POV?

I have removed the article from our attention list, as there have been almost no edits or discussions there for the past few weeks. I am not much familiar with the article or the sources, but as you seem to be unhappy about it, may I suggest that yous start by writing a review of the article on the talk page (if you don't want to edit it). I'd like for the attention tab at WP:PWNB to contain only articles which are in current revert wars and other grave problems.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:35, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Even if you didn't read an article, a single look at it is sufficient. --Irpen 05:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks good to me at first glance. Please show me I am mistaken. On the recent EB note, yes, I didn't notice it was a EB quote, but for me it just go to show how little attention EB and other encyclopedias pay to being neutral.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Note that EB has also a NPOV policy which it states at the web-site and is written by respected scholars who care to use the prevailing terminology. The words like "occupation" and "liberation" are not a problem per se. As per the prevailing view, the '39 Nazi was occupation as well as '39 Soviet, 43-45 Soviet was liberation and the Holocaust was a Genocide. EB is written by respected scholars based on the mainstream view and with the NPOV in mind. As such, the terminology it uses is a good indication of what we can use in WP. --Irpen 16:39, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that EB is perfect when it comes to NPOV; they make erros in POV just as they do in content. Eventually Wiki will be much more NPOV that Britannica.

On a related note, as a token of my goodwill, I have created the article about Stanisław Grabski. He can definetly claim to be one of the most nationalist, untolerant and pro-polonization peaople out there, and he certainly contributed significantly to what was wrong withthe Second Polish Republic. I hope this article shows you that we don't try to 'hide' our bad sides and claim that all Poles and Polish deeds are perfect.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I sincerely doubt that anything is perfect when it comes to NPOV. NPOV in WP is the product of the cooperative work of the reasonable editors with elimination of the input of the trollish ones. NPOV in EB (and any respected scholarly work) is the product of high reputation and topical grasp by the world's top scholars who are aware of the state of the art in the field and are required to write reflecting this state of the art, rather their own views. I bet if Davies was writing an PL article for EB it would be much less polonophile than his "God's Playground". Additionally, EB's articles get peer-reviewed and they sure get some feedback after the publication to take into account in the next update. Doesn't make it perfect but EB's usage is important since it surely reflects the widely accepted usage.

Speaking again of the attitude words, they are usable in Wikipedia when something's fitting towards the general definition is generally accepted, such as that the "Holocaust was a Genocide", "creationism is unscientific" (doesn't make it wrong), "'39 and '41 were occupations" and "44 was liberation", etc. If some fringe nationalist, be it Polish, Russian or Ukrainian, purges the liberation from the battle of Dnieper (or purges the occupation from the PSC, replacing it with liberation) it's no different then calling some event with the same word just for the POV reason.[26] NPOV isn't the same as a ban to use any word that implies any attitude at all (occupation, liberation, genocide, mass murder, salvation, etc). Otherwise, many articles would be gone.

As for your "goodwill gesture", everyone does those things. Besides I've always considered you (and some others, I hope Sylwia will be back as well) as moderate editors rather than some other others. Regards, --Irpen 03:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC) If some fringe nationalist, be it Polish(...) purges the liberation You believe this is a fringe nationalist opinion in Poland? :) --Molobo 16:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be careful with overestimating EB NPOVedness. For example, many EB articles are written by staff, not scholars, and I am not sure if all are peer reviewed. In addition, articles are updated from time to time (same problems with who updates them and reviews updates), and there are known cases of 'old POV' (from British imperial era and such) surviving till modern edition. Off topic: would you have any material related to Adam Kisiel?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing is perfect. EB may err too. But much less likely than many other places. --Irpen 05:39, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Miedzymorze

1. It's no secret that Ukraine's independence, in Pilsudki's view, depended on democratic principals, in contrast to the threats posed by the totalitarianism of Soviet Russia. There's nothing else to it; cold, hard facts. And if Soviet Russia cant be called totalitarian (anachronistic woes?), then what? 2. Quote has been faithfuly translated. Dont know what you mean. PS The diligent and very militant Ghirla took no delay in reverting me, so no worries. Reichenbach 08:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, regarding Lvov, please see other Central European place names, such as Transylvania, or any other place name for that matter. Reichenbach 21:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Western Ukrainian POWs in Polish camps

Would you please contribute, if you have sources? Talk:Camps for Russian prisoners and internees in Poland (1919-1924) Xx236 08:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Request

Hey Irpen,

When you have the time, could you check out the Hutsuls article and make sure it's neutral? Thanks. —Khoikhoi 18:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Language question

Sorry for bothering you, but I have a question about Russian/Ukrainain pronounciation. I have always been intrigued as to why words that have the /h/ sound in other language are often transliterated using г in Russian and pronounced likewise. Then I saw that the г letter involves the /h/ sound in native words as well, for example "ого" which would be pronounced as oho rather than ogo. I was wondering whether it is always correct to pronounce the letter г as h in Russian if you know that the word has an /h/ sound in the word's native tongue, for example Гитлер or Робин Гуд, even though conventionally the sounds are pronounced as /g/.

Then I saw that in Ukrainian the letter г actually denotes the /h/ sound whereas the letter ґ represents the /h/ sound. My question about that is in words where the letter г is used would that sound be pronounced like /h/ in the word "hello" for instance? Then for the words холод and голод the difference is only between the /h/ and /kh/ sound, right, the word голод is not pronounced using a g sound like in Russian?

Thank you, Vox Populi (TSO) 20:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a really interesting question and I am not certain on how to fully answer it. Latin "H" have sometimes indeed mutated to Russian "Г" in German-originated names that start with H, like Hitler, Hamburg, Hannover, Hans, etc. I don't know the reason while it is certainly known to others. The sound of the letter Г, however, is more like /g/ in Russian and it's only in the talk of southern Russian and most Ukrainian speakers of Russian, Г is read, still not quite like /h/, but more of a softer /g/. In correctly spoken Russian, "ого" would sound like "ogo" and not "oho". So, in Russian one should always pronounce "g".

In Ukrainian the situation is somewhat more complex. "Г" corresponds to a softer sound than "G" but still different from "H". IMO, it is still closer to G than to H but why is it transliterated to H is a totally different and, sometimes, a politically charged question. The fact is that in official transliteration it is usually transliterated as H and we should stick to it. In addition to "Г" another letter "Ґ" was recently reintroduced (some say introduced) to Ukrainain in the 90s. This corresponds to a solid sound "G" but is only used in few words. When this letter was absent, they simply tought at schools which Ukrainian words with "Г" to pronounce with a hard G.

I understand this is confusing. Feel free to ask for more though I am not a linguist. --Irpen 20:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much, your response was very helpful. Vox Populi (TSO) 21:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for your constructive position in many contentious articles. Cheers, --Irpen 01:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:Labor - Proletariat

Hi Irpen. That's an interesting addition to the template. A bit ironic that a template about labour is full of links to organizing ideas, and not the people themselves. :) --Bookandcoffee 19:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

:). I agree. --Irpen 19:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Bonaparte again, again, and again

Keep an eye on GDP, Bonny's new sockpuppet. Also add Romania to your watchlist. Spasibo! —Khoikhoi 19:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That admin from yesterday threatened to block me for accusing GDP for being Bonny, so I suggest you be careful in your accusations, or they may threaten to block you as well. --Candide, or Optimism 19:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll just call him GDP then. ;) Irpen, he just used an open proxy to revert me on Romania. Could you help out? —Khoikhoi 19:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I will take care of this, don't worry. And as I always behave properly (LOL), I am not afraid of any repercussions. --Irpen 19:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Дякую! I wanted to thank you for the newcommer award you gave me. I admire your work, so it means a lot. I tried to thank you earlier and accidentally added in to your archived talk page. Thanks again, I hope to work on more projects will you in the future. Kevlar67 02:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

dyk

On June 4, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Patriarch Mstyslav (Stepan Skrypnyk), which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Mentoring

Would you like to co-mentor Deng? - FrancisTyers 12:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

yes. --Irpen 20:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting article

You might enjoy this article from Pravda.ru . It made me chuckle, but I honestly don't know what to make out of it. Is this some kind of joke or are they serious about this? Anyway, lately Google News spits out such strange links when searching for Poland, for example. Seems their standards in selecting news items are nil. Balcer 11:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please consult history books before changing.

[27] What you described as "sneaky vandalism" is actually present in every history book. The city was renamed after a General who captured it in FIRST World War. --Molobo 11:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

images from RU:

Hello Irpen! Would you mind taking a look at ru:Изображение:Teuton knights.jpg and ru:Изображение:Zamok.jpg to see if the images can be transferred to the Commons or used on the English wiki? Olessi 01:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The author of the first one is Eric Fessard [28]. You can find it following the link. His web-site is created for selling his pictures and I think we can reasonably use the {{Publicity}} (providing the author's name) for en-wiki but not for commons as "publicity" is a variety of "fairuse".

The second one is already in coomons. Good luck! --Irpen 01:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Olessi 02:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

DYK

On June 7, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dnieper River reservoirs, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

thanks for fixing this up and getting it nominatable... ++Lar: t/c 17:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Jagiello

Would you care to visit at Talk:Wladyslaw_II_Jagiellon_of_Poland#Survey. The simple "Jagiello" - for that there is now a formal listing going on to sign support or opposition. ObRoy 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

1864

Hi Irpen, do you know if there exists an article about the 1864 abolition of serfdom by the czar? Appleseed (Talk) 03:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Emancipation reform of 1861 in Russia. Good luck. --Irpen 03:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Party

Are you thinking what I am thinking? See talk of that page. I was quite suprised when I followed the link and found... that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Polish medieval monarchs naming

Hi. I have proposed to move the following monarchs from their current, generally Polish-spelled names (with diacriticals) to the systematical English name, citing my general ground that English should be used, not Polish. Would you share your opinion at Talk:Bolesław I the Brave , Talk:Bolesław II the Bold, Talk:Mieszko II Lambert, Talk:Władysław III Spindleshanks, Talk:Jan I Olbracht and Talk:Kazimierz III the Great. Marrtel 19:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Minin

You are correct. It is sometimes funny how one sees different things differently. You are correct that both of those events can be named invasion. I would still argue that there are important differences, and that we should aboid the use of word 'invasion' as a rule, but I will not revert this issue in Minin again.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 00:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration regarding the usage of "liberation" in articles

An arbitration request involving you has been filed.--AndriyK 19:51, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you never cool down. Very well, I am glad you took this venue instead of edit warring. --Irpen 19:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Caution against removing the POV tags.

Content moved to Talk:Russian architecture#Causion against removing the POV tags. for better exposure of the problem. --Irpen 06:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This caution was addressed to you personally. What is the reason to flood the article's talk page?--AndriyK 09:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Mongol invasion of Rus

Can you take a look at the recent edits and see if I was out of line? Thanks!--tufkaa 03:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Tufkaa, see my comment on the article's talkpage abakharev 05:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding page moves

I was under the impression that it isn't neccessary, looking at the example of Ghirandajo [29] who moved a page without consultation. Ok thanks for the notice. --Molobo 21:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Nikolai Danilewski

Mentioned at Social cycle theory as "an important Russian philospoher". Red link - if it rings a bell, perhaps you can redirect it or stub it? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 16:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Nikolay Yakovlevich Danilevsky created abakharev 23:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Spasibo :) --Irpen 05:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Polish-led

Polish led is certainly more NPOV then dominated. As for democractic... you yourself note that it is word hard to define. Nonetheless I think it is important to note that it would have been a federation of independent, likely democratic countries, and not, let's say, a federation of republics or states in a single country with strong president.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about the definition of "federation" rather than the definition of "democratic". Democratic is questionable, hypothetical, unrpovable (even unlikely) and highly irrelevant here. --Irpen 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for collage

Re: User:Travb

Thanks for the collage. You and the User:CJK have inspired me. Spaciba balshoy commrade! (Is this correct Russian?) Travb (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Please be civil in the discussion

I am a bit puzzled with your manner to answer the questions of other users.

Even if somebody by mistake asked the same question twice, is it not easier to answer the questions briefly that immediately blame your colleague for trolling?--Mbuk 21:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I civilly pointed out to you that if you want to take this issue upon yourself, your reposting of the discussed issues without addressing the past discussion or cherry-picking selected answers makes things more rather than less difficult. If you think that pointing this out to you is incivil, you should reread WP:Civility. I discussed things with you for a very long time giving you the advise the best way I could and in as much detail as I could before realizing that you simply lead your opponents in endless circles hoping to get an outcome to your liking. It is your duty to read the past discussions if you want to lead the dispute resolution. If you want to achieve a one specific outcome, as it seems, you would be perceived accordingly. If you have anything new to say on the topic, say it at the article talk (told you that 6 or 7 times). For now, I see nothing like that. You come back to people's talk harassing them with undeserved criticism as if you have nothing better to do. I will absolutely stop responding to endless pestering. I suggested to you to write at least some content to Wikipedia. Your lack of interest in doing that is also telling. Still, I will treat each of your future entires based on their own merit as I always put aside past disagreements when the new issue arises. Over and out. --Irpen 21:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

.

[30] and you dare to call me a troll and a vandal... //Halibutt 07:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Award

Thank you very much! Biruitorul 11:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Notice of RfC

A request for comment concerning your conduct is filled.--AndriyK 16:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

Please do not engage in edit warring when in conflict with other editors, as you have been doing today and recently. Take a look at your recent edits at [31], [32], [33], [34]. Edit warring is a poor way to solve disputes. Actually, it inflames them. All of those instances of recent edit warring are unacceptable, as well as the ones I haven't mentioned. Please use WP:DR: go to mediation or RFC. As you know, persistent edit warring may lead to blocks. Dmcdevit·t 07:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Russian architecture

I'm afraid our mutual friend has a sockpuppet. Could you investigate this curious affair? Thanks, Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No need to check. It was 99.99% User:NikoSilver, who forgot to log in. He changed his edit on Telex' talk page: [35]. --Pan Gerwazy 12:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

TfD

I think a potentially very disruptive template is on verge of being kept. If you have time, please take a look at this TfD discussion. [36] Regards. 172 | Talk 21:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Your ecent edit at Requests for comment/Irpen

Please note that you are not permitted to edit comments of the users who criticize you at your RfC page. Your recent edit [37] is illegal.--AndriyK 09:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK, your engaging into a debate into the RfC main page was illegal rather than bringing the page in compliance with the RfC rules.[38] That you are not interested in following the rules but only in your POV-pushing by all costs circumventing the poicies, wikilawyering without success and using any dirty trick possible is neither new nor surprising. --Irpen 21:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Józef Piłsudski

Please vote. By the way, this talk page may get some award for being the longest user talk page in WP. You need to do something about it. Cheers, Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

If I'm correct, FA's are based on consensus, not votes. And even if they were, that would constitute vote stacking. Just a reminder to keep the policies in mind. Aaрон Кинни (t) 06:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not get your point. My vote is explained in great detail. If you want to comment on my vote, please do so and, better yet, at the same page, where everyone interested would see it. --Irpen 06:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Polonizing Russian articles

I'll respond here, since it is not relevant for Russian architecture any more. After I've included the picture of palace in Warsaw in the article you've accused me of "Polonizing Russian topics just for the sake of it". I feel this is unjust and untrue. Are you aware of my attempts to "Polonize" Russian articles other than adding the obviously missing illustration to Russian Architecture ? --Lysy^talk 16:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Lysy, I did not accuse you in anything. I simply pointed out to the existence of the trend with Catherine, Suvorov, Russo-Japanese war and even Tyutchev, Pushkin and Ded Moroz articles getting an excessive polonocentric view. I disagreed with that particular edit to the RA article because it is within that pattern, set not by you. The reason why that illustration was not optimal, is explained in detail at Talk:Russian architecture#Stalin's palace in Warsaw. Your attempt to illustrate the article was appreciated. The image later was replaced with the image that illustrated the article better and there is no need for more than one illustration of this particular issue in such a broad article, especially since we have several narrower ones. --Irpen 06:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

"The reason why that illustration was not optimal, is explained in detail at Talk:Russian architecture#Stalin's palace in Warsaw"

It's strange, I did not find any "xplanation in detail" there. You merely stated that Moscow University is a better illustration without explanation.--Mbuk 22:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You are making a big mistake by allowing yourself to be blindly lead by AndriyK whose remaining tenure at WP will likely be short despite my attempts to turn his efforts into anything creative. You should make your judgements yourself rather than allow others to tell you what to do. The explanation was detailed and elaborate and sufficient to the proponent of the change. Please raise issues at the article talk and on your own behalf. --Irpen 00:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not allow myself to be blindly lead by anybody. AndriyK did not write me anything about the "Polonizing" stuff.

I've read your discussion with Lysy at the Russian architecture talk and did not find there any "explanation in detail" as you clame. This is my own judgement. If I am wrong, self-citing your explanation would be much more usefull than what you wrote here.--Mbuk 06:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Did you read the link above. Here is only some quotes from there:

• "We need an image illustrating a Stalinist neo-classicism. On that I agree. Perhaps the best known in Poland example of that style is the Palace of culture. I can take it and I can see the image in the pl:Rosyjska architektura However, the best known in the world example of it are the seven Moscow sky-scrapers originally planned for the Stalin's 70th birthday. Of those 7 buildings, the Moscow State University is the most prominent one. If we have a good enough image of it, this should illustrate the style, rather that the Warsaw building. The latter has its own article and the image can be used in other articles too. If it was indeed the most prominent and most illustrative example of the style, I would not have objected to it of course. I don't care where it is. There are plenty of the examples of this style outside of Russia and of the huge scale too..."
• Lysy, the point is...to have it illustrated in the best possible way. The MSU building fits better as a single illustration of the style, especially considering that a separate Stalinist architecture article already exists, along with the palase article, and Soviet architecture is being considered....Has the palace been the most prominent example of the style, I would not have objected to it.
• Same here, Warsaw palace being the only illustration of the style in such a general article made no sense. With the presense of the palace article, the Stalinist architecture and others, what we need here is a single illustration of the style tops.

Mbuk, I have a strong feeling that you are not behaving in good faith and are just trying to make a point and waste my time. I hope I am wrong. Your endless questioning for easy to find answers borders trolling if it's not one. I request that you start acting on your own and please start adding content to WP instead wasting other people's and your own time. From now on, I firmly request that you use article's talk to conduct article's related discussion. I will see it there and will respond if I see the response warranted. --Irpen 06:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You citations is exactly what I read at Talk:Russian architecture yesterday. As I told you, there is no any explanation there.

It looks like you do not understend the difference between stating something and explaining it. You stated "the best known in the world example of it are the seven Moscow sky-scrapers ... Of those 7 buildings, the Moscow State University is the most prominent one." This is not an explanation. This a statement. Do not expect that other people will consider your statements as "ultimate truth". People may have an opposite view, and you have to support your view with a reasonable explanation and references to the sources.

It will save a lot of yours and other people's time if you understand two simple facts

• Stating something does not mean yet explanation
• Explaining something does not mean automatically resolving the dispute.

Please reread WP:AGF. If the people disagree with you or criticise your discussion habits, it does not mean yet they are not having good faith. Please be more open too the criticism.

This message is related to your edit habits rather to any specific articles. Therefore I place it onto your talk page.--Mbuk 20:13, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I leave it to others to judge who is right here. I fed you too much and have no intention to do it. Your disregard to advise to do any editing except pestering is blatantly obvious. Until you change the habbits, do not expect others to take your entries seriously. --Irpen 21:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Medzhybizh

I believe that the name is Ukrainian, not Polish. Would you correct? Xx236 10:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

Dispute tag at Ukrainization

Yesterday, you deleted the dispute tag twice from the article Uktainization. I would like to point you out that the dispute concerning this article has not been resolved yet. There is a discussion at the talk. Please note, that blanking dispute tag may be qualified as WP:Vandalism.--Mbuk 21:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The tag was placed improperly contrary to the sources cited in the article and its talk. I added more source. The tag was placed by the user who uses tag-trolling as the easy way to push a POV in the lack of the desire to write anything at all. You are making a big mistake by allowing yourself to be blindly lead by AndriyK whose remaining tenure at WP will likely be short despite my efforts to turn his efforts into anything creative. --Irpen 00:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You cited the sources after several cycles of tag removal. The tag was placed properly, because the sources were not cited at the time when the tag was reinserted.--Mbuk 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You are making a false statement, again simply wasting the time of yourself and more importantly of others. Other sources were cited earlier at the talk page, e.g. here. I do not intend to engage into such fruitless discussion with you anymore since I more and more get to conclusion that you are either not reading other people's entries or simply act in bad faith in order just to make a point. That is until I see any change in your behavior which is until now of the blind supporter of a very problematic user. Your pointless pestering would either be unanswered or removed, when you enter it at user talk page. So, better leave it at the article's talk so that other people would see its merit on their own in the context of the entire talk page. If you enter anything substantial, you will og course get a response. --Irpen 21:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I've reread the talk. None of the sources cited there define Ukrainization as you did in the article. It looks like it you Original Research. Therefore, tag insertion was (and still is) justified.

Please avoid personal attacks and foccuse your efforts on the discussed issue. Thanks.--Mbuk 23:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please seize your perpetual harassment. I never personally attacked anyone. Your pestering is a waste of time. --Irpen 04:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not pestering. I pointed out a real OR problem at Ukrainization.--Mbuk 08:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you accused me in personal attack unjustly while there were none and you know it. Similarly to you going around talk pages accusing others instead of engaging into any productive activity. Please do not expect that people will be wasting time to feed you. --Irpen 18:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please reread WP:NPA.--Mbuk 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

God! Irpen, I admire your patience. --Tēlex 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

pl:Cerkiew (budynek) and Russian ambassadors

I am surpised en wiki has no article on that, but I refuse to believe Russian wiki would also have no article to interwiki? On another note, would you happen to have a list of Russian ambassadors to PLC? I know Repnin, I found an article on pl wiki about pl:Otto Magnus von Stackelberg and on German about de:Jacob Johann Sievers. I wonder if there were other notable ambassadors? It would appear it was a pretty important posting (at least until it became obsolete :>). Last but not least: I wonder if Jan Walenty Węgierski was of Orthodox faith?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, I inserted ru:Церковь stub into the Polish article - it is about building not about organization. Maybe Irpen has the list of ambassadors, I don't unfortunately. abakharev 03:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex for being faster then me and thanks, Piotrus for the question. I think Ghirla is much more familiar with the Russian history of the time. He would be the best person to ask. To answer myself, I would need to do some reading first. --Irpen 03:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Message from AndriyK

My tags were inserted properly. And your POV-pushing and incompetence multiplied by your stubborness and persistence in edit warring, is a real catastrophy for Ukraine-related segment of Wikipedia. --AndriyK 18:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The catastrophe is your aggressive nationalist position and an attempt to represent such views fringe within the Ukrainian society as the "Ukrainian" one. I said it all at your talk and will say more once I finish writing a response to your frivolous Wikilawyering. --Irpen 18:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Any example of "aggressive nationalist position"?--AndriyK 19:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Want me to quote your ArbCom case ??? <_< -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 19:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Georgia Move

As a past participant in the discussion on how to handle the Georgia pages, I thought you might be interested to know that there's a new attempt to reach consensus on the matter being addressed at Talk:Georgia (country)#Requested_Move_-_July_2006. Please come by and share your thoughts to help form a consensus. --Vengeful Cynic 03:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks

Please re-read WP:NPA. You seem to be making statements just to provoke people[39].

As general rule, please do not use article talk pages to make comments about users. Use the users' talk pages instead. The article talk page is reserved to discuss the article. Flooding it with unrelated stuff makes it difficult to read and follow the discussion. Thanks.--Mbuk 08:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOFEEDING#Dealing with pestering and misplaced criticism --Irpen 09:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for your help on the Yulia Tymoshenko article! I'm planing a trip to Ukraine, how are you all feeling out there? --Mariah-Yulia 21:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Your conflict with AndriyK

I think, it would be helpfull if you pay attantion to the following:

“

• Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party. This does not mean that you have to agree with the other person, but just agree to disagree.
• Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is.
• Explore issues in a less public forum like e-mail if a debate threatens to become personal.
• Read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes.

”

and

“ Note: There are certain Wikipedia users who are unpopular, perhaps because of foolish or boorish behavior in the past. Such users may have been subject to disciplinary actions by the Arbitration Committee. It is only human to imagine that such users might be fair game for personal attacks. This notion is misguided; people make mistakes, often learn from them and change their ways. The NPA rule applies to all users irrespective of their past history or how others regard them. ”

(From WP:NPA).--Mbuk 06:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if he would have learned from mistakes and started doing anything at all here but tag-trolling. removing stuff from articles and wikilawyering. He has yet to add anything new at all to Wikipedia. For now, he just disrputed a whole bunch of articles which will continue until his unlikely reform or an ouster. Now, I request that you concentrate on articles, start writing something excpet of meaningless three-sentence stubs, or if you don't have time/desire for that propose anything useful on how to improve the existing article instead of harassing other editors and serving as AndriyK's revert proxy. I am familiar with policies. Also, please read the message at the top of my talk. I tolerated your harassment long enough. --Irpen 07:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

"Quick jumping to blocks"

Irpen,

I just wanted to thank you for this. It was good to read some reasoned thought, both about how our sysop temperment is changing as newer, less-encultured people become sysops, and on the individual cases, how mis-application of and sometimes shear insouciance to the guidance can distort our policies into damaging the encyclopædia. Certainly, it makes a rather nice change from the reactionary stuff that so-often pervades AN. Keep up the good work, etc.. :-)

Yours,

James F. (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)