User talk:Ghirlandajo: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:46, 4 May 2007

ARCHIVES:

Hooray!

Congratulations on the main page. My condolences on the pain that brings. I hope you have returned in triumph...or returned anyway. Geogre 22:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'll agree with that! Giano 22:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cosigned. --Irpen 22:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see you, and to see Sviatoslav on the main page. Bishonen | talk 22:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Welcome back. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my friends. Though my sabbatical is over, I am still busy in Russian Wikipedia. I will keep an eye on what's going on here as well. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POTD notification

Hi Ghirla,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture Image:Stpeteskyline.png is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on April 5, 2007. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2007-04-05. howcheng {chat} 02:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valentina Tereshkova

The first woman in space turns seventy today, but our Main Page is perfectly ignorant of the fact. Ditto about Gabriel García Márquez, who turns eighty. Do you think it is OK? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ghirla. Thank you for your suggestions. Honestly, I am not that big on birthdays. For me to post a birthday on MainPage, the birthday boy or girl must be really, really notable and it should be a centenary or some nice, big, round number like 250, 750, ... etc. I'm afraid Tereshkova's 70th and Márquez's 80th birthday fall short on both fronts. If I am putting any birthdays on MainPage this year, it would be Leonhard Euler's 300th birthday on April 15. BTW, Tereshkova will be on MainPage on June 16, the anniversary of her historic flight. --PFHLai 16:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla, I share your frustration that the round anniversaries of Marquez and Tereshkova are considered not mainpage worthy by some decision makers here. Interestignly, the featured today Dred Scott Case annoversary, while important to be sure, has little relevance on our today's life, thanks god, as the world and the US since then have thankfully changed a lot from those disgraceful days, while the relevance of one of the greatest writers of the century and the first woman in space ever remains profound. Well, I will at least go check and make sure, that those are mentioned in ru- and uk-wuki mainpages. --Irpen 18:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving articles correctly

Hi, Ghirlandajo! I'm sorry I have overlooked some procedures. The last couple of days I have been busy reverting false article moves made by a now blocked user, User:SndrAndrss (with a host of similarly named aliases). Basically, he has moved articles from the correct, English transcription of Russian names into the incorrect (Norwegian, as it happens) transcription of the names. This was done quite some time ago, and the articles have been edited quite a few times since then, som it's rather time-consuming work (having to do it manually).

However, I'm absolutely ready to comply with all the rules & regulations regarding this revertion work. I'll make a list of the names which have been wrongfully moved, and will post move requests where appropriate. Thanx for the reminder!

Best regards Guaca 14:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick answer (on my discussion page). I will make the move proposals to the admin you mentioned there. Best regards Guaca 14:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zimyatov

I moved it to WP:RUS-compliant romanization. It should stay there unless someone can demonstrate that (and why) some other spelling is more preferrable. Thanks for the heads-up.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:15, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie Chicks

Hi Ghirlandajo. I just wanted to give you a heads-up on a partial revert on the Chicks page. It's time there's a clarification there between a band (e.g., Chicks) and a music group (e.g., Spice Girls). Thanks for raising the issue. Xiner (talk, email) 14:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

commons:Image:Basil IV.jpg

Do you have any idea what the source was where you found this image? Now it is on commons, but unfortunately it might perhaps be removed in the future if it doesnt have a clear source. Thanks already. --Hardscarf 09:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Batu Lintang camp

Hi Ghirlandajo, Have a look at Batu Lintang camp. It's written by young lady who is worried that the article in not balanced enough. Please, give her some advice how to proceed. --Camptown 08:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internet troll squads

Per our past discussion, I would like to inform you that I consider this comment uncivil ("no Russian editor can edit Poland-related articles in English Wikipedia without facing some sort of harrassment", "gang of Polish editors "). Please refactor / remove / apologize for it. Thank you, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla, on a closely related matter, please take a look at this comment and the whole thread. Apparently, someone is still denying the obvious reason why you nearly stopped editing here. Not unexpectedly, I must say. --Irpen 01:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edits in English wikipedia consist primarily of minor edits on minor topics, such as interwiki links to my articles in Russian Wikipedia, where I am still active full time. It is ridiculous to compare my present output with my level of activity predating New Year. I see that some people who molested me at the end of last year continue their destructive and baiting activities in the project. This is rather disheartening. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean you are refusing to address your comment as asked above?--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is up to you to name a Russian editor who can edit Poland-related articles without feeling harassed. I don't know any. As soon as I speedied the deletion of an attack page which you had voted to keep, you come here to harass me. This is no incentive for me to return to English wikipedia, and you know it. That's probably the only reason why you press the issue. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) Piotrus got in touch with me so I'll just clarify that the door remains wide open at mediation. If you'd like to renew it just go ahead and start posting again. You're both incredibly valuable to this project and I hope we can move in productive directions.

And particularly to Ghirla, one of the reasons I'm a Wikipedian is because of you. Way back when you approached me about collaboration on the Nadezhda Durova page I had been utterly frustrated by a couple of obstructionists at another topic. You came along at the right moment and it was a joy to work with you. If it hadn't been for that bright spot I might have given up and left the site. So if there's a fair and neutral way I can help out now, I'd put some other things on the back burner and make you a priority. You've earned it.

Warmly, Durova^Charge! 00:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

It's good to see you active again! Er rab ee 20:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Sergeymila

commons:Template:Sergeymila has been nominated for deletion. Could you please come in and give more explanation about the permission so that it can be kept? Thanks in advance. - Andre Engels 13:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oddball edits to Russian history articles

I don't know a lick about the topic, so could you look into what Kingfish (talk · contribs) has been doing all over the place? Considering what he did at {{History of Russia}}, I doubt he's really a new editor. Circeus 16:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Russian-Circassian War

Hi Ghirlandajo, I was wondering if you could take a look at the Russian-Circassian War article. It has just passed GA and, as I noticed your contributions to similar articles, I was hoping you would be able to take a look. The article covers the longstanding hostilities between the Circassian region and its inhabitants, and the Russian's, lasting from the mid 18th century until ~1864. I hope you can take a look for me! Will appreciate any help you can lend to the article.

Thanks, SGGH 07:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet invasion of Poland

Ghirlandajo, re your comment on my talk page, I know you aren't as involved with Wikipedia as in the past, but would you be prepared to come and critique this article on the talk page? I don't care how savage your criticisms might be, I would be prepared to address them (I have only English-language sources available, but a lot of them). I am not interested in arguments between Polish and Russian-speaking editors, but for personal reasons I desperately want this article to reach the highest standard; I don't want to be associated with an article regarded as POV, and I'm prepared to do what it takes. qp10qp 17:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, 1979-89

Ghirla: I saw your comment in the Panjshir offensives discussion page. Obviously there is a lot of misinformation afloat in the West regarding what happened in this war, and we'll need to get the facts straight in the future. I've expanded the discussion page a bit; you may want to take a look at it and comment.

Kenmore 03:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring of Internet Troll Squads after AfD was endorsed

Привет Ghirlandajo! It seems that user Biophys has restored recently his Internet Troll Squads article containing his original research again, this time under Internet brigades title.Vlad fedorov 04:04, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Превед, Гхирландайо, nice to see you healthy. Hope you'll give your contribution there. Wlasow 16:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Христосъ Воскресе!

-- Biruitorul 17:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Воистину воскресе! --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:01, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ура! :) --Irpen

File:Eastereggs.jpg

Счастья и радости! --Irpen

Van Morrison songs

Hi Ghirlandajo: Appreciate the encouragement and also your contributions. Read your user page comments and I couldn't agree more. I'm looking up material on the two songs you mentioned as they are very important songs and need articles. I'll let you know when I enter them. Thanks so much! Agadant 18:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Started two more songs tonight-Saint Dominic's Preview, also And It Stoned Me. Thanks for all you help. Agadant 04:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tupelo Honey Article: Interesting material but I see someone deleted it due to saying it was POV. I'll check it out and see if I can reference it (or some of it.) Thanks for your help. Have you seen someone added Wikiquotes for him? I'm sure I can also find some quotes for that. Agadant 15:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just added Wavelength and a few others recently. Agadant 15:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petr Baranovsky

FYI: Posted rewrite on Petr Baranovsky NVO 09:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom/Piotrus

Case has been started, probably you will be interested: [1] M.K. 10:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your question

No, on the whole not. Bishonen | talk 12:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Eagle hunting

Did you know? was updated. On 30 April, 2007, a fact from the article Eagle hunting, which you recently nominated, 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.

--howcheng {chat} 06:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Pozharsky article question

Hi Andrey,

I was wondering what the source of this info was:

"In autumn 1611, when Pozharsky was recuperating at his Puretsky patrimony near Suzdal, he was approached by a delegation of burghers who offered him to assume command of the second Volunteer Army then gathered in Nizhny Novgorod. The prince agreed on condition that he will be assisted by Kusma Minin, a representative of the Nizhegorod merchants."

Specifically, I was wondering about the names of the towns--the sources that I've been able to find (including the ones listed in the article itself) seem to have these names somewhat different. For example, the "patrimony" is usually called Lindeh, and tends to be placed near Nizhny Novgorod, not Suzdal. I'm very interested in finding out where you found Puretsky/Suzdal, if you could help me out, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Best, H.J. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Homerj801 (talk • contribs) 03:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Answered. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla,
Thank you very much for that information, I was not previously aware of the sources that you mentioned. In my experience doing research on Pozharsky, I've found that it is very difficult to find information on the future of his family after about 1640. I was hoping that I could use local geography or heraldry to get a little further, but unfortunately this does not seem promising as I am having trouble finding reliable sources on either. Should you ever write that article on Pureh/Puretsky volost', I'll be very interested.
Thanks again for all your help!
Homerj801 15:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Pozharsky princely family had been extinct by the end of the 17th century. For their family tree, please go here. The burning of mestnichestvo records makes the later generations of their lineage rather obscure. The still-existing Pozharsky families of Russia are just namesakes. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tsarevna

I just stumbled across this stub while looking for something else - is the info there correct, I thought the Tsarevna was the daughter-in-law of the Tsar, the wife of the Tsarevich, not the Tsar's daughter - am I right or wrong? Nice to see you back albeit fletingly and seldomly Giano 22:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tsarevna is the daughter of the tsar. I rechecked the dictionary, btw. But the article could use some destubbing. --Irpen 22:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Giano knows some Russian fairy tales? "Tsarevna Lyagushka"? That frog was a daughter-in-law of the tsar, but, confusingly, the daughter of Koshchei Bessmertnyi. Of course, you may all three be thinking of that, but are not mentioning it because it is so obvious - should it be in the article? --Pan Gerwazy 22:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No no Russian fairytales at all, sadly, but I have read a couple of biographies in which Dagmar of Denmark is referred to as the Tsarevna, when first married - so perhaps the term covered all daughters of the Tsar in or out of law - the wife of the heir must have had an official title just as the Dauphine and the Princess of Wales did/do, something must gave distinguished her from other mere Grand Duchesses. Giano 10:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dagmar was Tsesarevna, and Alexander was Tsesarevich. It's easy to confuse these terms with Tsarevna and Tsarevich but there's actually an extra syllable to distinguish them. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right I see, I think a lot of people don't know that, including several authors and publishers, I suppose though in general speech it was easy because one was referred to as Tsesarevna and the others as Grand Duchesses. I will amend a page I edited accordingly. Nice to see you about though! Giano 12:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bronze Soldier of Tallinn

Dear Ghirla! We need a correct architectural classification. Can you come up with a more appropriate classification than Stalinist architecture? It was deleted by somebody who suggested socialist realism instead. I thought "socialist realism" may sometimes be part of the "Stalinist" style, especially since the monuent was erected under Joseph Stalin in 1947. -- Camptown 09:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a rather boring example of Socialist Realism. There is no specifically "stalinist" style of sculpture, for what I know. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree although I am no expert. The term Stalinist architecture is usually applied to the neo-classical style for what I know. --Irpen 09:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was suggesting Stalinist architecture as the monument was actually an ensemble of a statue and a mastaba like lime-stone structure. Would it also be correct to classify the ensemble as Socialist Realism? --Camptown 09:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you call a mastaba-like structure may be compared to the colossal pedestal for Worker and Kolkhoz Woman. The existence of such architectural appendages does not make architectural terms applicable to the statues in question. The core of the dispute is the statue, not the structure behind it, as you probably know. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that one Swede and one Finn have to alone defend both the Russian and the neutral point-of-view in this article, againt a horde of agressive and hostile POV pushers from Estonia? Up to now there has been virtually no participation from Russia. -- Petri Krohn 08:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 193: / Line 193: @@
 :::I was suggesting [[Stalinist architecture]] as the monument was actually an ensemble of a statue and a mastaba like lime-stone structure. Would it also be correct to classify the ''ensemble'' as Socialist Realism? --[[User:Camptown|Camptown]] 09:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 ::::What you call a mastaba-like structure may be compared to the colossal pedestal for [[Worker and Kolkhoz Woman]]. The existence of such architectural appendages does not make architectural terms applicable to the statues in question. The core of the dispute is the statue, not the structure behind it, as you probably know. --<font color="FC4339">[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]</font> <sup><font color="C98726">[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</font></sup> 10:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
+Why is it that one Swede and one Finn have to alone defend both the Russian and the [[WP:NPOV|neutral point-of-view]] in this article, againt a horde of agressive and hostile POV pushers from Estonia? Up to now there has been virtually no participation from Russia. -- [[User:Petri Krohn|Petri Krohn]] 08:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)