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.
• I can speedily delete postings that appear to me as instances of m:copyright paranoia as I see fit.
• Please stop by at the Wikipedia's Ukraine portal and Russia portal.
• Thank you! --Irpen

Allow me 1

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)

Allow me too 2

		An Award
		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)

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)

amusing entry

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Allow me 3

Bronze Editor Badge

Book of Knowledge

For your outstanding contributions to Wikipedia and for passing the strict criteria of newly created Senior Editor rank 1 badge (10,000 edits including 5,000 mainspace edits and two years of service (starting from 3 June 2004 in your case)), you are awarded the Bronze Editor Badge and its Book of Knowledge! Geeze, I'm jealous :)

Cheers, Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you very very much! --Irpen 20:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Give me a little bit and I will see what I can do about ribbons. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

O Canada

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

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

Image:Kiev St Andrews night.jpg

Hi Irpen,

Is there any way that you would be willing to consider releasing Image:Kiev St Andrews night.jpg under the CC-by-SA 1.0 license? Thanks. -- Wikitravel Sapphire 07:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sapphire! This is not my image. I contacted the owner of the image (listed at the image page) and asked him, whether we can use his images in WP under GFDL and he said that yes we can. That's all I have. We can contact him again if GFDL is insufficient for you. If you want, I can contact him myself. Regards, --Irpen 05:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate that, because unfortunately I can only use CC-by-SA 1.0. I could contact him, unless he only speaks Russian or Ukrainian, which, if he does I'd greatly appreciate it if you could ask him. Thank you. -- Wikitravel Sapphire 04:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Political reform in Ukraine

Irpen, I notice you create red links to "Political reform in Ukraine" and "Constitutional reform in Ukraine", but I don't think it requires a separate article. I think it should rather be a section "Constitutional Reform (2004)" in Constitution of Ukraine article. Also, the terminology you are using seems to be disambiguous, as 2004 reform is one of many political (constitutional) reforms in Ukrainian history. --KPbIC 01:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the reform warrants a separate article, because a section in the Constitution article would naturally be devoted mainly to the changes of the constitution themselves and there was much to the process itself that is outside of the Consitutiona article. I think "Political reform" is more correct since it is more widely used. To disambiquate, we can add a year (or years) to the article's title. --Irpen 01:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Allow me...

For defending articles with valor and for being wounded in these defensive operations, this PH for you, Irpen :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind receiving an American award for that, but sadly, there was no similar award in the USSR... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind any award but I don't remember being wounded :). --Irpen 19:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Language tables

Take a look at my quest from Zscout370 for two tables with language break down in Ukraine by students studying in a specific language (secondary school students only). If you object to their future use, let's let Zscout370 know now so that he does not spend his time on making them. The request is located on his talk page @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zscout370#Png_question --Riurik ^(discuss) 21:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainian People's Republic

If I could ask a favour of you: in articles on defunct states, it's generally the policy to give the dates for that state's existence near the beginning, for clarity's sake. Compare with Austria-Hungary or Czechoslovakia, for instance. I would do this myself, except I don't know the precise dates. So if you do it, I thank you for it. Biruitorul 21:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The article was actually written by another editor but I will add those dates. Thanks for letting me know that they are missing. --Irpen 21:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Great. I look forward to it. Biruitorul 22:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

History of the Soviet Union (1953-1985)

I have no interest in an edit war but no time either to rewrite the paragraph in question in such a way that it will attain any acceptable level of encyclopedic writing.

Therefore just a few short remarks to show that the paragraph is on the one hand totally out of place and full of errors on the other:

1. The article as such is (like almost all articles concerning "communist" and/or "Soviet" topics in the English WP) so utterly flawed, biased and distorted that it would be but a insignificant cosmetic change if I were to rewrite one paragraph of it.

2. It is absolutely inappropriate to imply that Andropov's "major legacy" to the Soviet Union would have been his "discovery" and "promotion" of so dismal a figure as Gorbachev. Andropov was a highly intellectual and reasonable politician as well as a convinced communist that strove for a thouroughgoing improvement (or "reform", although the word can be tricky !) of socialism in the Soviet Union and beyond. THAT is his major (but due to his early death tragically unfulfilled) legacy !
I don't know whether you are able to read German, but if you do, take a look at the article on Andropov in the German WP (a continuous work in progress !) which has been largely written by myself and also takes the newest Russian secondary literature into consideration. There you could see what a decent and objective discussion and evaluation of Andropov's plans and efforts for an all-round renewal of socialism should look like together with a clear confrontation of this drive to improve with Gorbachev's fury to destroy.

3. If anybody "discovered" Gorbachev, then this dubious honor belongs to either Suslov or Kulakov (or even Shevardnadze) and only in the third or fourth instance to Andropov.
And anyway - Gorbachev, the archetype of a dishonest and sly opportunist, tried hard to maintain friendly personal relations with anybody who could help him in his careerist ambitions - Brezhnev, Andropov and especially the kind but intellectually mediocre Chernenko.

4. Gorbachev was since 1978 CC secretary for agriculture, not "personnel". Rather, Ligachev (whose world views were and still are far more corresponding to Andropov's than Gorbachev's ever did) was nominated CC secretary for personnel questions during Andropov's time in office in late 1983.

5. If Gorbachev is mentioned as a "protegée" of Andropov, then his other (and often much closer) collaborators should also be named - for instance Ryzhkov, Ligachev, Romanov or Aliev to mention but a few.
Many different but agrreing accounts have it that Andropov became more and more critical of Gorbachev and his increasingly obvious incompetency on the one hand and unprincipledness on the other during his time as General Secretary. With this (well founded) assertion I do not wish to present a "hagiographic" picture of Andropov but simply to counteract erroneous historical legends.
It is, of course, true that Gorbachev at the beginning of his glorious reign of happy and unforgettable memory revived some of Andropov's reform schemes. But very quickly he diverted from this path and promoted a very different agenda, the results of which are well known (and felt). And already in 1987 Gorbachev branded so-called "orthodox" adherents of Andropov's original "perestroyka" as "half-breeds" (which was, by the way, also rightly understood as a hidden anti-semitic remark aimed at Andropov's possible Jewish ancestry).

6. It was during Chernenko's (and not Andropov's !) long periods of absence due to his illness in 1984/85 that Gorbachev acted as the "Second Secretary" of the CC and therefore as the "deputy" to the General Secretary. During Andropov's illness no clear "deputy" was chosen.

I hope this makes my line of reasoning a bit clearer, Yours Elsmlie 09:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for such an interesting reply. I am least interested inrv wars as well. From experience, I know that most blanking edits should be avoided ir treated with suspicion. Now that you explained, I would agree if you remove the info again. However, please consider replacing the paragraph you view "incorrect" by a "correct" one. While removing of misleading info is useful, replacing it with the correct info is even more so. Thanks again! --Irpen 04:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

CHOWBOK VANDALISM

Hi mate what are we going to do about chowbok? I have started many new articles on actors and films recently which were missing from wikipedia and I bothered to take to time to upload images which are specialized promotional images. Many of my new articles on finnish actors - come on it took nearly six years to get them onto wikipedia and I keep telling Cjhowbok it is highly highly unlikely a totally free image of the guy walking down the street is suddenly going to be available, but he keeps tagging my work. I see this as vandalism. Why doesn't he concentrate on making wikipedia a better place rather than vandalising my work. I believe it is very important to physically identify the actor in question and he is removing a valuable information source which wikipedia strongly agrees. It really is annoying me and I see you and others agree with it. This is a form of vandalism and to be honest it is quite discouraging to know I am bothering to start the articles and find a image which is fair use and it is being deleted. WHat shall be do. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 09:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As I said before it is a form of vandalism. I agree for instance an image should be tagged for a photograph of a town that is copywrighted for instance when a replaceable free image is very likely but not for this, man. He is ruining it all for everybody. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ще раз стосовно сибірського "Вонегина"

Я ще раз перечитав уважно сибірський переклад Пушкіна, а також Шекспіра і дійшов висновку, що нічого ані образливого ані глузливого по відношенню до великих класиків, або до російської чи англійської нації там немає. Більше того, великий український поет Іван Котляревський зробив приблизно те ж саме з "Енеїдою", виклавши давньогрецьку класику досить потішною і на той час ще офіційно не визнаною мовою.

Єдине, що у відповідних статтях слід було б вказати, що це є авторизований переклад та перемістити до вікісорсу, якого поки що у них немає. --A4 14:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Мені неприємно бачити, як ображають Котляревського, порівнюючи "Еней був парубок моторний" з "Ебьона мать, опеть припьорся дык!" Крім усього, Котляревський писав пародію (точніше, травестію), а ми тут бачимо переклад Шекспіра, де Горацій каже "мать твою розтак!". Ну, спробуйте знайти аналогію такому Гамлету у перекладах на українську XIX ст. Мені тільки Лесь Подерв'янський приходить на згадку (та й він непорівняно кращий, його теж не хочеться ображувати). --Yms 15:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

RfC of Chowbok

I'm attempthing to start the process. Not sure if I'm going about it correctly though. The only page I can find on RfC is here [2] and it seems all I have to do is post a short summary of the problem? TheQuandry 15:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble figuring this out. Maybe you should do it. :-) I'll help out any way I can and certainly provide comment in our favor. TheQuandry 15:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good! TheQuandry 19:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've decided to go ahead and do the RfC myself after all. [3] Please feel free to make additions, provide commentary and find others to comment if you like. TheQuandry 03:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

RFC comment

Hi Irpen... I just noticed you editng some photos on my watchlist... care to comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abu badali? -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 02:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the user displays the same trend being discussed at Chowbok's RfC. In fact, I would have merged them. I will follow it but I am not sure when I will have time to post an opinion while I do have an interest to do that. I want to post the view to the Chowbok's RfC first. But please do attent the pages in Wikipedia space because by not doing this editors allow the sociolizers hijack the policies and the Wikipedia itself. --Irpen 02:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you translate "please do attent the pages in Wikipedia space because by not doing this editors allow the sociolizers hijack the policies and the Wikipedia itself" for me? Sorry but as I said in the RFC I'm new to doing that and was more than a little confused about what I was doing! Am happy to merge if it is necessary... -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 02:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry for poor grammar. I was in rush. Please take a look here, maybe that would explain it to you. Also, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chowbok and its talk (as well as links from them) might be worthy for you to look at. --Irpen 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok and FUD

The next time you remove a Replaceable Fair Use tag, I will report you for vandalism. No matter how much you hate the policy, my interpretation of the policy, or me, you can't just take those tags off the image pages. This is the last time I'll warn you about this. —Chowbok ☠ 01:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok, please Wikipedia: Assume Good Faith. If Irpen removed the tag it must have been because the tag was added to a place where it did not belong. As we all have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, we all are just being bold and editing for the common good. Thank you. TheQuandry 02:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok, if the uploader believes in good faith that the image is usable under the FU clause and the uploader provided a gf rationale for such use and gave a source, the image may still be questionalbe, true enough, as the uploader may have made a judgement error. However, the courtesy and common sense demands that if you find this to be the case and you question the image's rationale, you provide the uploader and the rest of the interested users with the explanation at image talk on why you think his/her rationale is faulty. Such explanation belongs to an image talk similar to the dispute points raised by the user who tags the article as uncompliant with Wikipedia NPOV policy. No such tag can be added without explanation and there is no single case when I removed the tag when such explanation was provided by you or whoever.

Your dispute claim should address specific rationale given by the uploader as applies to the specific article rather than be a generic sentence pasted into hundreds of pages as done frequnetly by Quadell. Without such elaboration your FUD claim is meaningless and impossible to address by the user however much he is willing to satisfy you. Similarly to other disputed tag, your favored tag is meaningless if not accompanied with a specific explanation that is likely different in each an every case. Besides, using generic Quandel style "dispute" via pasting the same paragraph to hundreds of pages is also incivil. But completely disregarding the given fair use claim is worse than uncivil, it is disruptive.

I did not remove a tag in a single case where you or anyone gave an explanation on what exactly you dispute at the image talk. I did remove the tag in cases where no such explanation was given. If you want your tags kept, provide an image specific explanation at talk on why the FU claim is invalid. I am unimpressed by your threats and I welcome you to raise the issue on the admin boards as I would welcome your behavior being brought to even wider attention. But as a good will gesture, I will wait to remove your tags for now, to give you a chance to explain your grievances at talk in each specific case but please do so NOW out of courtesy to the editors who uploaded the image, first of all, and for the sake of the encyclopedia to which you claim you serve.

Please note that the current wording of the RFU tag that dictates how it is to be dealt with (responded with RFUD and never removed under any circumstances) is placed at the tag arbitrary, is not dictated by any policy and was not achieved by consensus. The tag being protected impedes the possibility of clearing this up. The tag disputes the compliance with policies the same way as the NPOV tag as explained above. Both are subject to 3RR. Otherwise, please provide the 3RR policy clause that claims otherwise, preferably not edited WRT to this issue within last, say, two months, like a sneaky "update" of the FU policy. There are very narrow cases where 3RR does not apply outside of simple vandalism. Such are removal of good faith AfD tags, true.

Your claim that RFU tag is similar to AfD does not hold water. That would be IfD. The analog to RFU in article space is "PROD" and note that PROD may be removed at any time and may not be replaced. Nevertheless, I do see an argument to treat RFU similar to POV or ACCURACY tags. But no way you can make a case for similarity between AfD and RFU. As such, RFU certainly falls under 3RR policy. At the same time, it should not of course be removed or added by sterile edit warring. Removal is acceptable, similar to NPOV or ACCURACY tags, if there seems to me a clear majority formed on the particular case or the tagger failed to explain his/her problems with the image. This is exactly the case why your tags where removed. Taking no position on the issue of the good faith of their placement, such objections are unexplained and cannot possibly be addressed, unless the image lacks source, rationale or rationale/source are frivolous.

Also, from the mere common sense it follows that if the fairuse image has an elaborate and/or self-evident rationale, whoever questions it needs to explain how s/he disputes such rationale. As such, the tagger should initiate a discussion and tagging the page without initiating such discussion is both uncivil and meaningless as users would have no idea what exactly is disputed. Yes, the burden lies with the FUI uploader to justify the image. However, once justification is provided, the common courtesy as well as common sense requires the tagger to state what exactly is the problem if he sees any in a non-frivolous, non-generic way but specifically in connection with the image in question. --Irpen 03:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Removing messages from your talk

It's frustrating trying to talk to you when you remove the messages from your talk page at will. Talk pages are public visible for a reason, and third part input is wellcome and usually helpful. --Abu Badali 03:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I simply responded at your own talk for the sake of discussion's being conducted in one place. As this is pertaining to your RUFD spree, it is best to conduct at your talk. I welcome other user reponses. --Irpen 03:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

But I was not talking only about this last revert. I mean this (possibly accidental) removal of a copyvio warning, this, this and this reversions of replaceable image taggings, and this and this removal of messages asking you to avoid personal edit summaries (as "rv stalker" and the like).

If you're concerned with your talk page growing to long, you can always archieve it. There's even a BOT that can do that automatically for you (I don't remember it's name now, but I can discover it, if you want). Best regards, --Abu Badali 03:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Please read the disclaimer on top of my pages. As for your stalking me, it is true and you know it. As for AGF instead of seeing your activity for what it is stalking and harassment, please note that the AGF specifically states that AGF "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Such evidence is multiple as clear from your RfC that speaks tons about your attitudes as well as reactions from other good faith users at multiple pages. --Irpen 03:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok continued

The only question that the RFU tag brings up is whether the image is replaceable. As such, regular fair use justifications are beside the point. Typically, disputes are simply reiterations of the fair use justifications and don't address the issue. Other cases in which you have removed the tag people have simply stated "this image is not replaceable" without giving an argument. In any event, if somebody does make a good argument that the image is replaceable, the admin will be swayed by said argument and remove the tag. In any event, it's not something you need to concern yourself with. Feel free to participate in the talk pages of such images, but I must continue to insist that you not remove the tags. —Chowbok ☠ 19:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And I must continue to isnist that when the good faith rationale is given, you explain what exactly you dispute. Do that and none of your tags will ever be removed by me. --Irpen 19:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok has tagged more of my images evern though I have given a fair use rationale. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 21:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Image:ReaMauranen.jpg
• Image:SariHavas1.jpg
• Image:TittaJokinen.jpg
• Image:Tommila.jpg

I saw that. Please make sure the ratioanle is given and if so, Chowbok cares to explain how it is unfit. Otherwise, his tag is invalid and may be removed. --Irpen 21:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Replaceability guidelines

Per your "Agree" vote at Wikipedia talk:Images of living people I think you'll find my proposed replaceability guidelines worth a look. Daniel Case 06:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Werbowy.jpg

hi i tried too refrase the clame on fair use for the picture.Our goal is that the image stayes,were ever the image will apear in the article or how sily the arguments might hear.Please can you trie to brign more editors in the discussion,this is not about one photo but how we can bypass the deletionist in the future--Pixel ;-) 14:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

History of Solidarity

I'd still love to see you NPOV/improve the article. I may not agree with some of your comments, but I do believe you could help address many of the issues you pointed out if you tried yourself.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks you but I probably won't. As I have explained, this is not the topic of my main consern to spend time as any progress in my NPOVing those articles is achieved through an excessive waste of time. And even then, when I go elsewhere my work is often undone as recently happened in PSW and KO. I really have to assign my limited Wikitime to the topics of my most primary concerns and this is not one of them. I will come back to PSW and KO, though, when I feel like it.

I opposed the nomination because I see POVed articles with a FA labels as inappropriate but as long as the article will be off the main page, I will probably live with it as is. It is the mainpage exposure of the POVed version of PSW that prompted my involvement. --Irpen 04:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

unexplained RFU tag

This was not the proper way to handle that situation, and you know it. If you dispute the replaceability, add the disputed tag on the page and explain why (I have done this for the image in question). Please don't do this again. --Robth^Talk 20:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The image has an elaborate rationale that includes non-replaceability in the article's context. Unless it is explained at talk how exactly the rationale is disputed the tag is invalid and meaningless. Meaningless tags are disruptive and have no place in Wikipedia. --Irpen 20:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you did add an elaborate rationale in response to the tagging. At the time the tag was added, no such rationale existed, and so the tagger cannot have been expected to dispute that not-yet-existent rationale. The rfu tag lays out the method for disputing the tag; add the rfu disputed tag and discuss it on the talk page. As for your assertion that the tag without an explanation is "invalid and meaningless", I reject this. In most cases it is self evident why someone might think the image replaceable. --Robth^Talk 22:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It may be so in many cases. It was not so in the particular case. The image was uploaded very long time ago when the rules were more lax. Now, that I added the elaborate rationale, the tag not supplied with an explanation disputed nothing of it. I did not remove the tag once the editor cared to explain at talk that he thinks the image is non-essential (note that this is different from being replaceable). As soon as there is a meaningful dispute, the tag stays. That the tagging itself came from the stalking by Oden, who decided to dig through all images by myself and another editor in order to avenge an unrelated disagreement, is another matter but it is related to user:Oden and not to the image in question. I will take the issue to ANI for another time. --Irpen

Wrong. The tag presents an argument--this image (in this case, of a living person) is replaceable. It also presents a means for disputing that argument; add the disputed tag, explain the dispute on the talk page. If the tag truly is frivolous, it will be removed by the administrator who processes that image. Only if a tag is placed on an image that already possesses a rationale, without disputing that rationale, should it be summarily removed (I have edited the template to clarify this). --Robth^Talk 23:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The person being alive does not render any image in any context automatically replaceable and the policy does not say so in any way. If the rationale is given, the tag can only be accompanied by a specific dispute to the rationale based on policies, rationale itself and the specific context as any fu rationale is context specific. What we got for the page was the image with the rationale and without an explanation what exactly was disputed. As such, tag was meaningless. As soon as my specific rationale was disputed in any meanigful way, I left the tag in place, despite the challenge claim the image unnecessary rather than replaceable. But I was willing to ommit this issue and responded to the challenge at the talk page. --Irpen 23:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The person being alive does automatically render the image replaceable, barring specific exceptional circumstances. The policy specifically states this, as I believe you are well aware. See WP:FU, "a publicity still of a vehicle, building or living person can be replaced comparatively easily", also see counterexample #8 and policy #1 ("if the subject of the photograph still exists, a freely-licensed photograph could be taken".) --Yamla 00:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length at various policy talk pages. The exceptional circumstances you mean (like reclusive person, exceptional local priivacy laws, etc) make the image universally usable whenever the particular image in warranted by the content. We are talking here of a less universal but narrow article-specific, content-specific usability. The policy says that the replacement image should provide adequate information. If the rationale addresses that explaining the applicability within the specific context, the challenge should be context-related as well. Image may be important as showing not the person, but that person's work is only one of several such examples. The context-tied rationale requires the context-tied rebuttal. Any fair-use claim is always context specific. --Irpen 01:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Transparency vs. Opacity

or, more explicitly,

"Open Meetings/Records" vs. "Behind Closed Doors"

Dear Irpen:

Thank you, many times thank you, for your recent comments on the need for transparency in admin decisions, as opposed to their being made secretly off-wiki with no record.

What I have seen over and over in real-world governance is the immediate tendency of secrecy to foster corruption. In part this might be the tendency of already existing corruption to seek secrecy as a growth medium; but I think secrecy has also weakened the resistance of the previously honorable with its continual tempting whisper of "no-one will know."

One of the alarming things about the recent WP:AN/I discussion was how open discussion was repeatedly subverted by admins who claimed their actions had support but declined to specify names, citations, or any other detail. (Perhaps "all the lurkers support them in email IRC.")

• An open consensus (no block) had been reached in the original main section, with all participants signing their statements on the open record...

• ... and then a block was enacted anyway, by someone who had said not a word in that discussion, but left an unsigned and undated statement elsewhere.

• That block was openly discussed and disputed in an appended subsection on AN/I...

• ... an admin engaged in the dispute (and made his own accusations) in the bottom entry...

• ... and then that same admin declared the discussion closed — while claiming review and upholding by (likewise unnamed) "uninvolved sysops" — after which no rebuttal or denial of his accusations was possible. (I had been under the impression admins were not supposed to protect pages on which they themselves were engaged in disputes.)

It is all too vivid a reminder of the block-plus-false-accusation-of-"threats" on Commons for which the blocking admin would not give even specifics, let alone cites (and said "other admins" had asked him for the block, though again he gave no names; where did this asking occur?)...

... and of the entire RfA talk page deleted because one person had asked an awkward question. (Interesting question, too. How, right after two previous failed RfAs, did a candidate manage to win unanimously, 25-0, a third RfA for which all previous opposition disappeared — or, as the asker noted, of which previous opponents had not heard? Why would anyone delete an entire page to keep that question from being seen, rather than either answering or ignoring it? It would have been easy enough to reply "You snooze, you lose.")

Open meetings and open records, allowing everyone to see what's really going on, let people learn to trust their administration — if the actions so revealed are worthy of trust.

A cloud of secrecy, from which emerge (even occasionally) lies and injustices, tends to have the opposite result.

Further, making an official habit of dishonesty (e.g. using false accusations to justify admin actions) cannot bode well for an encyclopedia project, which after all should be honest and verifiable.

The Wikipedia/Wikimedia community faces a serious problem, even if most of its members simply don't know it yet, even if many will remain blithely unaware. Your recent comments have shown the clearest awareness of this, made the clearest statement of it, that I have seen to date. Again, thank you. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 08:55, 17 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Question on Kyiv spelling

Irpen, Kyiv spelling of the capital of Ukraine is the official spelling, according to the Ukrainian national system of transliteration. It's also one of the well established spellings of the city (Google test: more than 5mln hits). Thus, I would like to ask what is your view on the scope of usage of this spelling in Wikipedia? Should it be used, as a reflection that the spelling is a valid spelling, which has its usage? Or, should it be excluded from each and every page? --KPbIC 22:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that can be said about the Kharkov and thousands of other Ukrainian cities that have Russian spellings. Considering that all (except western Ukrainian ones) in google give more hits by their Russian translit than Ukrainian one,, should they too be excluded from each and every page ? --Kuban Cossack 23:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Do you know the answer? As well as this one. --KPbIC 00:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So I was right about reverting the Kharkiv Metro station moves, thanks, I'll keep that in mind. --Kuban Cossack 01:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you wanna talk about Google tests, "Kiev" gets about 34 million. So you should find better reasons than that. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually why not create a bot that will go and change this throughout wikipedia...ie. Kyiv to Kiev... and at the same time other cases like Odesa to Odessa? --Kuban Cossack 23:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Grafik, it's true that at this point, Kiev spelling is used more widely than Kyiv. The question is: Should Kyiv be excluded from each and every page of wikipedia? --KPbIC 00:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well based on naming conventions alone, in most cases, YES! Now there are exceptions, particulary those where Kiev actually reffers to a name not to the city. e.g. FC Dynamo Kyiv. In other cases, per name of the article, particulary historical articles.--Kuban Cossack 00:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Not only in the cases of Kyiv being a part of a name, but also as a name of the city. What you are failing to recognize is that Kyiv has its historical usage. This is the current official name of the city used by local authorities, it's the name used by some foreign and international entities, and it's the name used by many people, including some Wikipedia contributors. If someone within an article wrote Kyiv in today's context (for example, in the list of recently established Ukrainian postal codes), there is no need to substitute by what you believe the name should be. The name is what it is, what people actually call it. Please, read the example in WP:NCON. You are mistakenly following a prescriptive approach, changing Kyiv to Kiev, and saying that this is what should be. Wrong. Wikipedia follows the descriptive approach, in particular, don't "fix" links that aren't broken. --KPbIC 00:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well in ENGLISH Kiev only has two historical terms, Kiev, Kijow and Kiev for the three different time periods. Now in today's context you have a 34 mln vs 5 mln google hits, and the postal codes actually do not use the term Kyiv, but Киïв as cyrillic, not latin is the alphabet. Now then like it or not, but guidelines are only guidelines, and the redirect passage mostly adresses points like Acidic or Acid. Kiev and Kyiv on the other hand are different points and are ultimately drawn from WP:NC which is a POLICY, not a guideline. And in a conflicting case, as here, the policy has an upper hand. --Kuban Cossack 01:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was pleased to log in and find out that my page became a field for a productive discussion. Since it was conducted at my page, I assume that all that took part are interested in my opinion. Here goes. First, the general statement. Based on the combination of the current Wikipedia policies and the modern prevailing English usage, Kiev should indeed be used throughout Wikipedia, except for the proper names where Kyiv is part of such name, such as football clubs, enterprises, organizations, etc. It should also be used in the discussion in the "Kiev or Kyiv" section of the Kiev article and, ideally, in the yet non-writted Name of Capital of Ukraine article, similarly to the existing Name of Ukraine.

That said, I do not make it my priority to hunt for Kyiv all over Wikipedia and change it for Kiev because I have other things to do. At the same time, users who do so, act in accordance with the policies and they should not be reverted for frivolous reasons. Personally, I usually only change Kyiv by Kiwv in two cases. One, when I edit the article for other reasons, like expanding it. Two, when someone Kyivizes the spelling that pre-exists. I am not bound to do it that way, as this is my volunteerly soft self-restriction. Kuban kazak may have a different view on how tolerant one should be to non-policy name and he is entitled to act as he sees fit because this is actually what policies prescribe. I do not see Kyiv within current policies.

A separate, and yet related question, is that the usage in articles does not have to coinside with the main article. True enough, the historic names, as found in historic literature written in English may be used. However, Kyiv does not prevail in English usage in any particular context. As such, historicity is not a valid reason for this particular city.

I view the argument Krys frequently brings about the desires of the city residents largely irrelevant. Curiously, I am not even sure that an opinion of the residents of the city is known. Truth is that the population of the city is both overwhelmingly Russophone and overwhelmingly supportive of the Ukrainian independence. How one is to derive the residents' view of the particular question is a mystery to me and however one does it, that's original research. I am not aware of a sociological survey where the city residents were asked the particular question. I must say that this would be extrely interesting to know. --Irpen 04:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, one of the facts is that Kyiv provides more than 5mln hits. This is, for example, more than about 2mln hits on Kuban, the home region of User:Kuban kazak. Then, why should the usage of Kyiv be ignored? If there is such usage of Kyiv, then the question is not "Is there any historical context for Kyiv?", but rather "What is the proper context for Kyiv?".

I thought, to find a clear answer, instead of relying "on the combination of the [unspecified] current Wikipedia policies and the modern prevailing English usage", it may be reasonable to submit RfC on the issue of clarifying the context for Kyiv usage. Kuban kazak was trying to prove that WP:NC(UE), which is a guidance, should take priority over WP:REDIRECT, which is another guidance. Weak argument, to say at least. It's possible that if there is a clear result out of RfC on this particular case, it could make our life easier. So, would you like to cosign RfC asking community on the context of Kyiv usage (if any) within Wikipedia? --KPbIC 23:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of google hits for Warszawa and Munchen as well. There is no usage of the term in Wikipedia. Similarly, Kyiv is not "ignored". It is not used in WP except few circumstances. There are only two contexts for the city name: modern and historical. Kyiv does not prevail in either of those.

If you you don't see a clear answer, you are free to spend your time pursuing it. I do see a clear answer and consider this a pure waste of time. Therefore, I do not see a need for RfC and will not help it happen. If it happens, I might comment on it at some point but I view initiation unfavorably not because I like the status quo but because I don't see any merit in your claim.

To summarize, I cannot prevent you from pursuing the issue anywhere you want but I do not want to facilitate another empty discussion which will bring nothing. --Irpen 23:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Warszawa is a name of the city in Polish language, first of all, and only then in German or in English. In addition to Warsaw, the name has been used in English Wikipedia as a name of the city ([1], [2], [3], etc, etc), without much of conflict from both sides (afaik).

Kyiv is the name of the city in English, not in Ukrainian. And contrary to other cases, Kyiv is a self-identifying English name. You continue to neglect the role of the government, hoping instead to get "independent surveys", which would show people as you want them to be. Government elections is the most valuable survey you can get. At least since 1990, Kiev was always inclining pro-Ukrainian way. Being yet mostly Russian-speaking city, Kievans not merely support independence, but among other things they do support the transition to the Ukrainian language. Contrary to parents being studied in Russian schools in Soviet time, they want their children to go to Ukrainian schools. Not each and everyone, but the people I know do just that, and they think it's right. The spelling of Kyiv, among other things, is a symbolic element of the transition.

I thought it would be a good case when two opponents bring an RfC together. Too bad, you see it as an empty discussion. The issue cannot disappear by itself, especially if one side is self convinced the truth can only be on their side. --KPbIC 00:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not for "independent" surveys as opposed to the government ones. I am against deriving the answers to a question A from the answers to a question B made by a Wikipedian on his own and then invoking the results of such original research to argue his points. The question to the city residents "How would you prefer your city to be called in English?" has never been asked and I would be very curious to see an answer to it no matter who conducts such survey. I see other baseless claims you made above, like "Kievans support" this or that. Not that this is very relevant to the Wikipedia naming, but I have no idea where you get this info from. I think the only way to know is to check how people answer questions asked to them. I did not see Kievans answering the questions like "Would you prefer your children to study in the schools with Russian or Ukrainian as the primary language of instructions, provided that both languages are studied comprehensively within the schools curriculum?" Neither I have seen specific Kiev-only answers to the question "Would you prefer Russian to be a second state language in Ukraine?" (I've seen the answers to this latter question asked Ukraine-wide and the answer of the majority of the population of the country is "yes").

This all is, however, beside the point. I commented on that simply because you like to invoke the will of the people baselessly purely on where you want the people's will to be or by deriving it from elsewhere without basis. Moreover, this has only an indirect and remote effect on the English usage as the latter is mainly affected by the English native speakers and those do not live in Ukraine.

"People I know" is not a valid statement as an argument in Wikipedia. Besides, I know many people who think otherwise. I am not invoking them because user:Irpen is not an authority to conduct surveys and argue their results. Neither is user:Krys. I can see that you personally want to see the English usage changed. I neither approve nor disapprove your interest in doing so. However, Wikipedia cannot be a vehicle to promote your personal preferences on what the English usage is better to advance your political goals. I have repeatedly supported the Ukrainian-based versions of the names within Wikipedia where such were warranted by the recent change of the English usage. I not only supported but also initiated the moves of Luhansk and Kharkiv. Unlike Kuban kazak, I consistently use LvIv and CherkaSy not only in main but also at talk pages (while you act more like Kazak by insisting on using Kyiv in talk space, but, hey, this is just talk space and you are both free to deflect from conventions dictated for mainspace to make your point). As soon as (also if) the prevailing English usage would change towards Kyiv, I will support the change of the article's name and will use the name in modern context in the articles I edit.

Re your point about Warsaw, see this. As you can see Polish editors rejected your claim.

You want to start an RfC about something that has been discussed to death and a new RfC will add nothing to it. If this is how you want to be spending your wikitime, go for it. I am not interested in the endless discussions about something where everything has been already said. --Irpen 02:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Few days ago I added to Kiev results of survey by Research & Branding Group. Reading yesterday, an interview with the director of R&B, I really regret mentioning the "sociological company" and their results. The guy is all in politics, and I doubt something is left for true sociology. And I doubt someone can be pleased with the quality of Ukrainian surveys, unless that someone is picking the results (surveys) he likes. That's why I rather put emphasis on elections, and on the actual people’s choice. Kievans do favor Ukrainian schools for thier children. The actual choice brings responsibility. There are no lines for Russian classes, no waiting lists, no oversized classes. They do have choice, and they make their choice. Contrary, surveys lack responsibility. Your answer to "What would you do if you had a million?" is likely to be different from the way you would actually spend the million, if you are in fact is given one. Then what's really relevant?

With respect to Kyiv, I don't have time to respond today, and it looks like your position is stone clear. I do see the benefits of using the same name in all articles, as in Britannica, and other authority encyclopedias, but I see no indication that you see the benefits of allowing Kyiv as well as Kiev, and Kharkov as well as Kharkiv in such open voluntary-based encyclopedias as wikipedia. --KPbIC 06:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am tired of discussing with you some irrepevant issues. Your assertions about knowing and being able to derive the wishes of the residents are flawed but I already explained why.

As for comparison of Kyiv with Kharkov, the difference has been explained to you. All the E.L. WW2 literature uses Kharkov. It also uses Rumania and, frequently, Tarnopol. Kyiv is not used by much of the English language books iun any historical context. That's what makes it different from Kharkov and Lwow. --Irpen 06:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Help

I was wondering if you can help me with organizing sources on the Battle of Konotop page. I listed them as links and sources, but believe they should be separate. I will list the sources that I use in the Source heading. Almost all of them are electronic books, articles and reference material. My problem is, I don't know how to organize it correctly. Could you have a look at it when it is done and comment on changes? Thanks in advance.--Hillock65 23:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I will gladly help you with that later today. --Irpen 23:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Treaty of Polyanovka

Hello Irpen, you initiated the discussion regarding a new title for the article. I would like to hear your opinion there (but no more page blanking, please). Appleseed (Talk) 18:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla

Irpen, I have considered the fact that you have didn't openly support Ghirla in his misguided RfC attempt a rather positive sign - one that I recall we talked about in person - i.e. that each side would try to restrain their problematic users. Although I have seen little restraining, on the public forums you have at least managed not to support them too much. Alas, if you have desided to change your tactic and join the camp of 'Ghirla great, Piotrus bad' - go right ahead, I will not stop you. Ghirla can certainly use a third person endorsing his statement... although I am afraid that you will have difficult job to change the tide, considering as about 30 or so other editors failed to be convinced by his so eloquent description of 'my anti-Ghirla campaign'. Seriously, I think you are reasonable enough to know who is more likely to go down if it comes to ArbCom - so it is in your best interest to moderate the issue, instead of inflame it; I ask for nothing more then for Ghirla to stop his attacks on others, and I am not asking for an apology or punishment. Yet.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, point by point, the RfC is not misguided, it is largely on the mark. Second, I have no intention to endorse Ghirla's statement which I think is too broad. I would rather write my own one. Third, I am afraid you are mistaken in your prognosis of the arbitration, especially since new election relegated more content writing arbotrators. I take no position on your threat to resort to it as it's your own affiar. I simply predict it will go bust the same way the previous ones went. --Irpen 19:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

sibiropedia

Do you have an idea when will it be over? `'mikkanarxi 20:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

No idea. But I think the unauthenticated votes casted by both sides have by now to be indented out. Not removed since someone may authenticate them later but indented to be excluded in counting. --Irpen 20:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

ru-sib

I can not accept your suggetion. As long as ru-sib is a valid Wikimedia project, I see no reason to boycott it here. As long as it runs it should be interlinked. If you question the ru-sib content, removing interwiki falls under WP:POINT. I can see no consensus nor any alleged "meta-vote" to do so (please be more specyfic if I overlooked something; but please do not request reading enwiki talk pages written in Cyrillic alphabet). If you find that there is a serious problem with ru-sib project, consider complaining about it to Wikimedia instead of delinking. --Beaumont (@) 21:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Finally, thanks for notifying. When I edited the link I knew nothing specyfic - it was just an wikiarticle with the wikimedia logo. After a while and with a little help of frwiki I found the closing vote (why did'n you give me the precise link? I would have not insist on linking). Actually, it looks like ru-sib will be closed soon. While now I see no reason to make edit wars about it, forcing fast delinking seems to be not quite civilized way of acting (as the consensus has not been approved). --Beaumont (@) 09:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I wonder why it is not closed yet? Unauth-ed sockpuppets aside, there is clearly a majority >2:1 now in support of the closure. Can you please alert a meta bureaucrat or somebody in position of authority? --BACbKA 13:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Is there any indication whether this "sib-wiki" farce will end soon? It has been dragging on for months now. I would say that Mr. Zolotarev is rather successfully attempting to filibuster the vote. Cossack 08:04, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Block discussion

This block expires at 23:51 on December 23, 2006. I'm just the messenger, I'm not responsible in any way for the block. --Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 00:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, User:Alex Bakharev has unblocked after discussion on the blocking admin's talkpage. There is also some discussion at ANI. Newyorkbrad 01:09, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This whole matter is a big mystery to me, but thanks Brad. I will try to figure from ANI what exactly happened. --Irpen

Hi Irpen

A note to say what a disgrace it was you were banned. However, the disgrace is entirely on the blocking admin. It is an abomination that this is how the system works: one trigger-happy admin gets to blacken a person's log, and thus his reputation for ever more. The developers refuse to amend a log even when the arbcom recommend it. However don't take it to heart, I'm sure a responsible admin. will block you for a millisecond and add an explanation pertaining to the previous block.

Regards Giano 13:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN

Irpen, please avoid inflammatory comments like this one. IRC is irrelevant here, it would be much easier for all if you would just discuss the original Ghirlandajo's comment not the whole organization of the project. You know better than me that WP:PAIN is not WP:VPP or WP:RfC. In future try to focus your comments on the concrete solvable problems and not inflame a situation. Still four different admins agree that the block for this comment was excessive, so I unblocked you. Alex Bakharev 01:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Alex, this whole matter was a strange affair. I might have been mistaken in that comment but things were looking very strange. In any case this was not a personal attack of any sort. After I go through diffs to understand what was going on there, I will try to give my assesment at ANI. Something serious has happened and this should now be dealt with. --Irpen 01:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree the block was inappropriate (despite our differences in the past - I hold no ill will towards you :P), and the lack of follow-up on the block does worry me, too. I agree you didn't use any direct personal attacks, but your edits simply came off as hostile, so that in turn seemed incivil and I guess spawned this whole mess completely out of proportion. Sorry to see it went this out of control! :D Cowman109^Talk 01:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Cowman109, this is a long chain: "no direct personal attack" → but "edits simply came off hostile" → "that in turm seemed incivil" → 48-hours hit and run block mildly called "this whole mess spawned completely out of proportion". To make such instances remain rare, I will see it investigated fully, including my own comments. --Irpen 02:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree you shouldn't have been blocked; I'd have unblocked you if you still were. That said, please, keep your cool, per Alex. You are a very reasonable editor - I have seen you lost your 'cool' and reason only in one set of cases - when it comes to Ghirla. Please don't do this, if you want to help Ghirla, the worst thing you can do is to start acting like him.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, please do not assign any motives to me. I saw the report frivolous and I said so. Then I saw the reaction which would have further escalated the conflict. You know the rest and I will discuss it elsewhere.

It was not the first time the boards were used to achieve the block of your opponent. This was just another instance. No personal attack took place to warrant a report.

Then we got a well-meaning but clueless onlooker acting on the unwarranted report and... Well, I said it all at WP:PAIN but that a side matter for our dispute which I will take at ANI.

As for hour matter, I repeatedly told you one and only thing. The problem between you and Ghirla is very similar to the problem between M.K. and Halibutt, the irreconsilable differences of the world views that breed the content disputes. That you try to gain the upper hand in such disputes by presenting your opponent as a troll and trying to get him blocked is reprehencible. I said so before and I will repeat that any time. There are no horrific incivillities to warrant any formal action. These are only content disputes no matter how you try to present it as behavioral ones. Please reread my summary at Halibutt's RfC to this matter.

Now, what happened here is a whole different matter to which you have no relation. I will try to get to the bottom of it, though. --Irpen 02:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? You know, I think that being called a troll, a vandal, a Russophobe, a Ghirlandophobe, a Polish nationalist, puppet and meat sockmaster, anti-Ghirla crusader, stalker, harasser, vote stacker and many other names I just don't feel like recalling is a personal attack warranting a report. Alas, I guess that you have no problem when I or others are called those names, but when anybody try to report the person calling them, than it is bad, right? :( Oh well. I guess some things just depend on who is doing them, and to whom.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  14:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but this conversation is really getting nowhere, and I would simply suggest that you two simply avoid each other - sometimes the best response is no response at all. Cowman109^Talk 22:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

2007

Irpen, с наступающим (наступившим)! :) Страстности в жизни, бесстрастия в борьбе за идеалы Вики. --Brand спойт 15:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

З Різдвом Христовим і з Новим Роком!

DDima presents to you this wonderful Christmas tree of Kiev (Kyiv) and wishes you an upcoming Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

---

З Різдвом Христовим і з Новим Роком! —dima/s-ko/ 16:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

С наступающим!

I hope the season of good will, will provide a good issue to all of this mess. С Новым годом! С Рождеством! --Pan Gerwazy 17:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

... и с наступившим! :)

Here is to a happy, productive and rewarding New Year ~ to you and all yours. Cheers! - Introvert • ~ 22:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all, we'll all improve the Wikipedia in 2007

Dear all! Thanks for the warm wishes and all the emails that came in while I was at the New Year's vacation.

Now that I checked back for what has been going on in the last ten days while I was away the situation seems hopeful indeed. The bunch of scandalous action inspired by the secretive plottings are still being discusses and widely condemned and I see I see a strong momentum of the community of the Wikipedia editors to finally put a decisive end to the secretive activity at the closed channels followed by the drastically insulting onwiki actions. I am also hopeful that the new arbcom will act on the recent developments. --Irpen 05:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New 2007 to all!

File:1953 S Novym Godom.jpg

Happy New Year! (Ukrainian: З Новим Роком!, Russian: С Новым Годом!). I wish you in 2007 to be spared of the real life troubles so that you will continue to care about Wikipedia. We will all make it a better encyclopedia! I also wish things here run smoothly enough to have our invovlement in Wikipedia space at minimum, so that we can spend more time at Main. --Irpen 05:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the New Year's greeting. I do believe that I will make a huge impact on Wikipedia in 2007 (as you can tell on my talk page, I just started with that). Of course, stress with bother us all, but I believe that if we can control it, it will be better for Wikipedia, and for us. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Irpen and thank you for your greetings. - Vald 06:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

File:Bulle champagne.jpg

Happy New Year, all the best wishes and good luck in next 365 days ! --TAG 07:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your greetings, and of course Happy New Year and all the best to you as well :-) Errabee 08:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll be original and say thank you for your friendly greetings. :) Yury Tarasievich 10:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Irpen! Glad that we're working together to improve Wikipedia. I more time can be spent in 2007 writing articles and adding knowledge instead of spinning our wheels with self-appointed bureaucrats and sneaks. TheQuandry 15:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too! Have some Swedish fish in recognition of your fine post here! Bishonen 16:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your warm wishes, Irpen! I trust your New Year celebrations were fun and joyful, and I hope that the year lying ahead will be more joyful yet!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Nice to see you back! Thanks for the greeting! I wish you Happy New Year! I believe, that Wikipedia is too far from being a pure academic encyclopedia, the distance between them is comparable to one from the Earth to nearest quasars :) But when a very valuable user, like you for instance, takes a long break, Wikipedia worsens. I wish us to have as less conflicts with vandals, trolls, insulting sockpuppets, annoying users, etc., as possible. And to have just fine Wikistress level in any case and all circumstances. Cmapm 19:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Response

Hi, I responded to a post you made on [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Workshop#Fourth_suggestion_2|]] with a question, just dropping a note here so it doesn't get lost. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Valentyna Shevchenko

Ok, thank you for your message !

As I can't use the note and reference codes, I let you do it !

Here is the link of the former page I used to refere :

http://web.archive.org/web/20040603002149/www.shevchenkovalentina.openua.net/bio.plhtml

Bogatyr 20:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Such disengagement tends to happen particularly after acquiring of adminship

Your above comment at BudgieKillers Rfa made me think, and even with the best intentions this will happen. I have been an admin for 2 weeks now, and notice that the content work I would like to do suffers because of the amount of trouble I deal with. Possibly the best advice is to periodically ignore WP:AIV and other response pages/categories and endulge. Agathoclea 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Peteris Cedrins

Actually, the evidence appears to be pretty conclusive. Click on the links and judge for yourself. It was a full year ago when User:Ghirlandajo first made the connection [4] The whole story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Peteris_Cedrins - If you can do anything to bring this to conclusion, please help. - Mauco 15:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Budgiekiller's RfA

Thanks for the thoughtful questions. Hopefully, this contribution will help Budgiekiller demonstrate his understanding of process, better than any edit count could. --Dweller 18:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Irpen,

may I wish you Happy New Year? Let your force of mind be with you! :-)

Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 23:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:A Voloshyn.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:A Voloshyn.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 15:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Thank you for the message. Happy New Year to you too. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 06:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

Hey, thanks for participating in my recent RFA. You were amongst a number of editors who considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and as a consequence the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). I am extremely grateful that you took the time to advise me on to improve as a Wikipedian and I'd like to assure you that I'll do my level best to develop my skills here to a point where you may feel you could trust me with the mop.

I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 19:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

Thanks for the additional questions and your feedback throughout. Although the result wasn't what I was looking for, I do appreciate everything that has been said. The Rambling Man 19:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Template help

Hey Irpen, I am attempting to create a cossack template that could be put on all the various cossack pages. I think I have a good start but am looking for some more links and an image to put on it. You can see it here. Feel free to add any improvements you might have. The only reason the Russian empire symbol is on there is because I can't come up with a better one. Let me know if you have any ideas. Thanks ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 08:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm sorry to see you have not edited for so long, and hope that one day soon you will return. I know how very upset you have been about the disgraceful slur on your block log, and hope one day the Arbcom will decide to wipe it clean, especialy as it was the result of behaviour by IRCadmins, a now thoroughly discredited force. I have decided to continue editing Wikipedia because I still beleive in te project, and hope you will to. Regarding those who have brought the project into disrepute - I'm planning to say little more on the subject unless I'm attacked again. I have proved my point about the IRC admin channel, and many people (whose opinion matters to me) now seem to believe all I have ben saying was true. The channel is now thoroughly discredited and will never be a source of power again, and used by anyone of Wikipedian value - it is now basically finished - no one will ever believe a word that emanates from it again, no doubt a few little firecrackers will continue to pop on admins notice boards and such places but I think people can now evaluate such comments for themselves and see them for what they are dying embers of a former power base. Once again thanks for your support in this. I have appreciated it. Giano 10:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments about me. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. And most important, I hope that you are ready to start writing again. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 21:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Володимир Гриньов

Hey, long time! And belated birthday wishes.

Common sense would suggest Hrynyov or Hryniov, but the uncommon combination ьо is just not treated the same way as the Russian ё, even though it represents the same vowel. Hryn’ov, simplified as Hrynov is the Ukrainian transliteration in most systems. We should use this until another version is found in an official web site. I did find "Volodymyr B. Hryn'ov" in the 1998 candidates' list.

But would it be appropriate in this case to also add the Russian Grinyov to the article? —Michael Z. 2007-01-21 22:12 Z

Thanks! I will copy it to the article's talk and let's figure this out there. --Irpen 22:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II

Can you please comment on my proposal here--Kuban Cossack 22:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Briangotts/Rus template

Your comments/ adjustments would be appreciated. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 06:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin says....

Now would be a great time to drop it. Please discontinue the argument at WP:RFI or I will drag the warring parties apart while adopting a policy of actively not caring who, if anyone, is right. Same goes for Piotrus. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, did you actually read what I was saying? Shutting it down was what I was actually calling for all along! --Irpen 21:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Dan's actions merited investigation and the firefight stopped that happening. Sorry to be heavy-handed, but really the meta-arguments were impeding genuine attempts to investigate (and no it certainly was not all your fault, or all anyone's fault) Guy (Help!) 22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I can't disagree. Piotrus brings a lot of this on himself. Peter pointed out that the thing I was looking for was WP:NCR, which I think gets a lot closer to what I meant than what I actually said :o) Guy (Help!) 23:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

New day, new hope

Since you tried talking to me, let me repay the good intention, especially as I still think you are a decent person, and we are having a terrible misunderstanding. Plus if I can work things with Ghirla (in mediation), I am sure it should not be more difficult to patch our relations.

So. You think that I am responsible for Ghirla leaving the project, yes? I don't think so. We were doing well in mediation, I was mostly satisfied with his replies and I didn't see any sign he was unsatisfied with mine. So I don't think I was the reason he left our project. Further, as I wrote before, I would be happy to cosign a request to get him back. He is a valued contributor, and as we have been doing good progress dealing with the incivility issue I see no reason not to want him to come back and continue contributing to this project, avoiding our past problems with the civility parole he himself recognized as acceptable and useful.

Second. I am offended by your accusations that I try to get my opponents blocked. You should know well I spend a lot of time in discussions, and in my years here even you could find only several examples where I was forced to take this action. Blocking policy exists for a reason, and if an admin finds that a person who disagree with his POV seems also to be violating polices whose violation is blockable, what can that admin do? He cannot block that person himself, obviously - so isn't the only choice (assuming he has tried to talk to that person first but failed to reach a solution) to ask other admins to investigate that matter (again, assuming that that admin thinks the case is relativly simple and violates a policy whose violation is blockable)? Do note that investigation may result in a block but may also in recommendations for DR or just plain 'you are overreacting, let it go'. As I wrote before I don't believe any of my actions were over and beyong what is perfectly normal and to be expected behavior of any user.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, as I said before, I find editing articles with you quite possible. In fact much easier than with Halibutt, who I also hope will stay despite all the problems he gives to me and all his opponents. The fact stands, however, that I don't remember Halibutt submitting reports on his opponents all over the place.

Ghirla left because of overall stress of which his conflict with you was the major part. You were running a campaign against him in every space he was posting. Your invoking his RfC multiple times even at WP:DYK suggestion page goes beyond pale. Placing him on the civility parole would me most fiercely oppose by me. As I said at Halibutt RfC, civility is not a core problem of these conflicts. Halibutt has also been at times incivil. I would oppose any action against Halibutt as well. This is not a manners forum. This is the encyclopedia and we should concentrate on the content writing. Your tendentious edits (you may say Ghirla's or mine tendentious edits, if you think so) and overall editing disagreements is the core of these problems. The recent example is what happened with the Russian Enlightenment article and there are multitudes of similar cases. But in any case, such disagreements should be allowed to be resolved in due course without involvement of the admin powers, be it yours or those you call in.

I have by far less problems editing with you than with many of your friends. It is easier to reach a compromise with you than with, say, Halibutt and, unlike, say, Lysy, you did not make offensive remarks about me (except that single accusation in Polonophobia of which I am not making a big deal). Perhaps things have slipped from my mouth too when things were hot.

We will continue to work on the articles here. I hope Ghirla will rejoin. The only thing I must insist on, is that you drop resorting to the boards every time you are unhappy. Happy edits, --Irpen 19:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess we differ in our view on our little community. I believe that foul-mouthing and generally personal attacks are not only not helping, but they are damaging the content as they drive editors away. Thus I believe that editors who violate those policies must be forced to change their ways, and in extreme cases, blocked. Just like in real life, a few offensive words can be taken, but when somebody launches a large-scale, long campaign of slander, or does similar actions, he needs to be called to order. One can express all of his POV without being offensive. Those who cannot just have to learn it - sometimes, the hard way.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, I agree that civility is an asset. I agree that incivility is not helping. All I am saying is that policies should not be used as a weapon in edit or personal conflicts. I never reported Halibutt or Lysy for their abusive language. The price of your actions is a loss of an invaluable editor, while Halibutt is still around. Could be if I was harassing Hali over civility the same way as you were harassing Ghirla, Hali would not have been here as well. And I am not even mentioning the extreme offense about my ethnicity I took from Lysy. I will not sit idly if this practice continues while I will do my best to ensure the improved civility overall. --Irpen 20:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, if I may chime in, it is every editor's right to report others for repeated incivility. You may not wish to do so, but don't expect others to take abuse in silence. As for your promise to "ensure the improved civility overall", I can't say I have high hopes; I was very disappointed by your passionate defense of Ghirlandajo in two clear-cut cases of incivility against me. Appleseed (Talk) 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not defend his incivility, that's for one. Besides, he was constantly provoked by the campaign that some were running against him. I did talk to him about overal tone of his messages and about not taking the bait. Unfortunately, it had only some effect. If your goal was to eject him, you succeeded now. Happy edits, --Irpen 21:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

New day, new hope - 2

It's hard to respond to your accusations because they are so nebulous. What campaign? Who were these "some" who were waging it? Me? Considering my two unhappy encounters with Ghirlandajo were my only encounters with him, it must have been a very short campaign. What baiting and provocation are you referring to? If you consider this a provocation, or my discussion of two article titles, then I see why we're having trouble understanding each other. Appleseed (Talk) 21:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

By campaign I mean being followed everywhere with links to his a year old RfC, which even included WP:DYK pages, being faced with WP:TE attacks, like in Russian Enlightenment and other whatnots. I repeat that I agree that Ghirla has somewhat a short temper. So does Hali. Piotrus and myself have a thicker skin. I have the thickest one. The crux of the matter is that editors like Ghirla and Hali should not be harassed but protected for the benefit of us all thanks to the enormous amount of material they bring here. They should not be reported to all sorts of boards on every minor instance. --Irpen 21:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo's "somewhat short temper" is the understatement of the year. You're taking about someone who used an obscenity because I was discussing (not even proposing) a new article title. Everyone knows that he writes a lot of articles, but you're asking too much of your fellow editors if you expect them to give him carte blanche. How many editors does Ghirlandajo have to chase away with his incivility before it becomes clear that they could have accomplished much more than he alone, and in a pleasant atmosphere to boot? Appleseed (Talk) 22:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

He has not chased away a single editor. I can tell you more. My first interaction with him was a long and stubborn argument at the talk of the the Great Russian language article. After two days of arguing over the disagreement, he gave to me my first barnstar that you can see at the top of my page. He can be reasoned with if you do it properly. If, OTOH, one does it like Piotrus and Halibutt was doing, yes, he looses temper and responds inadequately. Still, I am aware of no more valuable contributor to this project and I am willing to tolerate occasional incivility from such editors, similar to how I tolerate Halibutt and oppose any harassment he has been taking lately. --Irpen 22:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In the course of your discussion, did Ghirlandajo accuse you of somethingcentrism, curse, threaten to report you, or speak to you in a condescending fashion? How many edits such as this do I have to endure before Ghirlandajo gives me a barnstar? I'm afraid I that I'm not interested in learning the "proper" way to reason with Ghirlandajo--I'll stick to common decency, which WP makes explicit in WP:CIV. Appleseed (Talk) 22:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he accused me in Russophobia. I just ignored it and moved on. Since then we became wikifriends and I did not chase him to demand an apology as I do not demand apologies from Piotrus for accusing me in Polonophobia or others here who called me worse. I am proud that Ghirla considers me his friend because, as I said, I know of no other contributor to this project of such quality (perhaps Giano would be the only exception). I am also pleased to see the respect from Piotrus whose contributions are also immense and I only regret that Halibutt does not think of me much. --Irpen 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Since my name was mentioned here I take the liberty to reply. Indeed I'm considering to return to the project, partially because Ghirla is away. I admire Piotrus' patience in dealing with him, I lost all hope in that Ghirla could become a civilized and civil editor a long time ago, around the time he's been chasing my every step, accusing me of a zillion of absurd things and violating almost every policy - usually with the aims of either driving me mad or discrediting me. Finally I got carried away once or twice, which was the reason I decided to leave. Ghirlandajo has been doing for years what I've done once or twice. That's why I believe your if I was harassing Hali over civility the same way as you were harassing Ghirla, Hali would not have been here as well remark is both misleading (intentionally, I'm afraid) and unfair. If you want to compare mine behaviour with that of Ghirlandajo, please be so kind as to compare specific diffs and their reception by the community. Check both RfCs if you like. Otherwise please don't use me as an example of "Ghirla-like, yet unpunished" since I'm not. There is a huge difference between us and it's not nationality I mean here.

Halibutt, I am not to spend time comparing who of you two is more incivil. Personally, you offended me much more and with stronger words than anyone except, perhaps one or two of my ultra-nationalist compatriots and one exceptionally insulting remark from Lysy. I just moved on. As I said, I consider civility secondary and content creation primary. --Irpen 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? When did I offend you? And how? //Halibutt

Well, you said things to me that I would rather not recite. --Irpen 01:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

See? It's always easier to accuse others of being incivil that finding a single piece of evidence. This way everyone will know that I'm a bad guy, regardless of whether I really did something wrong or not. That's the very same tactics Renata and others have adopted. //Halibutt 01:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, there is an anti-Halibutt conspiracy. Listen, I just hate to find exact diffs. The first time you offended me was at the time of the infamous Wolodarka dispute. Than you called me a liar. I will rather not elaborate. --Irpen 03:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It was not meant as an offence, it was a mere description of facts. I presented two sources, you tried to convince everyone that I presented only one. If you're offended by the word lie, how about you deliberately distorted the reality or you were untrue? //Halibutt 08:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not again! I will not be go over the Volodarka nonsense with you for the N+first time. Sorry, my friend. --Irpen 17:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As to chasing away other editors, I was on the verge of being chased away by Ghirla and the like. Ghirla himself admitted a long time ago that he chased away Rydel from Wikipedia (the diff should be in Ghirla's RfC if you don't believe me). I don't know if there are more people directly involved, but the fact remains that Ghirla's inability to behave creates an overall bad atmosphere in Wikipedia, which is not what this great project deserves. Even if it does not drive anyone out of the project directly, it creates a bad precedent. One could say "look, Ghirlandajo told everyone to fuck off and called them idiots, and so can I" (check the RfC for diffs again). This already happens - and Ghirla had definitely his hand in it.

Sorry, but Rydel was just a troll. If I am responsible for the departure of AndriyK, which may or may not be the case, this is not something for me to loose my sleep over. Those fellows brought nothing here but edit wars. At the same time, several Lithuanian editors made it clear that they are living because they can't deal with you anymore. --Irpen 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

See? It's all a matter of perspective. For me Ghirlandajo is the same kind of fella. As to the "several Lithuanian editors", I bet you're referring to the outraging piece of slander by Renata, who was back to wikipedia in two weeks and whom I asked repeatedly to post a single piece of evidence for her absurd accusations. To no avail. //Halibutt

Well, that you call him "the same kind of fella" as Rydel and AndriyK speaks lengths. There is no more to disscuss. As for Lithuanian editors you chased away, Renata is only one of them. Lokyz and EED come to mind. --Irpen 01:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right, I indeed drove Lokyz away. For two days. I won't comment on EED, just like I wouldn't like to comment on Zivinbudas and other similarly-minded people. //Halibutt

Well, comparing EED to Zvin just does not fly. So, cut it. --Irpen 03:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally, so far I found only one way to deal with Ghirla's phobias: sources. In cases where a heathen debate starts it usually helps to expand the article with as many sources as possible - then Ghirlandajo suddenly disappears - and starts his usual mumbo-jumbo in another place (check the history of the articles on Warsaw Uprising (1794) or Katyn massacre for examples). However, I believe that the limit of offences one can commit is over for him and I can't say I'm not happy about that. If he learns how to control himself - great. If he doesn't - great as well. The latter would mean that we'll loose a valuable editor, but this would be a lesser evil - at least from my perspective.

Bullshit. Nothing can be a greater evil for the project than loosing editors who create most of its content. Grow a thicker skin and write articles. Same as I do. --Irpen 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not bullshit. The same tactics was applied in a plethora of articles - and it always worked. //Halibutt

Oh, and I appreciate your declaration that you oppose the harassment I've been taking lately. It's very nice of you. Too bad you did not oppose it when it was Ghirlandajo to start it, but that's another story, isn't it. //Halibutt 22:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you are not the one to talk about niceness either, my friend. But you may go back to your own RfC and read my statement. I chastised your opponents for making a big deal about your manners and asked them to leave you alone. The problem I have with you is POV pushing and stubbornness, not the names you called me. If you come back fully, so the better. I will do my best to have Ghirla returned as well. --Irpen 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Irpen after reading New day, new hope, and New day, new hope - 2, and all of the comments and recriminations posted here, it looks bleak from my perspective. I would like to take a moment to tell you I intend to follow WP:Civil to the letter in the future, and will be expecting the same in return from everyone. By no means will I cease to question or challenge any kind of false information, propaganda, or POV. Hope you will return to the project in full, and can get Ghirla to consider all of the reasons his return is necessary. Dr. Dan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

afd closure

There is no such rule. It is a recommended practice in controversial cases, but this one is plain and simple. And I will continue closing in such cases. You may request updating the policy to unconditionally forbid closing, but until there is a slack, back off. I am entitled to my opinion, and you have no right to revert me, respect or not. `'mikka 18:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

No, Mikka. I have a right to revert you when I think your edits are incorrect. Please calm down. --Irpen 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope. It was not edit. It was admin's actions. If admins start reverting each other without asking first, we are in big trouble. Ever heard about wikipedia:wheel war? You "think", but I have a thinkig pot myself. `'mikka 02:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Mikka, please cool off. I saw your action as requiring a reversal. There is nothing to it, really. --Irpen 03:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

MY edit was not trolling

Hi, please do not revert talk by users whom you may happen to dislike. Perhaps you didn't like my odd sense of humour, but still... to call it trolling? Constanz - Talk 19:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I saw it trolling and I reverted it per message on top of my talk. This message, however, will stay, since I find it acceptable. --Irpen 19:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not sure but I think someone wrote in Wikipedia, that removing other people's messages IS vandalism. So, I've kept things on my talk that I do not 'find acceptable', perhaps I may suggest you accept more tolerant policies as well. Constanz 19:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Vandalism is to remove administrative warnings but not trollish messages as well as PA's and other inappropriate stuff. I have a message on the top of my talk page where my handling of my talk page is explained in detail. --Irpen 19:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

So that every user defines himself/herself, how to handle his/her talk page? Thank you very much, now that I now, I'll start handling my own talk as well.Constanz - Talk 19:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A note and some support

Hello there. I'd like to thank you for filing the RFAR request you did, it's honestly about time that something official happened regarding that cesspool of a channel. I would just like to make a suggestion, however - it might be helpful to clearly state who you wish to recuse themself from the case. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. The thing is that if I name the individuals, it may be perceived as a lack of respect towards ArbCom and a personal attack. They would know who I am talking about. --Irpen 01:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could email them? That way it wouldn't be very much of an attac, at least as long as you are respectful. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What for? They know who they are! If I see them non-recused, I might speak on that but hopefully, it won't be necessary. --Irpen 01:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would hope not, too. Mackensen saying he'd recuse himself from the matter was encouraging at least. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 03:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ive been watching the case and now I see that two of the arbcom have rejected this. I can't say that I'm terribly surprised by this, but you have my support anyways. I don't know if I should make a statement or not, do you think it would be helpful? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I see one accept, one reject for now. Fred's rationale is interesting. He wants to reject because he thinks that this is not the arbitration but the policy issue. This very objection was brought up by Ghirla and myself in the original Giano case. It was accepted over such objections, including by Fred. I can't figure how our arbs think. --Irpen 04:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's very confusing and rather inconsistent. I know we can't expect the committee to be consistent from case to case where the arbs taking it are different, but you think that a single arbitrator would be more consistent.

Personally, I feel that the ArbCom kind of took it on itself when it asserted itself on the channel. Saying they're uninvolved when what seems like at least a quarter of the committee are the new ops there seems like bollocks to me. But ... we'll see if Fred's views are the view of the panel. I tend to think they'd be as fractured as the rest of wikipedia on it, but we'll see. Anyways, this was kind of the wrong place to rant about it, my apologies. Just wanted to let you know you're far from the only person that's calling the spades, spades, here. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think ArbCom took it upon itself when it accepted the original Giano case. It was not a behavioral dispute. There was some sort of the community uprising as Tony's random blocks was the last straw to trigger it. And in the middle of the discussion at WP:AN a strange account submitted this strange arbcom. If you note the decisions of that case, you may notice that there were none in fact. By original standards, that was a non-arbcomable case. But this one is clearly more arbcomable. We'll see. --Irpen 04:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - I've heard of that case, but I haven't really read it, so I can't comment on it. I should go read up on it. In either event I hope they look into it. I think that it might be right that there is some overreaction in this case - but I don't think it's on the "side" of the people that want action taken against the channel. It goes against the openness and transparency of Wikipedia for them to implement blocks only discussed on IRC. That's why I posted the note I did when I saw Beta blocked you, by the way - no discussion had taken place on wikipedia about it, and I felt that was wrong. If beta posted ot ANI or something it would have been less murky, but simply of IRC, in a channel where there is restricted membership where you couldn't've even defended yourself if you wanted to? That's not cool. I respect Beta, and I think he was probably the "messenger" in this case (I cant tell, I don't have access to the channel or logs) but either way, I thought he had more good sense. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Beta's action was outright bizarre and appalling. To begin with, PAs are nowhere in the allowed reasons for the blocks in the WP:BLOCKing policy. Does not mean a user cannot be blocked for them ever, but they would really need to be very serious. Secondly, there were no PA's at all in this discussion. Further, none of the Irpen-bashing crowd that showed up in the middle of our discussion were ever at PAIN before. It means that the IRC league were actively following my edits looking for any possible conflict with my involvement to reign in with blocks. I know for a fact that discussion about "getting rid of Irpen" took place at that channel and I even know who took part in it.

Beta was not duped but he took part in this abuse actively. There is no excuse for that block. Finally, there can never be a justification for the hit and run. If I was not lazy, I would have written a Beta deadminning arbcom but I am too tired of this whole matter. Maybe I will change my mind, don't know. --Irpen 04:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think he got suckered by the IRC admins, but I don't know one way or another. In any event, whether or not PAs are blockable or not, the simple fact of the matter is, he should have talked about it on WP. That goes with the whole IRC cabal thing. Some ten or <insert arbitrary number her> admins getting together and just deciding to ignore the community and block users they disagree with is not good, and it's threatening the wiki. It needs dealt with, and I really hope ArbCom will. IRC in and off itself isn't the issue, but the is no need for some closed channel for admins. Especially a closed group where non-admins hold the keys as Ops. The whole matter disappoints me greatly.

I feel personally somewhat responsible for that block, as it was my actions in the PAIN report that sparked that conversation and the resultant block. For what little it may be worth, I deeply regret that you were blocked over it, and hope you can accept my apologies. Whatever merits my actions there may or may not have had, your complaints were legit, and some IRC group decided to block you over it was so utterly -wrong- I have no words for them, except for the fact that I am sorry. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to apologize. It was not your fault. Take it easy. --Irpen 05:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I just felt very shortchanged (is that the proper expression? I'm not sure, but it makes sense to me..) by the whole pile on there. I don't at all blame you for thinking that there was some sort of coordinated communication there. There likely was. I just didn't have a part in it. I wish I had - I'd've spoken up for you. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain. I thought you were part of that communication only because I could not come up with any other explanation how you could have possibly found out about that block before even I knew it and without any blocking message posted anywhere onwiki. I did not know about the bot. Once you explained this to me, I am absolutely convinced that you had nothing to do with Beta's abuse. So, no worries. --Irpen 05:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Russian colonialism

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

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

Arbitration regarding Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945

I hereby notify you, that I started the arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Occupation_of_Latvia_1940-1945. Constanz - Talk 10:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

FSU Metro Project

Help us here to start it off...--Kuban Cossack 14:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

MThis user is a participant in the Soviet Metro wikiproject.

It's ready...please join! --Kuban Cossack 14:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway

Hi Irpen. I have had problems with him as well. I opine that he should have his administrator status revoked. I have seen him bully too many users.--Fahrenheit451 01:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Tony is not an administrator anymore. Pity that he continues to be disinterested in content creation but rather keeps teaching others what to do. --Irpen 01:07, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I just found this [5].--Fahrenheit451 01:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian language partial rewrite

Do you think this [6] is more npov, than the previous one? --Riurik ^(discuss) 09:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the sections suffers from being very much unreferenced to begin with. I marked some requests for citations. --Irpen 18:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You could consult with the section on languages in Lithuanian Metrica and the sections on names and on 17th cent. history in Belarusian language, too. There's some info touching the Ukrainian language emergence there. Yury Tarasievich 19:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, good to know about the article. Very useful! --Irpen 20:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Naming issues

Please take a look at conversation I have started. May be we can do something about this in a good faith. If you feel like transfering the topic somewhere - please do so. Otherwise continue on my talk page.--Bryndza 14:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for references

Thank you the for references, I will read them and make up my mind.--Lokyz 20:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

Execellent job in removing the recent playpen of absurdity. Execellent arguments from you. I guess it ended favorably for you after all. Dr. Dan 00:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

А теперь у Крысы кукла

Its all here care to comment.--Kuban Cossack 17:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Jogaila time again

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]

Perhaps this will be enough to get Ghirla editing again! Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ivan Chernyshyov

Hello Irpen! A Count (or General) "Czernichev" is listed in Giles MacDonogh's Frederick the Great: A Life in Deeds and Letters as being the advisor to Catherine the Great that suggested to Prince Henry of Prussia that Frederick take Warmia, leading up to the First Partition.[7]

This book about the Seven Years' War mentions a "General Ivan Chernichev", while this book about Sweden mentions "Czernichev" visiting Finland. If you have time, could you investigate and confirm that this is the same individual as Ivan Chernyshyov (which lacks military info)? Cheers, Olessi 07:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Enjoy

I may not agree with you, but perhaps having 3 (or more) pages like this was contributing to none of them being very effective. Yes, three - look what I just found: Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Sigh.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Beregynia

Hi,

I asked a question at Talk:Beregynia.

It would be nice if you could answer. Заранее благодарю. --Amir E. Aharoni 11:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Fame and fortune

Or something like it, maybe [8]. -- TheQuandry 15:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II

Hi Irpen,

Though it was no longer relevant to my RfA I would like to respond to some of the the comments you added to the discussion (and then removed).

As to the first three edits of mine you listed as evidence of my POV pushing: all of those were taken from said paper by Yehuda Bauer. Let me just copy and paste what Bauer writes about Ukraine if that's what's necessary:

"It is true even in, say, the Ukraine, where the Germans were originally enthusiastically welcomed by most people, though even there there was an important though unquantifiable pro-Soviet minority as early as 1941. Ukrainians in large numbers participated in the murder of the Jews, volunteered for pro-German police, collaborated with the German administration – but soon deep disenchantment took over. The Germans did not permit any kind of Ukrainian autonomy, treated Ukrainians as lesser beings, and then deported hundreds of thousands of them as forced laborers. The mood changed rapidly. Also, the fact that large numbers of Ukrainians were serving in the Red Army made their relatives under German rule tend more and more towards the Soviets. When the choice was between rule by Germans or by Ukrainian communists, the majority of Ukrainians in the end chose the Soviets. The Red Army was welcomed as liberators, except in Volhynia and parts of Eastern Galicia, where the armed anti-Soviet OUN underground maintained a foothold until about 1950."

Concerning my edit related to German-Ukrainian sexual relations I would like to ask you if you even read my edit summary. I was simply reverting a removal of that questionable content which was reasoned with the claim that the quotations were a copyright violation. I was not the one who added the content, I just feel that removal of content like that should be discussed on the talk page and not done on grounds that are obviously wrong. I would also like to know when I was uncivil as you claim in the RfA. And my calls for you to calm were because you were snapping at somebody just because they were mentioning a fact that you seemingly just didn't want mentioned.

As I have mentioned dozens of times probably I agree that this article is a mess and that I'm not siding with any socks or trolls as you claim.--Carabinieri 16:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Carabinieri. before contributing controversial material, especially to the article like this one, one should always familiarize oneself with the subject a little more closely than read a single paper, particularly of the scholar whose main speciality is not the subject of the article. I cannot vouch for or against Bauer scholarly credentials overall but the claims he makes in the citations you provide contradict the basic facts one can find in widely published numbers on how many Ukrainians fought the Nazis in the Red Army, how many evacuated and contributing in the home front, how many were murdered under evacuation, how many villages were burned and how many were taken to slave labour and how many fought the Nazis in the Soviet partisan units. One can have a very clear picture of the extent of the collaboration by comparing these numbers with the numbers of people who volunteered for Polizei, division SS Galizia and even UPA (note too that the latter was not purely a collaborative force and had a history of both collaboration and military confrontation with the Nazis). I can add countless stories I've heard from witnesses and survivors of that horrific time, my relatives and not, but this is not the place for that. But to anyone familiar with the history in a least bit this quote you were pushing into the article that "most Ukrainians were enthusiastic about the Nazi's except for a small pro-Soviet minority" is an outright nonsense.

As for your returning of the disgusting pictures and even more disgusting claims added by a sock that the Ukrainian women were just eager to give Nazis the sexual pleasure, this goes beyond pale, I said all there is to it at the article's talk and I do not care what excuse you used to return that crap. Copyrighted or not, that stuff did not belong there and you knew it full well as well as that there was nothing more to be "discussed on the talk page" on this horrendous slander before removing it. You revert warred on the side of the confirmed socks who created the article purely to troll and grind an axe of ethnic hatred and this is all I was saying.

Finally, as to your behavior at AfD, your calls to "calm down" and "be civil" was clearly provoking and unwarranted. Nowhere I made a single uncivil remark and as such your calls were merely condescending and uncalled for. --Irpen 22:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.

If the information I added to the article is truly wrong, then please excuse my lack of knowledge on this topic. When I first saw this article, I was shocked, it was terrible. I thought the best way to help would be to find one or two reliable sources on the internet (the paper by Bauer and this infoukes website, whose reliability was, however, soon questioned on the talk page, so I stopped using that one) and add information to them to the article, even if it's not much.

As far as my re-adding of the images goes: the reason for their removal was obviously phony, so I reverted that edit, there is not much more to be said about this.

My calls for you to calm down on that AfD discussion were not meant to be condescending at all. Again, if I misinterpreted your comments, I'm sorry, but they seemed pretty rude to me, but I guess that's one of the dangers of communicating over the internet, people can't see each other's facial expressions, hear their tone of voice, etc, so sometimes confusions like this arise.

Look Irpen, overall I'm pretty much tired of this discussion. Looking through some of your contributions I really respect the work you've done on Wikipedia, let's just get back to that.--Carabinieri 22:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I said it all about the image adding, no matter what was the reason for it. Here and here there is an entire set of my contributions to the AfD discussions. Please point a single entry that, as you claim, may seem "rude" with or without "seeing facial expression and hearing the tone of voice". Truth is there is none.

In any case, I am happy to accept the olive branch. My most frequent objection to anyone's adminning is lack of interest in the content creation. This clearly does not apply to you and whatever your particular position was in that article, I think you will make a fine admin. Happy edits. --Irpen 00:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hey Irpen, I noticed that this newly-added material at Nogai language is in Russian. Would you be able to translate it to English? Thanks, Khoikhoi 02:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again. Khoikhoi 03:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. --Irpen 01:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Trouble with Piotrus

I noticed your comments on the talk page of the RfC for User:Piotrus. Just wanted to give you a heads-up on the harrassment he is attempting on my own talk page. A user contacted him after the fact of a situation that was handled, and not only did Piotrus attempt to re-warn me on my talk page, he also sent one of his minions after me. I tried to inform him several times, and he continues to persist on my talk page. His actions are so against any admin I have come across. Rarelibra 16:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Latvia evidence

Do you know when they will stop taking evidence in the Occupation of Latvia arbitration? Jd2718 02:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am not the one to ask but there are no fixed rules. You can post if you like. The only thing I am asking everyone is to read the entire talk page. Cheers, --Irpen 03:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have. Whether the arbitrators agree or not, this is essentially a content dispute. Good sources have gone untapped. Jd2718 03:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is purely a content dispute. But it is centered not around the factual accuracy but the questionable scope and title. Tendentiously picked events arbitrary picked and put together under the improper title cannot make an encyclopedic article. --Irpen 03:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

They've extended 'occupation' to cover everything up to 1991, yes, I am aware. There's some conduct issues, but they are comparatively minor. Jd2718 04:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The case was accepted, however, for the reasons which are too complicated to explain in a few words. --Irpen 04:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, one of the arbitrators has now written a /Proposed Decision in the case. Newyorkbrad 17:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I was too slow to provide evidence - but no harm. I was fearful that the ArbCom might rule on the content; it didn't happen. Jd2718 00:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:On reporting Piotrus

Hello Irpen! Nice to notice that you have time to write to me. You and Dr. Dan's speak truth, but the process of user:Piotrus 3RR is under way, and I am not imposition to stop it, and after reading his reply on 3RR board there he trying to escape responsibility once again accusing other contributors of vandalism and bad faith leaves me no space, only to bring this case to the end. But I promise that I will have your words for the future developments.

You are experienced contributor and in the light of this event I would like to hear your advice, despite that I am already made the decision about this. Probably you are aware that Piotrus and his ally Lysy trying to remove some information from one article.(the same which P.P. was reported) In the heat of edits, contributor Lysy came to help a bit to our dear Piotrus. And imagine situation, at first Lysy conducted small changes but suddenly out of nowhere appears so called annon vandal from USA, and blanks the page [9] and of course dedicated contributor Lysy "reverts" this so called vandal [10] (please see edit summary vandalism by anonymous editor). Every thing would be fine if not one and big but, after comparison of two version - before so called vandal and after so called restoration, vital information was lost (yes you right the information which is not pleasant to Polish eyes) - [11]. Huge parts of article simple disappear! It is impossible to lost info if you reverting to the previuos version of edit only, which had it, of course if you do not remove it during restoration of version, but Lysy's edit summary is silent about this. Later he tried to update one part of article during so called restoration process and to show that he is removing it publicly [12], you see this is only one part; other vital info was not restored in any attempt. This situation I see as clear sneaky approach to receive upper hand in content dispute. How do you see this situation? M.K. 11:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I will just note here that indeed, I'd appreciate your input on the attempts to portray the Ponary massacre as carried by Poles and Russians...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

On [13]: care to elaborate when did I violate any policy against you? Or is it just the usual piece of offence one gets when he doesn't agree with your unsupported beliefs, as was the case of Volodarka? And finally, should I adopt the very same tactics and start accusing you of things you never did just to discredit you and slander your name, the very same way you do? Just let me know, I'll be happy to follow your ways. //Halibutt 15:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Halibutt, you 3RRed and not once and I chose to never report you. This is just one example. --Irpen 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, and you called my mom a cucumber and told me you hate me because I'm a Jew. Yet, I never reported you either. So what? //Halibutt 01:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

??? --Irpen 01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you really call his mother a cucumber? Dr. Dan 21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the very same thing you do: invent things and then accuse me of them. But no, never in the face, that would be too easy to refute, right? You do it in discussions with other users so that I could not defend myself. And never, I say never post any diffs and links, just throw empty accusations. Perhaps I should start acting likewise? //Halibutt 10:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. As for the cucumber, I meant the cat of the mother of the wife of your third cousin. You just got it all confused. As for my alleged hatred of you because you are a Jew may I refer you to the conversation with Lysy right below. I never call you any names in secret, btw. Diffs are always there to see when and what I said. You want diffs and links of what? Of WP:POINT? of WP:3RR? Of driving editors out? I mean, i can put aside some time and find them if you seriously deny that it happened and you really think digging them out is worth my time. Other than that, what is that you want? Note that when you are being hit, like your RfC, I do not join the festivities, unlike you who just can't wait for a new ArbCom on Ghirla to write a new statement. I try to limit my interaction with such fierce opponents like yourself to the article's talk pages and this is why I do not go to your talk too often. If I invoke you as an example talking to, say, Piotrus, I do it openly and you can always find out what I said and when I said it. No secrecy whatsoever. --Irpen 07:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Supporting Soviet vision of history

Irpen, since you reprimanded me in Talk:Ponary massacre with the words:

On a side note, Lysy's remark about his being "surprised and saddened to see a Lithuanian supporting the Soviet ways to rewrite the history of Lithuania" is worth of a strong reprimand. While this is not the worse example of ethnic talk I've seen from this editor, I hope he will desist from any of that from now on.

can I ask you to explain why do you find my words condemnable ? I would be equally surprised if a Ukrainian or Russian or any other editor from any of the countries that actually experienced the Communist oppression supported the Soviet vision of history, particularly now, when the Soviet Union is long gone. (BTW: if you have problems with myself, rather than the article's contents may I suggest that you address them in my talk page in the future.) --Lysy^talk 20:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Lysy, I consider this type of ethnic talk offensive and most people also do. "How, can you, a Lithuanian, accept the Soviet ways" may imply a number of things and none of those are good. For instance, whose of non-Lithuanians acceptance "of Soviet ways" would not have saddened you? Why would someone's acceptance of anything be connected with this person's being Lithuanian? Is there anything that you accept (or do not accept) as a Pole. For instance, I recently removed a whole bunch of antisemitic rants from the History of Jews in Poland article like the unspeakable nonsense about "Jewish complicity (!) in crimes against Poles (!!!) during the WW2" [14] or Zydokomuna conspiracy theories presented passingly as not even needing a reference[15]. Judging from your past edits, the article was at your watchlist. Should I have asked how could possibly you, a Pole, tolerate this crap in Polish articles? Or should I have thought that you accepted that nonsense because of the "Polish antisemitism" being essential part of any Poles' worldview? (Just in case, and for the record I do not think the latter.) I merely removed that stuff, kept my thoughts to myself and moved on. I suggest that you also do not pepper talk pages with the ethnic talk. --Irpen 07:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

All right, we obviously do not understand each other on such topics. Thanks for responding, anyway. I would only like to explain that I have about 4 thousand articles on my watchlist and more on my sockpuppet's watchlist, and very many of these need a massive rewrite or other corrections. I'm also supposed to be on a wikibreak (obviously not being successful at that) and even if I were not, I could not afford to work on every article watched. This is to explain why I have not repaired the History of Jews in Poland to the extend that you'd expect me to. --Lysy^talk 12:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Per our 'genetlman's agreement'

I ask you to revert yourself: [16], [17], [18], and that's a fourth. I can agree to a compromise with leaving both your 'respected' (please, no weaselish 'highly') and mine referenced 'nationalist, Russian/Soviet' part, but one way or another, please restore the content you rm during your 4th revert. And your removal of my reference is really not constructive.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This was not a revert but an edit. If you want to edit over it, do so and stop wikilawyering. I will then see whether your edit is acceptable to me. You know full-well that I am not edit warring but developing the article and there is no way to present my edits there as an edit war. --Irpen 04:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

More to it. My edit was not a revert but a replacement of the irrelevant citation (about his politicla stance) by a relevant one (assessment of his scholarly work). That Wagner is often viewed a nationalist does change that he was one of the greatest composers. --Irpen 04:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Irpen. Even if you'd not report me, there are users who would (as you should be well aware of). Either removing your edit (which I don't think your quote supports) or readding mine would technically be a revert and thus make me a 3RR violator myself (I recently reread the relevant polices as there are some who indeed try to win disputes by blocking). So I ask you again: please revert yourself - otherwise as I cannot the article I will have no choice left.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, I repeat that my first so-called "revert" is an edit. It replaces an irrelevant citation by a relevant one. I do not see how the cherry-picked statement that calls him a nationalist and "acomodating" is more relevant than the direct praise of his work. Again, this was not a revert but an edit of the article. I indeed removed the "unreliable" tag three times, this qualifies for three reverts, but not for the four reverts. If you insist, I can restore the "tag" as a personal favor. I thought my reasons of removal were convincing but should you disagree but can't restore it, I will do it for you. Nothing will happen with the article if it rests for 24 hours in the form unfavorable to either of us. Yuri will be back in the morning CET and will take a look at what we came up with anyway.

So, I can restore a tag if you want, but I don't agree with the misleading quote that calls him a nationalist. His high regards is confirmed by both the quote I added AND the number of citations his works receive even in the modern scholarship. --Irpen 05:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The tag is not the most crucial point. It's the removal of a reliable (Oxford-published) reference that he is nationalist, and your denial that he was a Russian/Soviet citizen, that are problematic.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's continue this at the article's talk. It is difficult to switch back and forth. --Irpen 05:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

For the "Record"

Please replace the information that you removed from the talk page of the Ponary massacre, under the The Scope of this Article. I strongly disagree in principal with the removal of other peoples comments (one shouldn't even remove their own (unless there is an apology), that's "history"). Let everyone's statements speak for themselves. My comments were used against me, as the basis to to complain at the talk page of an Administrator, in yet another attempt to censor me. Please let the remarks remain in place, "For the Record". Dr. Dan 03:06, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote in the edit summary, feel free to replace them back. I saw them unnecessary and bringing nothing to the discussion. If anyone disagrees, anyone can revert me. I will not remove them again if anyone at all insists them in being there and I mentioned that in my edit summary as well. If you ever need the record of them being there, you can always point the diff in the history. I can of course return them myself if you insist but nothing prevents you from doing just that. It's no big deal IMO either way but without comments so totally unrelated to the discussion the page seems to me a little nicer. I merely removed all sides' "warning" each other and commenting on each other's warning. --Irpen 03:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Rebel of Tushino

Dear Irpen! I must repeat: the Russian word "вор" in XVII century ment not "thief" but "rebel", so, please, do not restore the nonsense "thief of Tushino" because that vor did not steal anything but he did revolt. OK? Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zabaznov (talk • contribs) 06:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Fine if you are so sure. Sorry for my mistake. --Irpen 06:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not well versed in the contemp. Russian, but it could possibly also mean "bandit" or "outlaw" (not "thief", though). Yury Tarasievich 10:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapol'skiy

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

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

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

Polonization

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

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

Piotrus, I am half-way done. Sorry other things sometimes deflect me on and off. But when I hit that save instead of the preview button, nothing can prevent you from correcting me. In the meanwhile, you may want to study sources, I am suing. One is D-Z, the other two are the academic articles (you brought one of them yourself).[19] [20] While I am still editing, you may spend some time reading. Actually, they both support D-Z despite you presented one of them as countering him. Anyway, let me please finish integrating their material in the text. --Irpen 03:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 18:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions on Petliura

Hello, Irpen. Would you mind coming over here and weighing in on the discussion? Basically, we're trying to figure out how Petliura's transition between Hetman on the UPR and exile leader worked. In the template, we state that the government in exile lasted from 1920 to 1992, but its first president, Livytskyi, took office in 1926...what was Petliura's role in 1920-26? Should he too be listed on that line in the template? Thanks for any help you can offer. Biruitorul 03:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapol'skiy

Hi Irpen,

It's me again.

You posted the article about Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapol'skiy at some new article announcement page, so I suggested an entry from it to be featured at WP:DYK. It did, however, need quite a bit of copyediting, so it can be included there. I think I've copyedited most of the article, but could there was one sentence I just didn't understand at all, I made a note of this on the article's talk page. Maybe you could help me with this, since you speak Ukrainian and Russian? Could you throw a quick glance at the article itself and make sure I didn't falsify the meaning of anything while copyediting, because there were some things I wasn't 100% sure what they meant, when I re-phrased them.

Thanks,

--Carabinieri 21:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Link to Sviatoslav's family tree

Hi there. I am writing to ask why you removed the link to the family tree of Sviatoslav on his article page? I added it for informational purposes because he happens to be one of ancestors to members of royal families in Europe, including Prince Charles for instance. --Stanley78 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It was added in an unencyclopedic form and seemed to me suspicious. I will take another look. --Irpen 22:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a novice to Wikipedia writing, sorry for not being a pro writer. There are dozens of references to people's trees on Rodovid from Wikipedia articles and they do no harm. Again, his tree can be viewed by following this link. The tree is really huge and may take a few minutes to load. Please, read more about Rodovid at www.rodovid.org. --Stanley78 23:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the Vladimir Alekseyevich Betz headstone photo!

Big thanx! Hope the image will stay. It would be better to upload it to Wikimedia, so I could put it in the Russian article. (and others of course). Best regards, --CopperKettle 10:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You are very welcome. Besides, it was you who found it. I merely uploaded it once I recognized that the site you found is in the list of the ones that are OK to use. You can upload a local copy to the ruwiki as well. The author of the web-site made it clear that he had no objections to the usage of any of his images on wikipedia provided his authorship is attributed )see eg. how I did it). Personally, I prefer to stay away from commons as much as possible and here I elaborated why so. I cannot prevent you from uploading the image on commons although I see certain danger for the image even at that (see link above). So, ruwiki+enwiki local copies is a little extra server load and hard-drive space consumption but a little more insurance against the content deletion due to silly games. Best regards, --Irpen 10:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Tour book on Kiev from 1900!!!

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

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

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

Yuriy, I think you mean the Hrushevsky's book LCCN 62-0. This is indeed a rarity to have in home library. Some versions are available online. This is one of such web-sites. Is it this the book? Thanks a lot for your offer anyway. Even if this is not the one, I can't make you do all the work of scanning the whole book. Please stay in touch. --Irpen 09:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Kiev Images

I am currently planning a trip to Kiev in May (I live in Chicago, USA). I have evolved much as a photographer in the recent years, and plan on making one of the main focuses of my trip photography of Kiev. I will be compiling a list of places that I want to photograph. Leave a note on my page, and let me know if you have any specific requests. (Example of my recent photography from Belize). -asmadeus 20:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Added a note to the top of my Kiev album for photos taken back in 2001 giving permission to be used on wikipedia under cc-by-sa tag as you suggested. Thank you for that!

Any reason why not all images are displayed in the Gallery (missing Image: tag) on National Art Museum of Ukraine? Are you just waiting to confirm them? For example - I'm positive that Image:Vasylkivsky_cossacks_in_steppe.jpg is in the museum - my tour book shows the same image for the museum. The rest I can't confirm (so far). -asmadeus

Yes, the syntax error. I fixed it. There are more images to upload and add to the gallery from the list of sources in the end of the article. I think we should remove those we can't confirm. Cheers, --Irpen 18:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Soviet partisans

I already did explain what is wrong with that article, on numerous occasions and in a number of places, the talk page included. Nothing has changed ever since. Currently it presents only Soviet POV and as such is as far from neutrality as it gets. BTW, it seems it was you to make it look that way, so I wonder why is it so hard to accept an NPOV tag... After all you're an intelligent person and I bet you understand that when you present mostly Stalinist propaganda mixed with facts and legends, someone will come and tag such revelations. //Halibutt 23:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Halibutt, first og all thanks for your complements. Could you be a little more specific and avoid disruptive labeling the fellow editors? Best, yet, use the article's talk. Thanks, --Irpen 23:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Technical note

Please fix double redirects.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I would not worry. Bots will fix it soon enough. --Irpen 19:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

What's your take on this?

Hey, since you're a Ukrainian, I'd be interested to know your opinion about this: [21]. I think they overreacted a bit. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 00:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Just letting you know, I replied on my talk page on ukwiki, in case you don't check it often. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 07:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian Passport

Thanks for supporting me. Anyway, I just read this, and I was wondering, do you think the passport will have a RFID in it? (Biometric Passport) I think you might be able to research it a little more (non-Internet resources), but I'll do some research as well. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 09:22, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Might be worth mentioning if it includes RFID. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 09:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Maps

I scanned two maps, one of them of superficial, all-USSR coverage, comprising 1941-1944 (prepared in 1974), second of partisan units organisation and activities in Belarus (in 1941 borders), by the year and by the size (author is Manayenkaw (bel. Манаенкаў), this is the updated (c.1990s) variant of the same map (first variant prepared by him, too, in 1974)). First map I managed to squeeze down to the 1200K in indexed-color PNG 1280x~1900 pix. Second map I didn't yet process, possibly I'll do this tonight.

The question is how do we proceed from here on. It is reasonable guess that nobody in the publishing house would raise any trouble over the propagating of these maps (with proper attribution, anyway), indeed, on the present polit. tide we'd go with their blessings. Just that currently I don't need any additional rain on my parade here, and am reluctant to upload these to commons by myself. What do you suggest? Yury Tarasievich 12:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Advice needed

Hello Irpen. I liked the way we had a discussion on Sviatoslav. Neutral and to the point. I decided to talk to you on one matter, which can be linked to our previous discussion. The question is: are there any rules against adding external links to non-FA? The history of recent edits on Genealogy and its talk page shows that one of the editors treats it as his own page, just like protecting it altogether. Also, his style of writing comments is far from being polite. Please advise. --Stanley78 22:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Rodovid.

I have removed this link from Genealogy. The site is poorly managed, small, has no citation procedures or expectations, and cannot even get correct it's featured links. If and when the site restructures to have some semblance of scholarship, we can see about re-adding it. ThuranX 00:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC) further, I see above this waas done after a complaint from Stanley78. I made it clear to him too that the link is unwelcome, and explained at length that the fact that Che Guevara, a well documented famous person from the modern era, was attributed with children born 20 yeas after his death demonstrates that the site is non-notable and doesn't warrant inclusion. The currently discussed Wikia.org projects, however, are linked there, and should stay. Unfortunately, there are dozens of Wiki-engine trees out there. to include all would be a list of links, undesirable on wikipedia, and so We should wait until WIkia finds a viable solution. ThuranX 00:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I have written two times already, now is the third time: all of Che's children were born before he died and this can be seen from his family tree. Those added as born after 1980 are his grandchildren, two generations after Che. Try to read the tree. Thanks. --Stanley78 08:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of Kyiv

Hi there! I am a linguist by profession. I have materials to support the point of changing the spelling of Kyiv in Wikipedia from the current "Kiev". I just need time to arrange everything with all the citations and facts. My question is whether this drive would find supporters? --Stanley78 19:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm in. You'll probably find plenty of users that would support you. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 01:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Care to comment?

Needs no explanation--Kuban Cossack 00:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The parties identified in the decision as having acted poorly in the dispute regarding Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 are admonished to avoid such behavior in the future. That article is placed on probation, and any editor may be banned from it, or from other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, inciviilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and the right to review the situation in one year, if appropriate. The parties are strongly encouraged to enter into a mediation arrangement regarding any article-content issues that may still be outstanding. If the article is not substantially improved by continued editing, the Arbitration Committee may impose editing restrictions on users whose editing is counterproductive or disruptive. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :). A small piece of trivia is that myself and Vecrumba, the parties that were actually arguing were not identified in the list of the users to be admonished and lightly sanctioned were the innocent onlookers who came in to help us. A sadder part is that those users were admonished for not so much out of the way remarks (and I feel this unfair). The discussion was somewhat robust but nowhere near the threshold and a few outbursts were nowhere near the level of general disruption, where NPA and CIV policies should kick in.

Also, disapointing, is that the whole case was merely a giant waste of time that did not solve anything, as I predicted in my statement. Hopefully, the article can be changed/split/rewritten/renamed now and if editors spent time on that rather than on the arbitration page, it could have been half-way done, by now. Hopefully this can happen now. Cheers, --Irpen 23:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

City template

Dear Irpen, as I known you are usually a voice of reason, can I ask you to take a look at the discussion on User_talk:TAG.Odessa#Re:_template and tell me if I'm being unreasonable? Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, thanks for lending your voice. About the Russian names ... am I wrong to see their absence from the template as a flaw? I ain't trying to support "Russian imperialism", but make wiki informative. Surely wiki can't ignore the fact that Russian is the indigenous language of eastern and most of the southern Ukraine, and is used to some extent by most Ukrainians. No? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration re: Abu badali

Hi. I am writing you because you were one of the respondants on the RfC about Abu badali that was started back in November. There has been no substantive comment there for over a month and User:Abu badali has never bothered to respond to the RfC. The last comment on the talk page of the RfC was a suggestion to take it to arbitration, which is what I propose we do. Accordingly, I have created a shell/draft listing to add to the list of Arbitration Committee matters here. I've listed your new there, preliminarily, as a complaintant. If you are not interested in participating, please remove your name. If you are, please add your comments as we must prepare a 500 word summary of the case. Thanks for your attention - Jord 15:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Red Army Atrocities

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

Thank you

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

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

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

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

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

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