User talk:Ghirlandajo/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


If it is, for some reason, difficult for you to tell different East Slavic languages from each other, you may wish to read a few verses of the chronicle, or, if you prefer, the introduction that accompanies it, to learn what kind of events does the the chronicle describe and where did its author live. Or, you may wish to read about it in some monography, such as the excellent Zapadno-russkie letopisi. Or, you may simply google for Byhovca, or perhaps even Byhovca site:ru, and read what does the top link have to say about it.

I would appreciate it if, in the future, you could apply one of my suggestions before classifying other works of Ruthenian literature. Thank you. -- Naive cynic 21:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Etymology of Rus and derivatives[edit]

Stop removing content, or you will be blocked for vandalism.--Wiglaf 09:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Stop shameless POV-pushing, or you will be reported. You may use the Swedish wiki for promoting your nationalism, but this is international encyclopedia, so you should be aware that the NPOV policies apply here. --Ghirlandajo 10:07, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Mass deletions of content is not NPOV, it is vandalism.--Wiglaf 10:10, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Deletions of POV-pushing addition to the long established NPOV article is restoring NPOV. If you add information illustrating one point of view, you should ass as much infomration illustrating the other. Otherwise, your actions will be classified as nationalistic POV-pushing. --Ghirlandajo 10:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
I would add info on the anti-normanist theory if there was anything to add. Sadly, evidence is strangely lacking.--Wiglaf 10:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
You might have noticed that I don't interefere with articles on Swedish history, although I mig ht have cited much unflattering stuff pertaining to your country. So please let the articles on Russian history to the Russians. --Ghirlandajo 10:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Dear Ghirlandajo, could you explain why the presence of foreigners in Russian history is unflattering?--Wiglaf 10:22, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
Dear Wiglaf, where did I say that the presence of foreigners in Russian history is unflattering? I just said that it is hardly constructive to flood the articles on Russian history with Russophobic interpretations. --Ghirlandajo 10:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
What exactly is Russophobic in what I have written?--Wiglaf 10:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)


Have you started the article? It currently redirects to Ukrainian language. Let me know. Sashazlv 00:10, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I redirected it to Ukr. L. and explained at talk. Check history. I plan to address the issue soon. I explained my actions at talk in detail. --Irpen 00:13, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I agree with your recent comment at Russification article. The difference is though that Russification article starts with an acceptable definition, and I actually think your new definition is better. Also the article has some factual info. Even if presented with biased view, removal of factual info to a redirect actually reduces WP. I would welcome an objective broad definiton of Ukrainization as a start for a new article. In fact, I am trying to think of it right now. I am worried about the problem with sources, as I said at talk, but we should be able to handle it with time. --Irpen 06:50, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Inveterate Russophobe ?[edit]

Despite your calling me "Russophobe" I don't have anything against Russians. OTOH, I've seen your edits on several Lithuanian articles already before, and was under the impression that you were presenting quite a nationalistic POV, so I was not suprised by your last edits on Russification. I would however like to ask you again to disscuss your controversial edits before actually introducing them. Threatening ("if you want edit war on Lithuanian articles, you'll get it") is not actually what I meant when I asked for discussion and this is not something that will help your case. Cheers, --Lysy (talk) 21:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

The only Lithuanian articles I recall having written are those on Galindians, Gedyminas and Svitrigaila, and these haven't been acussed of POV as yet. Anyway, I'm tired of contributing articles on the most glorious persons of Lithuanian history, while ethnic Lithuanians are busy slandering Russians in the articles on modern Russia. Perhaps, instead of obstinately revising Russification you'd better pay more attention to Algirdas? --Ghirlandajo 21:41, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but why are you telling me which articles should I be editing ? And what's wrong with Algirdas ? --Lysy (talk) 22:36, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
Since I pasted most of it from EB 1911 last year, there was no attention from Lithuanian editors at all. --Ghirlandajo 14:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

It's okay[edit]

Sorry if I were brusque about that article: I had much trouble fighting the Russophobes at Russification that day. I didn't know that the military series were compilations, to boot. You should know that your work is appreciated. And thanks for the award, too ;)) --Ghirlandajo 21:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

No you were fine. Hell, I was just tired - so I got the info of the History of Russia series. Man, after uploading all those images and stuff you kind of want to get it all done quickly. Molotov (talk) California state flag.png 21:28, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Siege of Smolensk[edit]

As for this battle, I saw that it was listed by you at RU-portal for a while now. It's just that it is unlikely that anyone but you or KNewman will get to it soon. Also, check your gmail inbox. I left you a message there. Poka, --Irpen 19:33, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a "Russian Orthodox Encyclopaedia"[edit]

Please stop pushing Russian Orthodox POV to the articles. Please pay attention that canonicity

  • is viewed somewhat differently by Orthodox and Catholic Churches;
  • is not recognized by Protestant Churches;
  • is not recognized by most of people in the wold that are not Cristian at all.

Please read WP:NPOV carefully.

NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view.

Please pay attention that pushing Orthodox POV is against the WP policies.--AndriyK 14:07, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Andriy, I twice moved your notice to the appropriate talk page and answered you there. If you wish to restore it on my talk, let it be, but I wish to draw you attention to the fact that it's for me to edit my talk page in the way I find convenient. --Ghirlandajo 15:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
My comment concerns your edits of several articles. So the right place is your talk page.--AndriyK 17:00, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
If you think G's edits violate policy in general or are in bad faith, his talk and especially policy pages are appropriate for that but you should be specific and show what violations are the user makes systemically. For article's disputes, article's talk are better since it is viewed by a larger number of conserned editors. --Irpen 17:18, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
My comment is addressed to Ghirlandajo, not to "a larger number of conserned editors".--AndriyK 17:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

For the completeness of the contexts may I add the link to User_talk:AndriyK#Wikipedia_is_not here? --Irpen 15:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediation concerning St Volodymyr's Cathedral[edit]

I propose to ask for official mediation to resolve the dispute concerning St Volodymyr's Cathedral article. Whould you agree?--AndriyK 18:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC) Why don't you answer?--AndriyK 09:59, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Please answer. If you do not have any interest to the discussion. please inform us so that we could start the mediation procedure without you.--AndriyK 11:00, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


Halibutt's RfA[edit]

Dear Ghirlandajo. I believe there was some misunderstanding about my comment at Knyaz's talk page. I explained the situation at my RfA page and I hope you will read it. In reality I actually defended your contribution to wikipedia. You surely have your ways and your POV, just like I have mine. Your frequent problems with other editors not willing to accept your edits is a proof of that. At the same time you make tons of great contributions and write lots of articles on things or people barely anyone would think of (or know of), not to mention have enough knowledge to write articles on them. That's what I wrote and that's what I believe. I did not encourage anyone to revert anyone's edits, and I'm sorry that you assumed that. Encouraging people to be bold is not equal to encouraging them to revert others.

You don't have to love me, but please do not assume my bad will where there was none. Halibutt 01:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Halibutt, my opinion of you has been steadily growing since you started addressing my concerns. Anyway, you should agree that it's not for nothing that Russian articles here are reasonably NPOV, whereas the Polish segment is brimming with nationalism. Wikipedia is not a suitable place to assert your collective sense of historical injustice. --Ghirlandajo 11:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to disapoint you, but - please don't be offended - I don't trust your judgment when it comes to Polish-Russian disputes. You are a valuable contributor on neutral issues, as your help with that fortress proves - but you seem to have a fairly strong nationalistic Russian POV. That's good - it helps you spot some real anti-russian bias and edit it out - but that also means you tend to see attacks where they are none, and often go against the true NPOV (at least, as I see it - and I of course have my own bias). That Halibutt is supported by such users as 172, Mikkalai or Michael Z. proves to me that he is not anti-russian, but if he doesn't meet your criteria - well, you are entitled to your POV. All things consider I do believe that on this issue we will have to agree to disagree on this issue. Best regards, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Piotrus, you should really start addressing Wiglaf's (and my) concerns as to your regular unblocking of hysterical Molobo. It appears tlike you attempt to construct a network of admins pushing a nationalist Polish agenda, with the power of unblocking each other and your crony Molobo. --Ghirlandajo 11:14, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Ghirlandajo, your comment right below mine shows that, unfortunately, we speak at two different levels. It's not that anyones' is higher or anything, it's that simply I try to talk about concrete examples while you talk about your own feelings. Note that I cannot dispute your feelings or make you change them as I do not know them. On the contrary, I could discuss specific issues if you were kind enough as to list them.
Having said that, I don't agree that Russian articles are in general NPOV and I do not agree that Polish ones are POV either. Such remarks are simply too general. Tell me what articles you have in mind and we could start speaking seriously. Otherwise it would be a loss of time, both for you. Halibutt 17:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Halibutt, when opposing your adminship, I thought I would be the first and only one to do so, given a scope and quality of your contributions to the Polish segment. No that I see your nomination opposed by a much larger number of editors that I thought feasible, I really doubt if you deserve all this. Perhaps it's not so bad when so many editors know you and have their opinion on your editing. If you're interested to know my opinion, I believe the current situation arose from you and Piotrus not being careful enough to dissociate yourselves from the trolls who disrupt normal functioning of this project, such as puerile Molobo, a tireless revert warrior Space Cadet, and Witkacy with his paranoic Black Book. There is no need for great editors like you and Piotr to connive their trolling just because they are ethnically Polish. Look, I don't connive Nixer on the basis of his living in Moscow. Whatever the result of current voting, I hope that the lessons will be learned and I don't think I would oppose your nomination the next time it surfaces. --Ghirlandajo 11:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
yep, there is no guilt by association, unless you do, intentionally, associate yourself with people. All the fools are not in the other camp, and to have a fool in your own camp is a predicament, you have to show that the foolishness is not inherent in the position. dab () 13:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the wishes, Ghirlandajo. However, I got an impression that they were a tad double-faced. After all some of the arguments you still hold against me are quite bizarre. For instance, you hold that being of the same nationality as another wikipedian is my guilt. Sorry, but I cannot do much about it. I was born 24 years ago, other wikipedians were also born quite some time ago and there's little we can do about their nationality. If Molobo offended you in any way - it should be treated as an argument against his nomination, not mine.
Also, you still hold that the fact that you took my comment out of context or simply did not understand it (Talk:Russophobia) is an argument against me. You continue to quarrel about Talk:Ostashkov, even if it was you not to be able to use the talk page, and not me. You continue to claim that the conflict was about expansion of that article and not about deletion of parts of the text which seemed important to all who took part in the discussion. You continue to claim that I duplicated my contribution by placing it in both articles on Ostashkov and Stolbnyi Island, eventhough I never edited the latter article in my whole life. You continue to state that some of your invitations to the voting displeased me while I clearly explained this to be untrue. You continue to claim that I asked User:Knyaz to revert you (thus assuming my bad will) whereas I explained that you're wrong on that one. Sure, you apologized Aegis for wrongly calling him someone's sock puppet, but not at the page where you offended him and people can still see your offence there. You continue to claim that there is something wrong with my behaviour since I do not find Knyaz a sockpuppet of anyone or never had any interest in that. You still believe that our usage of Polish at our talk pages is something wrong eventhough you have always had an option to ask for translation - or ask us to use English only. In fact when you noted that I promised to use English only, yet you still hold that one against me (eventhough it's perfectly in accordance with wiki rules)...
So, allow me to note that your wishes of best luck are somehow similar to Best luck, you vandal, conspirator, revert-war-proponent, bad-will-assuming andsockpuppet-supporter, which is not what I would like to hear on my 2nd anniversary here. Halibutt 23:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Also, the fact that you continue to accuse me of various, mostly false things on many wikipedians' talk pages make me think that your comment on my talk page was some kind of a joke only. Halibutt 02:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


hi Ghirlandajo -- note that I didn't block Nixer. User:Angr did. I did, however, voice support for the block. I agree that Nixer is a rather annoying editor, and quite unlikely to ever make any contributions that will make worthwhile the bother everybody has with putting up with him. But that's Wikipedia. The really good contributors are hardly noticed at all, and the useless ones grab everyone's attention. dab () 10:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


well, I do not care much whether his trolling du jour is done on Germany or on Russia related articles, or on Mickey Mouse related articles, for that matter (I couldn't care less about Gdansk vs. Danzig or the flag of Macedonia, but I have to recognize that some people do care a lot). I have seen some very nasty varieties of Slavic nationalism on Wikipedia, and I realize there will be no end of fools, so it cannot be our purpose to educate them or make friends with them, you'll get two fresh ones for every one tamed or banned. What we do need is an efficient way to protect Wikipedia from all this nationalist mudslinging with as little side-effects as possible. There will still be some effort involved in each case. You cannot do an RFAr without going through an RfC first, and you will have to compile evidence in any case. My recommendation is that you drum up people involved with Molobo, so that they may collaborate in compiling an overview of events. Only then will I actually be able to form my own judgement of how bad this case really is. If I get the impression from the RfC that the case is sufficiently serious, I may well press an RfAr myself. From the descriptions I get, Molobo is a particularly bad case, because he is intelligent. You would think it difficult to be blindly nationalistic and intelligent at the same time, but history tells us it is possible. Most nationalist trolls I've had to deal with so far were almost pitifully stupid, they just kept running their heads against the wall until they got tired (some sooner, some later; Nixer is persistent, but he doesn't make enough sense for me to decide if he is motivated by some weird flavour of nationalism, or just by voices in his head). If an intelligent editor uses his intelligence not to strive for fairness and factual completeness, but to play mind games with other editors, it will show up eventually. I hope you will succeed in compiling an overview of evidence that will make clear why everyone is so upset about this particular case. dab () 13:34, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks[edit]

I've noticed your recent edits at Russian architecture and its talk page. Please do not resort to personal attacks (like calling others racists, vandals, mad, etc.) Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users." Please keep this is mind while editing. Thanks, Dmcdevit·t 08:51, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

While I wholeheartedly support your message on the need of civilty in wikidiscourse, I actually don't remember making any recent edits on Russian architecture. The article was written by me from first line to the last and then was subjected to attacks of trolls who started deleting the whole passages from it. What you call edits were only reverts of their deletions.
AndriyK and his friends from are revert warriors: they haven't contributed a single article themselves, but they endlessly vandalize the articles written by me - take a look at Oleg of Chernihiv, Mikhail of Chernihiv, etc. If you want a complete summary of their offenses, read my two notices on User_talk:Tony Sidaway. Take care, Ghirlandajo 12:37, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
In particular, the examples citd above: "restored deletions by a racist," "rv vandalism: if you continue messing the article with its talk page, you will be reported!" "Andrew, you are raving mad." These are all unacceptable. And I don't know who you thought you were going to "report" him to, but empty threats are not good. Jost don't do any of it. And please don't remove my comments right after I leave them, too. Dmcdevit·t 20:31, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
It seems like you obstinately refuse to follow what was actually happening there. Andrew left the following message at the start of the *article*: Please note, the Russian editors continue to claim that the architecture of Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, somehow belongs to Russia. This is inflamatory, unjustified, and definitely not a neutral point of view. Please see NPOV.
Then I reverted, noting that I "rv vandalism: if you continue messing the article with its talk page, you will be reported!" [1] Where do you see any personal attack there? I was commenting on the content and not the person. The text of the article is not a proper place for discussion of its editors, or do you think otherwise?
Finally, I have the full right to edit my talk page as I think appropriate. I may blank it if I find it necessary. Upon answering your comment on your talk page, I moved your notice to the archive. I hope that you will be more careful with your comments in the future. --Ghirlandajo 20:56, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
There is no way "Andrew, you are raving mad" can not be a personal attack, and you conveniently forgot to mention that. And characterizing someone else's edits as vandalism, when they clearly aren't, just a difference of opinion (however misguided), is incivil. Go look at Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. You just can't defend incivility. I am asking you to stop. You are free to do what you want to your talk page, but that doesn't make it impolite to delete the message, especially if I want to respond. Dmcdevit·t 22:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't you ever write anything like that again[edit]

Dear Russian Wikifellow, apart from your highly-questionnable edits, I should kindly ask you:

don't you ever write anything like that:

you may use Halychian name in Lviv; leave Chernigov to Chernigovians

This passage is so jingoistic and ungrounded, that it definitely fits the criteria for Trollism. I'll do my best to prove it if you proceed with your provokative notes. As long as you write such things, Ukraine-informed readers would never consider if Andriy's is wrong - because you're his ultimate excuse. Worst wishes, AlexPU 20:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

  • AlexPU, I want to draw your attention to the fact that our combined contributions to Wikipedia combine is a small fraction of the Ghirlandajo's ones, that is true particulary in the field of history and culture of Ukraine. I am sure, your bright talents would soon change the situation to the opposite, but your criticism would look more credible if you would show some respect meanwhile.
  • I do not see the idea of democracy (and in particular the idea of Cherni[gov]/[hiv]ians determining the name of their city) to be partiular jingoistic. Can you elaborate? abakharev 22:14, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I think Alex Bakharev is another Troll, provoking me to repeat thesises dozens of times mentioned above, and waist my time on it. AlexPU 22:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Let's put aside my bright talents. I'm no subject of the issue since several Wikipedians reflect and "elaborate" the same view for months. Respectively, if all Ghirlandajo's contributions pose the same propagovandalism that I-think-he-shows on Ukraine-related pages, - I say put aside his contributions too. And I'm not going to use my talents (or whatever mine) to exceed other users by number of edits. Что ты меня числом давишь, Алекс? Это не по-мужски... Если у кого-то больше времени и Интернет-ресурса для ВП, так его точка зрения "правее"? Или если до сих пор энциклопедисты не самоорганизовались его исключить за пропаганду, так он святой? Ну так мы это исправим... AlexPU 22:58, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Nina Rostanski, non-notable bios and AfD[edit]

Hi. Two quick things:
1) Have a look at WP:CSD to see what to do with pages like the one mentioned above, i.e. {{nn-bio}}. These are very usefull!
B) When nominating something for AfD, it's better to make a short paragraph explaining why rather than using the bullet point and saying "delete". I'm aware that for a very short time the instructions said the opposite, but this was quickly changed.
brenneman(t)(c) 01:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Link to a disambig page[edit]

The article Yaroslav II of Russia is linked to the disambig-page Galich. It seems that Galich, Russia is ment there. Am I right?--AndriyK 09:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The Death of Ivan Ilyich question[edit]

Just curious, do you happen to remember the source of the sentence "The novella was acclaimed by Vladimir Nabokov and Mahatma Ghandi as the greatest in the whole of Russian literature."? --AySz88^-^ 04:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

As I already noted on your talk page (where did the comment go..?), I seriously doubt your intentions are as clear as you state. Having said that, and considering your unfriendly and provocative behaviour during my RfA, I seriously doubt you would support my candidacy - ever (which of course is not a great problem for me). In fact I said during my RfA that I shall not re-apply and would most certainly not like you to be the person to nominate me. Halibutt 11:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, the Mongolian invasion was terrible disaster for inhabitants of Russia (or Rus')[edit]

Dear Andrey,

The Mongol invasion was catastrophic, almost all cities (Kiev, Vladimir, Rayzan, Suzdal etc) have been destroyed, their inhabitants have died. That's fact. Please read the notes of wandering monk Plano Carpini.

About half of Russian population was lost during the invasion. The advanced city culture practically has been completely destroyed. Construction of buildings from a stone has stopped on two hundred years. The Country of Cities, Gardarika as it was named by Scandinavians-Varangians, has disappeared.

Russians who left southern Russia to escape the Mongols gravitated mostly to the northeast, in forest region between northern Volga and Oka. In new region of dwelling soils were poor, the climate is colder and trading ways were under the control of a horde. The exit to sea has been lost. Please visit region of northern Volga and compare it to region of Dnieper (former Kievan Rus).

After 1480 Russia continued to be at war against successors of Golden Horde, the Tatar hordes.

The Crimean Khanate and the Nogai-Tatar hordes wandering from Irtysh to Danube were successors of Golden Horde.

Until the 18th century the Russian state (as well as the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth) suffered of Tatar invasions, the goal of which was to loot, pillage and capture slaves. (See Tatar Invasions).

The Mongolian invasion cannot be named the positive phenomenon. As well as the Second World War. First of all because both events were accompanied by mass killing of people and huge material destructions.

Development of technology accompanying destructive war is already absolutely other theme.

Citation. "But some historians agree that Kievan Rus' was not a homogeneous political, cultural, or ethnic entity and that the Mongols merely accelerated a fragmentation that had begun before the invasion. "

All medieval states (France, England, Germany, Italy) are not homogeneous. Why do you think, that the Mongolian yoke has divided Kievan Rus in the most reasonable and logical way?

(source: Vasily Klyuchevsky, "The course of russian History").

Ben-Velvel 12:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC), editor of Science-Pop, St.Petersburg

p.s. I am sorry, I have loaded my version before discussion, but that is small additions only...

Retrieved from ""