Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:04, 19 December 2005

• 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

Wikiportal:Ukraine

I like it! One question: you mentioned boards on my talk page... where are they? mno

Just look at several windows at the portal. In one window at the right-hand side you will see "new article announcement board" and "Ukraine-related Misplaced Pages notice board". Also, use Portal's own talk page to discuss portal itself. Add all these to your watchlist. Feel free to update any window and, especially, current news. Finally, don't be afraid to screw up. Anything can be easily reverted by you or anyone else. Regards, --Irpen July 7, 2005 05:33 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages talk:Wikiportal/Ukraine re double edit. Sashazlv 7 July 2005 06:46 (UTC)

Russian tsarinas

regarding the names of tsarinas of Russia: if from abroad, they changed their first name, such as Wilhelmina became Natalia Alexeievna, etc. Now, Misplaced Pages has certain rules that the so-called consort name is not to be used, because of several persons being e.g Empress Maria Fedorovna. And that a pre-marital name should be used. But I feel that it is acceptable to make a formulation "Natalia Alexeievna of Darmstadt" (the "of Darmstadt" being for disambiguation purposes) instead of using "Wilhelmina of Darmstadt". Now, as there are plenty of Germanist and anglicist opinions, I would like to know some of international opinion as well as of Russian opinion. In other words, I am asking you to think whether from the perspective a Russian, (1) would it be acceptable to say "Natalia Alexeievna of Darmstadt" and (2) would that be better or worse than "Wilhelmina of Darmstadt". 62.78.105.68 08:50, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the talk page for Alexandra, I'm trying to get a policy discussion going on this; there are several other options besides the ones suggested above. Please consider visiting this talk page and endorsing one of the options, or adding one of your own. Thanks! Choess 01:05, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

I tried to find article about Alexandra Fyodorovna of Hesse (wife of Nicholas II, not of Nicholas I) in the Russian wikipedia, but I did not find such article. Could you check whether any such exists? If yes or no, it would anyway be nice to have the English article to have interwiki link to her Russian aricle (please create such article if it does not yet exist in russian wp). 217.140.193.123 19:58, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Alexandras

Please kindly check Alexandra Romanova - welcome to comment. 217.140.193.123 00:36, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Exquisite icons

My main problem with describing the Theotokos of Vladimir as one of the most exquisite icons created is that it sounds like an opinion on the part of the article's author -- something we generally steer clear of. Could we source it, do you think? It's certainly exquisite, so it should be no problem finding someone of note and reputation who says so. Philip Arthur 06:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you. I will look/ask around. Thanks and please don't take our disagreement over an article name personally. As I said there, I consider all religious topics with outmost respect. As I said at talk:Theotokos of Vladimir, I just think that "Theotocos of ..." is not the best way to name the article. The word can certainly be introduced in the very first sentence and redirect from it will not be deleted. Anyway, we'll see how and when the consensus emerges. --Irpen 06:33, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Re your e-mail

In principle, I agree. Editors must use their resources efficiently. Changing name ordering for its own sake is a waste of scarce time.

However, such a policy may be hard (if at all possible) to enforce. There are too few people who work on Ukrainian articles. And such people may be more productive if they spend time elsewhere rather than check whether other users voluntarily follow the policy.

So, don't worry too much about it. Reasonable people will follow the policy. And there's nothing we can do about unreasonable users. Sashazlv 15:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

This would not be a policy, strictly speaking. Rather a kind of ethics code, which I hope others would join. I will drop a note at the portal once I formulate it and post. Maybe you don't remember a Kijow/Kiev wars (preceeded by even hotter Kiev/Kyiv) wars, but there is some discussion still at talk there. But if even Kamianets-Podilskyi's recent edits consisted of 4-5 changing, adding and rearranging names, that spell a global East European sickness. One thing is Varshava in Warsaw or Kijow in Kiev. But K.-P. was the last straw. I will see whether others will agree. This won't be enforceable, because it is not a WP policy anyway. But there are so many excellent editors in Ru- and PL-portals, that getting their help in UA-articles would bring many improvements. Cheers, --Irpen 16:11, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Take it easy. A few hours ago they renamed Yuliya Tymoshenko to Yulia Tymoshenko. I just added a footnote that there is an alternative spelling of the first name.

Regarding the wars. I don't have time to participate in such discussions. Just add a footnote, and everyone would be happy. Sashazlv 05:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

PBW talks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kostomarov

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kiev Offensive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allow me

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

Hero of the Russian Federation

Do you think we could make this Featured, with some work? Zach (Sound Off) 04:34, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it might be possible but I am not sure it would be easy to get all the material together. Maybe it's worthy to ask at the Portal. I could try if you would like me to. --Irpen 04:42, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

That is fine and finding the material could be easy. I did some searching before, and I knew that some awardings were done in a shady/illegal fashion. The Russians also have some numbers up of how many people got the title. Though, I will check the presidental archives for photos. Zach (Sound Off) 04:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

I began to work on it now, how is everything I have done so far? I also wish to know about how many awards (approx) were awarded for deeds performed in the Chechnya conflict. Zach (Sound Off) 07:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I also found this article: http://2005.novayagazeta.ru/nomer/2005/01n/n01n-s08.shtml. I know that there have been some problems with the title being awarded, so we could highlight this. Zach (Sound Off) 07:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I was not editing for some days. I will look into it. Thanks! --Irpen 05:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

It's alright, I started on it and moved the list of heroes to . Zach (Sound Off) 06:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Phobia or incompetence?

Dear editor, before going into any quick accusation, I suggest you take a broader look at my contributions and discussions at talk pages. If you do not tone this down, it would make more difficult for us to work together on the articles of mutual interest. If you continue your attacks, there can harldy be any discussion. I hope you reconsider your remark and retract it before I will have time to try to work out the articles you changed. --Irpen 19:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear Irpen, I invite you to answer some questions about L'viv on Talk:Lviv --Gutsul

Dear anon, I will get to your questions at talk:Lviv. It was my intention anyway. May I ask you to sign in? If you are indeed a uk:User:Gutsul, may I suggest you register as en:User:Gutsul as this username is still available? Otherwise, I can't be sure who is leaving me messages since anyone can paste any signature link.

Also, I would feel much more comfortable talking to you if you retract your disgusting remark above with or without an apology (the latter is entirely up to you). Please be sure to check my user page and contributions. If after that you still view my work as "Українофобія" and "поганити статті про україську мову, культуру, історію ..." it will sadden me a little but I won't loose my sleep over it.

Also, I don't mind to communicate in Ukrainian but not on my public talk page since this is also for the others to see the discussions. Feel free to email me in Ukrainian using "E-mail this user" link. I will respond with an email address and we can discuss all you want. I sincerely hope we will end up working together in good faith in the future and I certainly welcome more editors in Ukrainian topics. You may also want to check my message at user talk:AndriyK. ---Irpen 03:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi, i don't view your work as "Українофобія" and you can delete this paragraph afterwards. So, please, excuse my if i hurt your feelings. I have written "Українофобія?" which means that i was not sure about your goals. I analyzed your contributions and have found some things which can be classified as anti-ukrainian propaganda (for instance: "Ukrainian language is underdeveloped"). If you write in English[REDACTED] about Ukraine you should use not only russian (ex USSR) sources but also ukrainian and english one. I advise you to read Encyclopedia of Ukraine, works of ukrainian historian Mykhailo Hrushevsky. History of Ukraine is very difficult and has a lot of "gray zones". You should understand that english-talking users to 95% have no knowledge about Ukraine and can't check your information. English[REDACTED] is already arena of russian-ukrainian information war and i don't like it.

Good luck! --Gutsul 09:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Gutsul, this phrase in UA-L article was not originally written by me as you can find if you check the article's history. I objected to it's wholesale deletion, true, because it brings in some information (about lack of encouragement), perhaps not in the best way. If it was rephrased, I wouldn't mind that. In fact, I ended up rephrasing this myself.

You may be surprised to find that my edits were called sometimes on WP as "Ukrainization of the articles" and "russophobic", which would not have been the case if I was writing from Russian and ex-Soviet POV. In fact, I've seen this all on WP and this broad spectrum of self-contradictory accusations proves that I am neither. Your remark was indeed very unpleasant because I was trying to present Ukraine the best I could and got this in response from a Ukrainian. I do use the online Encyclopedia of Ukraine (see in Baturyn for example), Hrushevsky, Polonska-Vasilenko, Kostomarov (whose article I started myself BTW) and others.

English Misplaced Pages is not an area of RU-UA wars for quite some months and I do like it. Occasional excesses are quickly and politely corrected since there were no strong nationalists from either side for a while. I will not delete your remark. As a matter of principle I never delete anything from my talk. Let it stay. I am now fine with it once you retracted it. I hope we will get more contributors to Ukrainian topics here. Please join in if you have time from ua-wiki. Всього найкращого! --Irpen 09:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a propaganda machine

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

Couldn't agree more... Halibutt 09:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You both must really have guts to say this. I mean that's funny who's talking about propaganda machine. --Irpen 14:46, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, it simply seems that providing no sources when asked to is nothing uncommon in your modus operandi. Or am I wrong? (BTW, no offence intended, just a friendly note). Halibutt 22:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, you may turn this into an ethics dispute if you want. I would only welcome you or this fellow to start an RfC against me to expose your unsourced POV pushing and my attempt to resist that to which you respond with personal attacks. As for your "no offence", I take everything you said at the face value and I am capable to figure out your intentions from what you say rather than from what you claim you are saying. --Irpen 22:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I merely pointed to the fact that, apparently, I'm not the only person to ask you for sources - as politely as I could - and not the onbly person you ignored, contrary to the good ol' Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and Misplaced Pages:Cite sources rules. If you take it as an offence - I can't do much about it, can I. Halibutt 01:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt, how many times do I have to say that this is not about sources. This is about the liberty you take to interprete them and derive conclusions you favor that are just not there. And never have I "ignored". If you refuse to see the answers repeated so many times, I can't do much about it, can I? We can only wait for others to agree or disagree whether the answers to your and my conserns are adequate. Those "others" didn't show up for a while. Still no reason to beleive that the dispute was somehow solved by itself. As for your claimed "politeness" the article's talk page speaks for that. But as for "offence", if I were so easily offended, I would not be able to be at Misplaced Pages. We all have seen worse than that. It is not for thin-skinned to edit history articles. You should see AndriyK's language he used and even that didn't make me loose my sleep. --Irpen 02:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

it is easy to figure percentage of speakers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you lying?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ru Pravda

Dear Irpen! Sorry if I chose the wrong words for expressing my frustration with AndriyK's behavior. I didn't mean to hurt anybody's feelings. It's just that I've seen a lot of stuff done to a few of my articles that deal with Ukraine's people or geography in one way or another, so I decided to stay away from such topics. I appreciate your hard work in the Russian Portal! Keep it up and see you there. KNewman 05:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

If it wasn't done by AndriyK lately, it was probably done by people who aren't on WP for months. Were there any recent incidents? I would love to see more Russian editors helping at UA-portal. In fact I called for that repeatedly as well as to Polish boards. With a few exceptions we never had serious conflicts. If you can, please do contribute to Ukrainian articles. --Irpen 06:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Ukraine related topics

Irpen, I would try to support you, although my knowledge of Ukrainian history is mostly limited to Soviet schoolbooks, and discourse is mostly the imperialistic one. I like your edits better, thou I am not sure if it is the right way to weed out all the Polish names from the cities that were Polish. Would it hurt that much if we would add the third (Polish) name in the first string if they want it so badly? abakharev 09:47, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

No it would not always hurt. It will help in some and would hurt in some other cases. I will explain later, have to go now. Thanks --Irpen 09:52, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your explanations, OK, lets go into the edit war abakharev 11:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear maffiosi, I don't think the edit war is a lasting solution. Perhaps it's time to discuss Andriy's disruptive policies at the Administrators' notice board? During his stint in the Wiki, he didn't contribute anything valuable but spelling reverts and personal attacks on other editors. May we ask to ban him? --Ghirlandajo 14:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

We may ask to ban him but, as I told him at his talk page, I was trying to avoid it as much as I could. He violated 3RR multiple times and I showed it to him warning that he may get banned but I never actually proceeded in listing him for banning. Besides, after 24-48 hour ban he will be back even more aggravated and will continue his crusade with even more rigor. He may also find ways to circumvent 3RR or simply stay just under it and this pain will go on.

On the other hand, IMO he've done enough for the full-blown arbitration, which may result in a longer ban. If anyone would want to compile an arbitration case, I will comment on it. But as of yet, I would not start it myself. Several people are trying to talk to him and I hope he would listen. But if nothing changes, he will en up banned for sure. --Irpen 04:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I think your position is fine. Just one question, is it absolutely, positively provent that OUN authorized the Lvov pogrom and it was not a spontaneus action? If its not 100% proven, we might add some NPOV hedging, like most of the scolars believe..., etc., not just blankly link the pogrom to OUN. abakharev 06:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there are differences of opinions on this. The article provides references that support both versions and both should be mentioned. I explained that some of the sources brought up by this user are controversial but this is no reason to totally dismiss them. What I oppose is that the user simply blanks from the article a sourced version he doesn't like. --Irpen 01:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Survey_guidelines#Fixing_giant_loopholes

The debate has restarted, your input would be much appreciated, as the discussed propoasal is the one incorporating your previous suggestions and comments. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Copyvio.

Thanks for spotting that...must have reverted in between when I viewed the page and when I protected it :) Ral315 W_S 22:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on maidanua.org

Hi, I've read that discussion with some interest. Your characterization as "User Irpen is a very cunning, ingenious, and stubborn troll." ("Користувач Irpen - дуже хитрий, винахідливий і наполегливий троль.") was especially amusing. What can I say - ці западенці зовсім з глузду з'їхали. Maybe, not all of them, but a significant proportion for sure. Sashazlv 01:43, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Now you are in danger too :). But seriously, it just hurts. Really, I mean you probably saw what was going on in en-Wiki and had no time to interfere. I took it upon myself to deal with this and I am getting all the heat now. :(. And now this slander. I tried all I can to talk to user AndriyK. I was accused in Ukrayinophobia by someone else who retracted it and we are even having a decent correspondance now. But I just don't want to leave something to which I gave so much time. Just check my recent edit history to get a clue. Well, anyway, if I stay I might need help. If you have time, just try to talk to these new people if you can't participate in editing for the lack of time. I tried and I am getting this. Michael tried too. He was not cursed (perhaps because he has an orange ribbon on his page :)). Still, he was just ignored. I don't know. If this goes on, we need to engage new editors in productive editing or repell this attack. Or leave ourselves. But this is the last thing I want to do... --Irpen 02:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I understand it was very offensive. But you shouldn't worry too much - there are always crazy people out there.

And how do we know he is not paid for what he does? It may be a form of an information war strategy. Similar to specifically hired participants in popular forums, like pravda.com.ua or inosmi.ru. They often pick an active user and start dumping sh-t on him. You would be quite a natural choice.

I posted a note to him: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:AndriyK#Discussion_at_maidanua.org. Let's wait and see if he has anything sensible to say. Sashazlv 02:36, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparently, he is now trying to defend his position at any cost.

By the way, AndriyK has posted a few other user "descriptions" at . However, they are not as picturesque as yours. I am wondering how far he would go with that. Maybe, I am just envious he hasn't yet written a characterization of myself (hello, AndriyK!). Sashazlv 14:17, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

You are right, I defend my position. And it is my right to do so. What you mean saying "at any cost"?--AndriyK 15:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

What about slandering other users? Is it your right as well? Also, since you keep putting tags on contributors to Ukrainian articles, where am I on your system? Sashazlv 16:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I do not slander any users. I tell the truth. Everybody can check it.

I have not seen you (yet (?)) inserting lies about Ukraine and Ukrainian people in Misplaced Pages articles, or distorting Ukrainian names, or participating in edit wars like a criminal teenager gang. Therefore you are not in the list. Your personal negative attitude to me is irrelevant.--AndriyK 17:34, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, o, gracious truth-seeker for not classifying me as "a criminal teenager gang" member! If tagging someone as "a very cunning, ingenious, and stubborn troll..." ("дуже хитрий, винахідливий і наполегливий троль...") is not slander on your value system, I can only be horrified by your distinction between truth and lie. Sashazlv 20:44, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not a slander but the matter of fact. I explained why I think so. There were two examples there. You can check the history and convince yourself, if you would like. If you want just to express you negative attitude to me, I do not care. I've known this from your previous messages. It's nothing new. Have a nice day/evening/night. --AndriyK 20:51, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I double checked your statements. My analysis that follows is rather long, but sufficiently detailed.

First, Ukrainian language. In the header, you kept re-inserting one specific sentence about descendency from Slavic tribes. To some extent, this is true, but which specific tribes - is a matter of debate. I may not agree with the paragraph that Irpen restored. But he clearly identified that it is a traditional point of view. In contrast, your version looks as if it were ultimate truth. As a matter of fact, I don't like the current version of the header. It overemphasizes history.

Regarding limited vocabulary. In the first place, it was a contribution of User:Man vyi, not of Irpen. You blanked out almost a whole paragraph without any explanation. At this point, you should know that relatively few people contribute to Ukrainian articles. And we cannot afford the luxury of scaring off potential contributors by mere blanking at will. On these grounds, I support Irpen's reversion, even though I may dislike the exact wording. As far as the content is concerned, I would rather agree with Man_vyi's statement than not. For instance, in my particular field, Ukrainian terminology is practically absent, i.e., the situation is even worse than just saying that the vocabulary is "limited".

Second, Lviv. What you tell at the maidanua forum is only half-true. Irpen was in one step reverting your changes like "When the Nazis broke the non-aggression pact..." -> "When turned on their Soviet ally...", which led to nonsense in terms of grammar and sentence structure. Just read the whole paragraph in your version:

The Soviet and Nazi forces divided Poland between themselves and a forged plebiscite absorbed the Soviet half of Poland, including Lwow, into the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. Depolonisation tactics began immediately, with huge numbers of Poles deported eastwards into the Soviet Union. When turned on their Soviet ally and invaded the Soviet Union on June 22, 1941, the NKVD spent a week executing prisoners held in the Brygidki and Zamarstynów prisons. Many thousand were killed.

Who turned on whom??? The NKVD on Soviet Union??? Huge number of Poles on Soviet Union???

As far as collaborators are concerned, we should refer to SS Halychyna division. Besides, it should be made explicit that in Nazi classification, Halychany were not classified as Ukrainians, and district Galicia was not administratively part of other occupied Ukrainian territory.

Conclusion. At best, what you tell is half-true. The changes that Irpen made don't justify your calling him a "troll". In this sense, you are slandering. Often, partial truth is worse than a lie.

I caught you cheating this time. So, you are on my watch list from now on. Sashazlv 23:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

This is you, who's cheating, to say the least. You can find my answer here. Sorry, don't have time to translate it.--AndriyK 09:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Kiev Metro (and others)

Ok I want to create a massive web portal on all metro systems of the USSR and I am writing to you because of your position and experience, and I think you can give this project the impulse it needs to take off. Я тебя лично приглашаю на форум метролюбителей и надеюсь тебя там увидеть. Kuban kazak 15:00, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Language of the Metro I already talked with AndriyK, and we agreed that for the time being, in Kiev let us keep the Russian names, (anyway it is never too late to revert them to Ukranian), what we can do in the meantime is to start filling up the articles of the stations themselves. Unfortunately I cannot be here 24/7 so its really up to people like you to help me out. Having mentioned the language, I can remember that even though the names when they were announced in Russian, they were Ukranised versions, like Zhovtnevaya, Ploshchad Zhovtnevoi Revolutsii, Chervonoarmeiskaya...quite unique if you ask me. In terms of progress report on the megaportal, I have already nearly finished the Saint Petersburg Metro entry. However what we really need are photos.Kuban kazak 12:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Page moves

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

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

user's IP

You wrote: "Compare IP of this account with user:Geminifromukraine" at Talk:Mikhail of Chernihiv. How I can check user's IP? mikka (t) 17:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Probably you can't check it. Only developers can. I figured that this is a sockpuppet by reading the Ukrainian forum where the edit war over copyvio in Kotlyarevsky was discussed. When the developer will see it is the same IP we will have proof. --Irpen 18:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm againt sockpuppets, but IP does not prove anything. Many networks with thousands of users have one external IP. If you tried to judge me by my IP's you'd find many sockpuppets. And anyone wanting to hide his IP can do this easily via loads of anonymous proxies, VPN etc. Ilya K 19:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, user Pani, from Maidan said in plain Ukrainian that she reverted Kotlyarevsky under two different names. Since she didn't know what she was doing, I did not make fuss about this. Now, that we are getting new registrants coming over just to vote at Oleg of Chernigov, I am less sure of what to do. --Irpen 20:02, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank Halibutt :)

The map is his, I just added it. It is still a beta - we need more places, more arrows and smaller fragment of the map (no need for the west and south). I am glad you like it, though. Do you think we can FAC it now? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:38, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I will thank Halibutt too in the due course. He took too personally our disagreement re V/Wolodarka and started to call me names. I, first, will wait until I am sure he is not holding a grudge anymore (and I still disagree with the outcome of the discussion).

Here, though, the issue is that a propagandist painting was less appropriate for a lead pic than the neutral map. We can try FAC~ing it. It needs more Russian input but, perhaps, Peer review/FAC will do the trick with bringing the issue to a wider attention. Cheers, --Irpen 21:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Kievan Rus

Hello Irpen, thank you for helping settle the conflict over the use of the History template. Your energy, calm and persuasiveness played extremely important role and helped, beyond words. Thanks! Now that I was thinking over what has happened there, let me throw a suggestion: how about we change the title of the template from "History of Russia" to "History of Russia series"? And same for the template History of Ukraine which you created? Or maybe "this article is part of the series History of ..."? I think this can help (newcomers especially) better understand the role and significance of these templates just from looking at it. I checked Misplaced Pages:Series_templates and Misplaced Pages:List of article series; the templates differ in format and in their contents, but I really like the looks and the intelligence of, for example, the template:History of Greece in Byzantine Empire. Also, the "in series" templates in History of Australia, History of Poland look great - to name just a few. I'd post this suggestion at the noticeboards and see what people have to say. What do you think? Cheers! - Introvert 09:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the complements. I will try to get to it soon, but in the meanwhile anyone is free to modify the templates as per above suggestions. Cheers, --Irpen 07:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The Chernihiv issue

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

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

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

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

Piłsudski's nationalism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: 3RR

As you observed, I'm exceptionally firm with those people who think it's okay to revert war. That means, unfortunately that the bystanders sometimes get hurt - Ghirlandajo also violated the policy, instead of asking for administrator intervention. As I'm aware of his good faith, I blocked him for only half the time. I'm sure he can accept it amiably. Rob Church 17:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I repsectfully disagree with your decision but I will be happy to remember to contact you in the future regarding the editors who repeatedly undo other people's edits but avoid 3RR by adding/removing brackets or changing the active to passive voice in the grammar. I've seen much of that. I will be probalby contacting you several times about that. --Irpen 17:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I've reviewed the situation for a third time, and have thus unblocked Ghirlandajo. And now I apply your friend's logic to the situation with the other 3RR violation you reported, in which case I am unwilling to intervene. Rob Church 17:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Irpen - could you explain the situation to me more fully? I'm not sure I understand what the discussion is about. john k 00:12, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I've taken another look, and have decided that yes; these are petty technicalities. Because I wasn't the one directly dealing with the violation, I won't block, but I have left a note on the user's talk page which effectively warns him not to revert-war again. If this happens, please let me know, and I will consider blocking. Rob Church 01:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

PMW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naming rules

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

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

Misplaced Pages is not a "Russian Orthodox Encyclopaedia"

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 20:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

These are all valid points but please show at the respective article's talk pages how this rant of yours relates to specifically to them. --Irpen 04:43, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I've explained you at Talk:St Volodymyr's Cathedral that if you decided to present the POV of Russian Orthodox Church, the POV of Ukrainian Orthodox Church - Kiev Patriarchy shoud be equally well presented, along with all other POVs. I proposed to discuss the canonicity issue in the article on UOC-KP. But if you decided on the contrary then please present all POVs in every article where you decided to mention "canonicuty" issue.--AndriyK 08:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

What POV of UOC-KP is missing at St Volodymyr's? Argue that at its talk so that others see your point. Do you mean the POV on canonicity. The discussion of this is a broader issue and belongs to broader articles. St Volodymyr's however, briefly mentions the issue based on two facts:

1. KP is considered uncanonical by the Orthodox communion
2. KP claims the lineage to Mogila's church

We indeed have these issues discussed and explained at different articles. St. Volodymyr's just mentions the undisputable conclusions. Explain at the article's talk clearly what would you like changed. --Irpen 08:50, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If you consider "canonicity" be improtant enough to be mentioned in the article about St. Volodymyr's Cathedral, this is your own POV (or Russian Orthodox POV). But other readers/editors may find other information about UOC-KP be even more important. Finally you end up with the whole article about OUC-KP coppied to St. Volodymyr's Cathedral.

Please decide whether you give all the details abou UOC-KP representing all possible POVs in every article where OUC-KP is mentioned, or you stick at my proposal to give all the detaiuls only in the UOC-KP article, without giving details at every mentioning of UOC-KP in other articles.

Whatevere you decide, please make sure that your decision conforms the Misplaced Pages NPOV policy. Using Misplaced Pages for propaganda of Russian Orthodoxy (as well as any other religion) is inadmissible!--AndriyK 09:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

We have not turned Wiki into a propaganda machine of ROC. Now let us consider an endlish user comes and reads the article about the building has no interest in gaining more insight into religion but sees the UOC-KP's POV, then goes into the seizure article, which is presented differentely...How do you think he will react to such confusion? NO way all articles must be preented in NPOV manner, regardless of anything, I will not allow you to skew this article. If you want to start your version of Wiki, fine with me. user:Kuban kazak

In fact, you have! Presenting only one POV in several articles, without mentioning other POVs is nothing else as propaganda. Your edits are against WP:NPOV.--AndriyK 13:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add here that, as I said multiple times, I am not a supporter of dumping everything possible into every possible article. From orthodox POV the KP is not, just "uncanonical" but a "schismatic organization lead by the leader that was excommunicated and deprived of all the priveleges", including to preach, and, certainly, to ordain. I don't think it should be in the article.

But the fact that one of the most major Kievan churches is controlled by the church whose status as an Orthodox church (not as some abstract religious organization but specifically as a church of Eastern Orthodoxy) is ambiguos (you can't deny that it is at least ambiguous), this fact needs to be said in the cathedral article.

What's ambiguous about its status? Lack of recognition by the world-wide orthodoxy caused by the lack of authority in its leader and uncanonical arbitraty assumption of full autocephaly that did not go through a proper procedure. Personally, I would like to see Ukrainian Orthodoxy united in a single organization, a fully autocephalous church, with a proper not only secular, but also relgious standing. I am sure it is going to happen eventually but it will never happen under Filaret, I am sure of that. My personal opinion is, however, unrelated. But the status of KP is relevant. As for the rest, please use the article's talk for this discussion. I am reading it there too but this would allow more people to participate. --Irpen 22:59, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Map names

Hi there! I noticed you asked Piotrus about the toponyms used on one of my maps (I guess it was the one for the article on Polish-Muscovite War). As a rule of thumb, I chose to use consistent naming in all of the maps pertaining to the series. That is: German names for towns in Germany, Silesia and parts of Austria, Hungarian names where applicable (I would use Turkish names for the northernmost eyalets, but I simply forgot them so I use Hungarian instead, Polish names for all parts of the Commonwealth (even in variants of the map depicting the period before Polish replaced Old Ruthenian as a chancery language in GDL - for simplicity's sake) and modern English transcryption for places in Russia. And English names wherever applicable (Moscow, Warsaw).

I know this system is not perfect, but I made the first map shortly after one of the Talk:Danzig wars ended and I decided not to give people too many reasons to start endless quarrels over the naming. I adopted one common naming system for all the Rzeczpospolita series and used it consistently ever since. BTW, in case someone wanted to prepare a localized version for his own native language[REDACTED] - I made the source code available through the commons, so there's no problem with that either. I initially also wanted to prepare a map in the Lithuanian version for the Lithuanian wiki, as some of the contributors from that country seem to be alerged to Polish or Ruthenian, but DeirYassin lost interest in[REDACTED] lately and no other Lithuanian seems to be interested any more. Halibutt 03:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think consistensy from map to map is good and I don't object to it. I just think that if you use Warsaw, you might as well use Kiev. Or you could have used Warszawa. I don't mind either way but Kijow and Warsaw is inconsistent, IMO. --Irpen 03:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Please pay attention: lies is against WP policy

Please have a look at Misplaced Pages:Civility#Examples.

As I pointed you out many times, the city name Chernihiv is applied by creadible English-language sources to all periods of history: , , , , , .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why don't comment on the Columbia Encyclopedia?

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

The new reference I added is a publication by historians.

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

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

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

Early review

I'll have a look at O.R. and the geographic naming, probably by tomorrow night.

In the mean time, I'll ask you to lend me your eyes. Please have a quick look at T-34. I know it's not your cup of tea, but I've done too much writing there to look at the whole thing objectively. Just let me know if the article answers the basic questions early on. Is there too much detail in some parts that should be spun off to other articles? I'd like to start polishing it up for FA, but I need to formulate a general plan first. Cheers. —Michael Z. 2005-11-7 17:36 Z

Thanks! And I will look and will try to make it my cup of tea :). --Irpen 17:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not twist the facts in the comments to your edits

It's not tru that UPC-KP came to existance in 1991 or in 1992. In fact, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church existed before this timepoint. In 1991-1992 it bacame independent from Moscow Patriarchy and change its name. Accordxing to the Civil Law UPC-KP is a successor of Ukranian Exarchate and autonomous UOC. You perfectly know this. "Retained" is just the right word there. Other people have already explained it to you. Will you start to listen other editor's arguments at last?--AndriyK 18:49, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

The creation, succession and lineage issues are discussed at the article's talk. If you disagree, say it there please. --Irpen 19:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Please don't misinform other users by the comments to your edits

I would like to poin out once more that your comments misinform the Misplaced Pages users. There is actibe discussion going on at Talk:St Volodymyr's Cathedral. Consensus is not reached yet. Why do you lie saying "restoring consenus" replaced the article by your extremely biased, Russian Orthodox POV version? If you agree abot something with Ghirlandajo, Kuban Kazak or alike, this is not a consensus yet. Pay attention to other user's opinion. Or you just like the edit war?--AndriyK 16:29, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't like edit wars. There seems to be a consensus at talk judging by number of people, who view lack of canonicity of UOC-KP relevant. --Irpen 16:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Stop lying! Everybody can check that your also removed the information about dubious canonicity of Moscow Patriarhate in Ukraine. This information was proposed by another user, not by me. At least one more user was supporting us. Where did you see the consensus? You just lie barefaced and shameless.--AndriyK 12:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Your accusations are bold but pointless. The information is false since the Ecumenical Patriarch never really questioned the canonicity of UOC. What that Bishop said is about the territory of MP, which is not the same thing, and the Bishop giving an interview to a newspaper is not the official position of the church. This is discussed at the article's talk. I just tried for I don't know what time to engage you into constructive work, but I now give up again. As for the edit you've shown, the article's history and talk speak for themselves. --Irpen 20:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

This is your opinion, but at least three users disagree with you. Where was the consensus? Or just admit that you were lying.--AndriyK 18:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please do not keep messing up what I contributed, this'll make our work more productive. Do not you have othe job as following me everywhere and messing up my contributions?

Russophobia

Could you look on the page ? Right now it makes even Partitions of Poland seem a reaction to Russophobia :) Not to mention it doesn't seem to source any of the various serious claims. It also lists Serbs, Orthodox religion etc.Both of which fit into other articles (leaving aside if they are true or not). --Molobo 16:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

If you don't like some phrase or the other, you should remove it step by step, consulting other users at the talk page, and not blank half the page at one stroke. Also, this was your umpteenth blanking for today. Have you ever heard about 3RR? --Ghirlandajo 17:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I will look at the article soon. I would have anyway. Thanks. --Irpen 17:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Oleg of Chernihiv

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

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

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

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

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

It is not only nice, it is necessary.

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

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

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

Please do not blank factural information

Please do not remove factural information and references from the article Boyko. Please pay attention that any information ypou add should be confirmed by creadible sources. Original research or your privat opinion is not appropriate for the Misplaced Pages articles.--AndriyK 09:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I only removed dubious information and explained everything at talk. Please respond there, if you disagree. --Irpen 05:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Your personal taste is not the reason to classify the information as dubious. You have to provide creadible sources confirming it. You did not do it, did you?--AndriyK 11:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Outright fools?

Irpen, sorry to abuse your page for mentoring an alien from outta space. On a more positive side, I found a quotation I had been talking about. It is in the Britannica entry on Tsar Alexis: "His main fault was weakness; throughout most of his reign, matters of state were handled by favourites, some of whom were incompetent or outright fools". What a pity they didn't name a single one. --Ghirlandajo 21:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting one. I was also checking Britannica today to check on the terminology because there are several ongoing disputes on talk pages. We can trust EB for sure as far as the terminology is conserned and it uses "Russo-Polish war" instead of PMW, Treaty of Polyanov instead of Polanów and Belovezhskaya forest as well as Belovezhskaya accords contrary to whatever is used now at wiki. I raised the issues already at talk pages. You are weclome to comment. --Irpen 21:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

As I explained before, Britannica - like Misplaced Pages - is written by partial editors and they don't have a single policy as to the name usage. Articles by various contributors often contradict each other. --Ghirlandajo 21:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I neder said that EB is infallable. What I meant was that, unlike Misplaced Pages, EB is peer reviewed by academics and we can be sure that what it writes is within the mainstream. Of course this doesn't guarantee a complete neutrality and infallability. --Irpen 22:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediation concerning St Volodymyr's Cathedral

I propose to ask for official mediation to resolve the dispute concerning St Volodymyr's Cathedral article. Whould you agree?--AndriyK 18:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes. --Irpen 18:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I've got an e-mail from the mediator. Please check your mailsbox so that we can start the dispute resolution.--AndriyK 15:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Please read more literature before you edit articles

Dear Irpen, please devote more of your time to reading books on Ukrainian history, if you would like to make a really usefull contributions to the corresponding articles. Try, for the beginning, to learn the most basic things, for instance the difference between Cossack Hetmanate and Zaporozhian Host.

Wuld you like to correct your edits to the article Polkovnyk yourself? It would be the most preferble way, if you read the literature and correct the mistakes you made.--AndriyK 18:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I know the difference between the two. If I made any mistakes, you are welcome to correct them. --Irpen 18:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Still, it would be more productive if you would edit only the articles you are competent in, so thet other people would not spend time for correcting your mistakes.--AndriyK 18:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Please explain my mistakes at the relevant talk as i am trying to do when I disagree with your edits. --Irpen 18:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Mysterious. I've looked at that page, and can't tell what you mean, Andriy. Please just say what you mean.—Michael Z. 2005-11-12 22:13 Z

Re:Pulkownik

No, I was just putting a feeler in case sb does create an article with this title. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Your comments to your edits

Please have a look at Michael's announcement Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements#Announcements and take it into account when making comments to your edits.

We were discussed the first paragraph of Ukrainian language at my talk page. I explained you my view. Why do you type "rv unexplained reversion,..." in your comment? Is it nice to misinform your colleagues? Please be fair next time.--AndriyK 09:24, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

You did not explain your view. You just stated it. OTOH, the odditity of this stuff in the intro is explained at talk. You are welcome to comment there if you have anything to say. --Irpen 17:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I did explain my view. Please read my answers carefully.--AndriyK 17:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. BTW, "revert bully" is not appropriate in the comment either. You should respect your colleagues.--AndriyK 09:29, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverterting while completely ignoring what's said at talk is bullying. On the other hand, I am glad that you are now starting to make "respect your colleagues calls". I hope those will be followed by a more respectful and considerate behavior. --Irpen

Polish military ranks

Please stop from merging Polish military ranks into article about Russian military ranks. --Molobo 12:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Please study the history before leaving such messages. I did not merge any of this. --Irpen 17:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes it was in responce to your post about your intent to do so.--Molobo 21:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC) This is under discussion and I offered Polish editors to have a say on this. Where did I say anything about my intent? In any case say whatever you have to say on the issue at the article's talk where the discussion is ongoing. --Irpen 22:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_adminship/Halibutt

I think you would be interested in voting here. Besides, Halibutt have been accused of anti-Russian bias - I wonder how you would reply to this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? Where exactly did I mention "anti-Russian bias" of any sort? The topic, I believe, was overall nationalism, which is hardly the same thing (and probably too strong and vague of a term). "Accuse" also seems to be too mighty of a word. I can see how my replies could have been interpreted as an accusation, but they were in fact only an answer to the question I was asked in response to my RfA comment(which, in turn, is nothing more but my personal opinion, albeit one that prevented me from casting a support vote).—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If you doubt the nationalistic tendencies of Halibutt, check his yesterday's contributions on Talk:Russophobia, where he denied that there was polonization of Ruthenian areas in the PLC and that the Orthodox subjects were prevented from taking important offices of state. The same word was applied to this user by mikka, me, and other editors. His favourite stance is that the Poles have been innocent lambs continually massacred by all of their neighbours. You won't find a dark spot in his vision of Polish history: partitioning Czechoslovakia with Hitler was OK, but merging Galicia with the rest of Ukraine was an unforgivable crime. This is POV, pure and simple. Also, Piotrus, please answer why you abuse your adminship for reiteratedly unblocking odious Molobo, who frantically renames Konigsberg into Krolewiec, endlessly reverts Smolensk War, etc, etc.? --Ghirlandajo 22:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd have thought you would have an opinion on this? Aren't you going to vote?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I am going to vote "support" but I think RfA was not a good idea at this stage. Not because what kind of Admin he is goind to be but because it is just too torturous. Please see user talk:Ezhiki for my response to what you said. --Irpen 16:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Ezhiki and Praga

Thanks for your comment left at Ezhiki's page, it helped us clear some things a tad. I would only like to comment on the Massacre of Praga. The previous title of that article was not a sign of my nationalism or anything, it's simply an exact translation of how it is called in Polish historiography (compare with and note that both articles in the latter refer to the Czech capital, and that the term "Bitwa pod Pragą also refers to a battle at the Bohemian city). It is simply that the actual battle is much less notable than the ensuing massacre, which was its exact outcome. While I don't say it's right or wrong, it's simply how it is. Hence that's quite natural that the Polish wiki article is at Rzeź Pragi and not elsewhere - and that was the most natural title for me to post that article under. Halibutt 00:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I would not have minded that if it was a narrow article about massacre spinned off from the Battle. This, however, was a battle article under the inflamatory name. I will vote support for your adminship because, personally, I think that every committed WP, however opinionated, should be an admin if there are no ethics questions. Loosing temper isn't unethical per se. We are all human. I am sure that if your nomination succeeds you will not unblock trolls, block or threaten opponents, lock articles inappropriately, move them over redirects uniletarally, etc.

On the side note, I think the idea to go through the nomination at this time was a bad one. --Irpen 04:22, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and almost forgot. Why then you created the entry Battle of Warsaw (1794) as a redirect to Massacre of Praga? I would have moved it to the former rather than to the Battle of Praga, but could not since an entry was occupied and I was too lazy for an WP:RM. You are welcome to arrange such a move, I will only support it. --Irpen 05:48, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Bah! That's quite simple :) Some time ago I created a page on Battle of Warsaw and listed there all armed conflicts that took part in or near the city of Warsaw, including those that are never called battles in Polish or English (just like the Massacre or like the Warsaw Uprising, for instance). It was not a malicious occupation of a valid name, it was simply a list of conflicts and I saw no need to create separate disambiguations for Battles of Warsaw, Uprisings of Warsaw, Insurrections of Warsaw and so on. I simply listed all conflicts in one place, that's all. Halibutt 06:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Holodomor

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

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

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

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

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

Kiev Metro line translits

Originally I wrote the line articles with Russian translits, however another user AndriyK (who you might have come across before, who has a tendency of not actually writing any articles but changing their translits), has decided (even though I asked him to wait with tranlits) to move the line articles to ukranian tranlits. As I know commenced to creating templates the issues with two spellings became an absoloute bugger, I tried to revert to Russian translit but wiki wont let me, so I had to change the spelling. Can someone unlock my original translit and change it (no space before after dash).

• Svyatoshinsko-Brovarskaya Line
• Kurenevsko-Krasnoarmeiskaya Line
• Syretsko-Pecherskaya Line Kuban kazak 20:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

holodomor comments

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

Polish invasion of Russia

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

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

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

Mediation process, maybe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Links to the disambiguation pages

Please note that links to disambiguation pages from the articles are discauraged. I is very inconvenient for the reader, if s/he gets a list of terms instead of the appropriate article. It is often not clear wich of several terms should be chosen. Why do you mess up the links I have recently corrected?--AndriyK 16:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Canonical status UOC-KP in differents article, example Ukrainians

In[REDACTED] un-caninical status UOC-KP is mentionned more than 10 articles, but for the rest internet beside 70 sites. (see Google searching for in Talk:St_Volodymyr's_Cathedral#Yakudza:) Necessary this POV in article Ukrainians? In the personal letter You wrote that do not suppose this necessary. However You continue edit Wars, not considering arguments on Talk:St_Volodymyr's_Cathedral --Yakudza 19:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Check in how many articles the Soviet Union being totalitarian or authoritarian is mentioned. That's because it is relevant. --Irpen 19:36, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

more 15 000 sites Really it is relevant --Yakudza 19:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This is because the UOC-KP is a more obscure topic that the USSR. Its lack of canonical standing as an Orthodox Church is no less relevant that SU being a totalitarian state. The discussion is above. Mediators were invited. I would welcome more neutral parties to express their opinions --Irpen 19:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

You suppose the crimes of stalinizm equivalent status Church? --Yakudza 19:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't twist my words. These are events of different scale. All I mean is that crimes of Stalinism are as much relevant to the Soviet History as the lack of standing of UOC-KP as an Orthodox church to the UOC-KP. --Irpen 19:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

However, I suppose that it is not necessary to mention the totalitarian nature USSR in each article. More so in article about Soviet architecture. --Yakudza 23:11, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not the article about the architecture, this is the article about the church. If you want to expand a Ukrainian Baroque article with more info about different churches, there indeed would be no need to go into discussion of who owns what and who is (un)canonical. However, if we are writing about a particular Orthodox cathedral, the fact that the organization operating is not recognized as representing the Eastern Orthodoxy is relevant. --Irpen 23:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

--Irpen 23:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Why do you consider Trubizh River to be anachronistic name?

Was the river renamed very recently? If no, please revert your changes in the article Pereiaslav-Khmelnytskyi.--AndriyK 15:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Please do not ignore my message. Trubezh is another river. Why do you link the article to the wrong place?--AndriyK 15:44, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Notice of arbitration

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

Where can comment this insinuations other editors? --Yakudza 21:29, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure. Maybe you can't if you are not a part of an arbitration, but perhaps there is a procedure for that somewhere. I've ne\ver been involved with arbitration because I was always able to discuss things with most people. So, I am not an expert to ask. --Irpen 21:57, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Naklep?(copy from User_talk:Yakudza) Yakudza, you wrote at Maidan:

"Мушу вибачитись перед АК я дещо помилявся відносно Ірпіня. Ось його чергова дія: не маючи аргументів, щоб довести свою правоту вони звернулись з наклепом в арбітраж вікіпедії."

That is "I have to appologize to AndriyK that I was somewhat mitsaken referring to Irpen. Here is his current action: having no arguments to prove them right, they submitted a slander to Misplaced Pages's arbotration".

Could you please elaborate on this statement of yours or appologize for it because this is a real "naklep". Please note the broad spectrum of users who co-signed. I didn't write for them, btw. I am not sure you can respond to the ArbCom, but I would be interested to see your response here. Feel free to write in Russian or Ukrainian if you have to. I hope this slipped out of your mouth by an accident. So far, you've been a mostly civil and respecful guy. Regards, --Irpen 00:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, если не возражаете размещу ответ здесь, не знаю правильно ли это, если посчитаете это неуместным, можете свободно его вытереть сейчас или через несколько дней, я скопирую его на свою страницу. --Yakudza 22:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Я написал, что это поклеп, так как полагаю, что выдвинутые обвинения несправедливы, односторонне представлены и сильно передернуты. Не знаю, может быть уместно было употребить иное слово. Я действительно раньше считал , писал об этом на форуме Майдана, и сейчас продолжаю считать, что поведение AnriyK в то время, когда он пришел на вики было довольно необдуманным, его обвинения в ваш адрес довольно обидными и во многом несправедливыми. Даже несмотря на то, что такая реакция была спровоцирована Вашим поведением, и в частности привлечением к войне редактирования таких людей как User:Ghirlandajo. Это довольно своеобразный редактор. При большом количестве редактирований, он довольно нетерпим к чужому мнению, регулярно оскорбляет других (см. список, меня он назвал бандеровцем), попытки прояснить ситуацию на его странице называет "персональными атаками" и вытирает записи. Делая откаты он практически никогда не обсуждает это в дискуссиях. При этом в его правках огромное количество POV. Справедливости следует сказать, что он действительно сделал много полезного в "украинской" части вики, написал и дополнил много нейтральных "украинских" статей, противодействовал польскому POV в "украинских" страницах, но все вышеперечисленное, совершенно нивелирует полезный вклад.

Поясню почему считаю обвинения, поданные в арбитраж, сильно передернутыми:

1. Относительно этой глупой войны переименований Chernigov в Chernihiv и наоборот я считаю, что в каждой войне есть две стороны. Ее вели в основном AnriyK с одной стороны и вы с User:Ghirlandajo с другой, при редком подключении других участников, в т.ч. изредка и меня. Только вы как более опытные редакторы действовали сообща и не попадались на три отката. И безотносительно от того, кто ее начал и кто прав или виноват, остановится должны были обе стороны. Тем более, что обсуждение политики активно ведется на соответствующей странице и вы, и AndriyK принимаете в нем довольно активное участие.
2. Относительно голосования за переименование Chernihiv в Chernigov. Полагаю, что в обращении Андрея за помощью к Майдану не было ничего предосудительно. После его обращения на Википедию пришли несколько новых редакторов, некоторая часть из которых не только проголосовала, а и начала работать, часть на английской вики часть на украинской. Насколько я знаю, привлечение новых редакторов это часть политики Википедии, чем больше редакторов тем выше качество статей. Единственной ошибкой Андрея (если не считать того, что не стоило затевать переименовывание предварительно не обсудив) было то, что он не четко разъяснил суть - то что главное не проголосовать, а обосновать свою позицию, тем более что Википедия, несмотря на ее видимую открытость, довольно герметичное сообщество со своими причудами. Но тем не менее большинство из вновь прибывших с этим и так разобрались и дали зачастую довольно полезные комментарии, которые показали что все не так однозначно, как это представляют противники переименования.
3. Я не понимаю к чему вся суета с подсчетом голосов? Ну не засчитают нескольких голосов, что это изменит? Было примером 22 на 17, станет 17 на 15. Сути то это не изменит. Все равно запрос был неудовлетворен, т.к. не было согласия. А что разве 17 к 15 это согласие? Просто попытка исключительно силовым путем надавить на арбитраж, вместо того, чтобы искать согласие.
4. Из перечисленных в запросе "марионеток", по крайней мере двое (Ashapochka, Adv) не пришли с Майдана, а являются довольно продуктивными редакторами украинской вики, и время от времени участвуют в английской, а некоторые проголосовавшие возможно просто пока еще присматриваются, и вероятно подключатся позже.
5. И наконец главное, я понимаю, что написанное Андреем на Майдане экспрессивное, необдуманное обвинение совершенно рассердило Вас, и совершенно не призываю к примирению. Однако считаю, что ваш с AndriyK конфликт не должен мешать нормальной работе. AndriyK, если не считать войны переименований, принес за последний месяц довольно много полезного. Многие статьи при его активном участии были почищены от POV, его предложения на страницах обсуждений довольно конструктивны и разумны. Однако, вероятно из-за вашего персонального конфликта практически все привнесенное им Вами встречается в штыки, аргументы не воспринимаются, а эта история со статьей Polkovnyk просто смешна (извините ошибся, это не Ваша инициатива обьединить статьи Polkovnyk и Polkovnik ). О перипетиях вокруг статьи о Владимирском соборе я написал на своей странице. Если месяц назад я в своем посте на форуме Майдана писал, что несмотря на то, что при Вашем скорее пассивном, чем активном участии "украинские" статьи довольно плохи, но все же положительный вклад существенно превышает, и без него статьи были бы намного хуже, то за последний месяц, по моему мнению, Ваш вклад был довольно деструктивным. История с Владимирским собором является одним из примеров. Во все предшествующие годы вокруг него не было столько войн как в 2005 на Википедии. Удивительное дело, но оказалось намного проще найти пути к согласию с поляками в таком довольно болезненном вопросе как Волынская трагедия или в статье о погромах во Львове, чем этих совершенно незначительных событиях. Я полагаю, что Вам и AndriyK нужно немного остыть и прекратить засыпать страницы друг друга взаимными обвинениями. Его репутацию это уже сильнее не испортит. --Yakudza 22:34, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

dovbush/chernihiv

In modern contexts and indirect historical contexts I see no harm in leaving Chernihiv an reference to city. mikka (t) 22:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I entirely agree. In modern context not only there is "no harm" but the modern name should be used in all cases. It's just that the most glorious part of the city's history is not modern. I repeatedly offered AndriyK and Andrew Alexander to write a section on the modern city and use Chernihiv there all they want. However, they found it easier to mess what myself and Ghirlandajo wrote. --Irpen 05:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Attack hosting

Irpen, yes. I undertood you well. I left AlexPU a comment which I hope he'll read as an objective and calm one. Will he take it to RfC? I don't think so, esp. if he's guilty of similar behaviour.

However, the remarks are another thing, and I am really sick of it. I believe that people can talk about articles without leaving offending remarks, and I've read enough of them already (not only the ones made by Ghirlandajo). I know that people are sometimes frustrated by other users, but they should think twice before pushing the post button. I don't know if or how Ghirlandajo will react, but I'm just not going to read things like that anymore without saying a word. Also, if you don't mind, I'd like to write you something in an email. --SylwiaS 04:23, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course you are welcome to send me an email. I also agree that negative remarks should be avoided. However, a consious hosting of an attack page is a different matter that causes even more trouble. That's why I wanted it addressed asap. --Irpen 04:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, such pages make no good. Email sent. --SylwiaS 05:16, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

On KYIV/KIEV again

I was not sure where to write. Let's try here. Thank you for comments and links. Here is my answer and reasoning: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ukrainian_subdivisions#On_WP_naming_conventions I assume, community here closed this topic already, but let's see what you think on my reasoning. I did only minor changes in the . Better would be to change name of course... :) but lets discuss first.--Oleh Petriv 22:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Dnipro is completely different issue because it is an international river and its English name (Dnieper) is differebt from all the thee names of the countries it flows through. More at your talk. --Irpen 02:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Belarussian History

Have a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/History_of_Belarus#Russian_occupation, and tell me do you see this as History of Belarus or more like the history of Poland and the Polish Partitions, lets modify it I have an excellent source on 19th century history in Belarus, it is slightly religiously orientiated but good nevertheless. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/arhiv/050513111111 Kuban kazak 23:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Media credibility

Hryhorenko, however, entered the world news long time ago and, justly or not, he is called Grigorenko by the world media. You can conduct a google test and see the difference in usage. Our job, at encyclopedia, is not to "promote" the "correct" usage but to reflect the prevailing usage and the prevailing usage is determined by the English language media.

Irpen, hi. This is your post from one of the discussion. I just use it to support next questions: do you check all Ukrainian names in the news before posting them on WP? Why press has such high credibility in your eyes? This "red" line - "usage of the name in media" and "not to dissapoint Anglophones by correct pelling" goes through all your posts. I ask again (my questions on Naming Conventions are still unaswered), why these two factors must determine everything (like in this case - wrong spelling of poor guy Hryhorenko must stay because there are more mistakes in the press than correct spellings. Why do we have redirects then in WP?). And how do you see evolution of proper names if you support wrong ones yourself?

P.S. I stopped writing anything to English WP, I just read talks. So far my impression - even Poles on Polish WP are much more tolerant in articles on "hot" for them Ukrainian topics than people here.--Oleh Petriv 02:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Oleh, thanks for your Q. Sorry, I didn't get to answering it today. I will respond at your talk shortly. Regards, --Irpen 09:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

AndriyK arbitration

Thanks for the note. The case looks like a huge headache. You have my sympathy! I'll keep an eye on AndriyK when he shows up on my watchlist. For now I may not be able to offer too much help, as I have my hands full with Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of modern day dictators. I'm a bit worried that the crusade on behalf of the list is going to establish a precedent undermining consensus against "original research." BTW, your input on the AfD will be much appreciated, of course. Best regards, 172 09:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

List of Ukrainians - controversy

I invite to join a very heated discusion on the Talk: List of Ukrainians regarding whether the list may continue as it is or must be purged of all, or almost all, non-ethnic Ukrainians. It will be nice a have another sane voice in the debate.--Pecher 10:40, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Józef Piłsudski's forces plundering of the Western Ukraine

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

Arbitration accepted

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

OK, Irpen, you can discuss on my page if you like. Or wherever you see more convenient, just keep an eye on the talk somehow. We are fighting with Kazak now on Talk:Kuban Cossacks. Please see and read the paragraph that he is triyng to push. Do you agree with it? About templates - I have no problems to take care of all Kyiv metro system templates and tables. But you know my conditions. And as I understand, you agree, that names should be in Ukrainian. I would like to work with Kazak in the articles. Templates - me. Text - him.--Oleh Petriv 05:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC) If you like - remove this post.

Complaint

Слушай как правильно оформить жалубу мне эта сволочь надоела Kuban kazak 12:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Kiev Metro Map / Copyright

Hi Irpen,

Can you put in some words about this? ] - someone said that there is nothing in the laws that state that this image is under fair use. As far as I can tell under Ukrainian copyright laws, it falls under fair use because of one of the articles. Can you assign a proper copyright tag to this? mno 20:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Next time I would like to read letter from Kiev Metro law department which will support your claims. Not just your assumptions. --EugeneZelenko 15:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Russian architecture

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

History of Belarus - help needed!

Ghirlandajo is out of control. Mediation and input from more Eastern Europeans editors is needed before he managse to portray this as some kind of Polish-Russian war. Your input would be appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Iopq's talk page

I'm wondering why you deleted the edits by Jkelly and others about Wc3forum.tk. You said they were strange, but they were legitimate complaints about an article he wrote which later got deleted. - Mgm| 10:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I second that question. I'm suspicious that the user also vandalized my user page after logging out. See the contribution page for the vandal here. All of the contributions are to ether my user page or that of Jkelly; the only significant thing we have in common is Iopq and his vandalism. The removal of the relevant talk page discussion seems slightly arbitrary. Tom Lillis 02:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I've been in touch with that user several times over several articles and I had an impression that User:Iopq is a reasonable editor with an interest to contribute. I was surprized to see the harsh words and I thought of them, as possibly, unjustified. I wanted to check and followed the link to the article over which the argument was only to find out that the article was deleted. As such, I had no way of checking what this was all about and, since I have reasons to assume good faith from the user from my past experiences, I deleted what seemed to me a strange intrusion to his talk page. If I was mistaken, I would like to apologize. As I wrote in my edit, I don't mind the restoration of what I deleted. --Irpen 02:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Iopq

Hi. I mentioned you (peripherally) in my summary at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Iopq. It is currently uncertified. In the case that a second user certifies it, you may wish to add any appropriate feedback as an "Outside view". Thanks. Jkelly 03:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure what's wanted from me and I don't understand the conflict since the article is deleted. I expressed everything I had to say about this earlier. Everyone knows how to restore deleted passages, I said explicitely what I deleted, in which edit I've done it to make it even easier if warranted. Unless I see what so horrific was in the article, I would like to stay out of this for the rest of the conflict. I am already unhappy of getting myself involved. --Irpen 15:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC on Ghirlandajo

Just when I was about to respond I noticed that you removed the comment. Anyway, as I already mentioned somewhere I'm not so convinced the RfC could do anything as I definitely wouldn't like the "good Ghirlandajo" to be blocked just because the "bad Ghirlandajo" is who he is. On the other hand I simply felt that something has to be done and I lost hope in all attempts at mediation. Now I shall wait and see what happens. Finally, take note that I'm not questioning Ghirlandajo's POV as he is 100% entitled to it, just like anyone else. What I am questioning is his behaviour, which is a completely different thing. Halibutt 15:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Allegations

Saying allegations isn't the same as saying "a report from Jane's" a credible and well respected source of information.So I do think the changes do have an influence on the quality of the article.By adding Jane's we improve the value of information. --Molobo 20:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not object to adding Jane. I will do this myself, if you want. I object to your rephrasing. Jane isn't a bible. If a respected source mentions this, the allegations are encyclopedic. Otherwise, we would not have mentioned it in the article at all. --Irpen 20:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

RfC

Irpen, thanks for your comments at my talk page. I know that there are risks, as there is always a risk of doing something wrong. As I said during my RfA - the only person not to commit mistakes is the one never to do anything. Having said that, I'm not sure if further antagonization, as you put it, is possible at all. After all I heard I saw no other option but to ask for help. I simply lost all hope in Ghirlandajo and certainly would not like his behaviour to continue. As the attempts at changing his offensive behaviour failed, I simply have no ideas as to what more could I do.

And this RfC is basically it: I'm asking the community what could be done about it. Got any idea? Halibutt 02:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, I believe you're missing the point of the RfC, which BTW is stated in the header. It's not about merithorical conflicts over a number of articles. It's about incivility, offensive language and so on. I agree that I might be as hard to convince as many others, but this is not the topic here. It's not about lack of Ghirlandajo's will to convince anyone or to provide sources. It's about his lack of respect for the others.

As to possible good sides of the RfC - I already said I don't know and that's precisely why I asked for the community advise. Certainly it won't be better without any steps taken. What would be the alternative? Letting G. call everyone names and pretend nothing happens? Who would benefot from such situation? IMO definitely not the ones offended by Ghirlandajo and not Misplaced Pages. Perhaps G. himself, though I'm not sure either. Halibutt 03:19, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Then I'm missing your point now, I'm afraid. You actually are suggesting that we should stick to matters of the Polish community here and do not get our noses out? Would starting an open war against Molobo make Ghirlandajo less prone to incivility? Perhaps in an ideal world you mention it would be so, but I seriously doubt it. These two should be treated on a case by case basis, eventhough Ghirlandajo recently suggested that he's Molobos parent at my talk page (really!)

I really don't see the same ethnic/national division lines you refer to. For me the Polish community is just a bunch of people interested in articles on Poland-related matters. It includes Poles, Russians, Americans, Jews... Together we work on all kinds of articles, but on talk pages we rarely form a monolith. If it were the Ukrainians to start the RfC against AndriyK I believe they so not because he was Ukrainian as well, but because his behaviour was touching Ukrainian-related articles. As to the ill-fated black book - I've explained 100+ times what was it intended for and it was to deal with anti-Polish remarks, so I guess it is quite clear why the ones to be frequently offended wanted to keep it.

Which however does not change the fact that Ghirlandajo's behaviour is not acceptable and that - sad but true - the "Russian community" (whatever it is) did not try so far to make him change his ways. And someone really should - why not the entire wiki community through an RfC? Halibutt 07:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, now I get your point (hopefully), though I still dissagree. My main objection is that we are supposed to work as a community. Not some Polish club versus Russian club or whatever, despite what Ghirlandajo tries to present. I understand that you had some problems with some of the Polish contributors (I'm guessing Molobo, Witkacy, Space Cadet or such..?), and I surely understand that their ways might be disturbing. However, if they break the laws of the wiki, it is the duty of all of the community to set their paths straight. Note that I never held Mikka responsible for the actions of Ghirlandajo nor did I held the fact that he did not try to cool him down against him as it would be absurd. Apart from the country of origin the two have simply close to nothing in common and I see no way Mikka should be obliged to do the job of the entire community. Same applies to me and the problematic users who happen to be Polish. At times their actions are as they are and at times I tend to leave some comments on their talk pages so as to cool them down, as it's always easier to get in touch with own countrymen (as was the recent case of Molobo, for instance, or the not-so-recent dissagreement I had with Witkacy). We are different people and it is not my job to correct the behaviour of other contributors. It is our job. Get the difference?

Having said that, I still believe that asking the community for ideas (not condemnation of Ghirlandajo, just ideas on how could this problem be solved) is the best way I could handle that. There is a serious problem which disturbs several wikipedians and it needs to be solved, not hidden under the carpet. Alternatively I could ask for Ghirlandajo's block - and I believe it would be supported, especially after some of the most outraging remarks of his. However, the guy does a great deal of great job as well and I still believe that there is some way he could improve. Banning him at this point would mean that[REDACTED] would loose a problem user, but also a great contributor. However, so far I see no possibility of ever having a disagreement with him about the content of the articles as he is simply too offensive to start a discussion with him. Imagine what would you do in my shoes? How could one discuss with someone, who simply cannot explain his edits and instead continues to offend all the people involved, assume their bad will and so on?

As to Battle of Volodarka - note that the main disagreement was between what you found to be doubtful and what was written in the sources. Sure, both were Polish and you found one of them of little credibility, though still they were sources, while you had none. After umpteenth revert I indeed lost my nerves, for which I'm sorry, but I'm pretty sure you understand that there was some reason behind that. So, I believe my situation is quite different from that of Ghirlandajo, who offends even people whom he never met in his life, just because they seem to be Polish to him. BTW, as to the battle - I even started a tedious work of translating an entire chapter of Wyszczelski for you before I noticed that you withdrew. I'm still open to suggestions and discussion there, though not until you find some sources to discuss with. Get my point? We already discovered that our noses tell us different things and there's no way we could convince one another there. However, what could make me (or others, for that matter) change my (or ours) mind(s) would be hard facts and sources. And take note that in most cases I'm willing to accept even the compromises I like the least (as was the case of Danzig, Domeyko, Warsaw Uprising, and lots of other articles). If I have a problem with reaching a compromise, it's usually a case where I present my sources and the opposing side presents none, not where I call people stupid, their edits malicious and their intentions bad.

Finally, what would my withdrawal of the RfC change? Ghirlandajo has explicitly said that he does not want to be cooperative and that he shall not change his offensive and disruptive behaviour. So, should I simply wipe the spit of my face and go on, until he offends me again and again? Sadly, I'm not that good of a Christian. And when will this stop then? I believe it's still not too late to change something peacefully, without asking the community to block Ghirlandajo, which is the other alternative here. Call me an idealist, but I still believe that a way could be found to make him continue his valuable edits and back down on disruptive behaviour. Halibutt 02:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Please do not mess up the talk pages

Why did you delete my comment on Talk:Patriarch Filaret (Mykhailo Denysenko)? Please restore it.--AndriyK 15:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It was a glitch. I restored it at once I saw it. Check for youself and always double check before making accusations. --Irpen 16:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stopp messing up the request for arbitration page

There are arbitration committee mambers who will read this page and they will rearange it or will request it to be done by other users if they find it necessary. Alternatively, you may propose Andrew Alexander to rearange his comments. You behave like you privatized this page.--AndriyK 18:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a prescribed format described at the top of the page. If Andrew Alexander has no desire to abide by it, someone has to do it for him. You are welcome to correct me when I don't abide to the arbcom format. --Irpen 18:20, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Did the Arbitration Commitee autorized you to rearange the page acording to the prescribed format?--AndriyK 18:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet again, I suggest you read the instructions. It is your arbitration and knowing the procedure may help you defend yourself and convinse the ArbCom to come up with a not so harsh sentence. --Irpen 18:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Irpen, for tidying up the section for me. Now with all this so unwanted added commotion, I see that I should have cleared this interfering comment earlier.

User:AndriyK: what discussion would ever be needed over such a simple matter? It's clearly against the guidelines, nothing there to discuss. Just acknowledge your or your buddy's mistakes gracefully, just make a correction, that's all it takes. Add one quick paragraph to the moved comment, preceding it with something like "User:Introvert in her statement claims such-and-such... In response, I have to say this-and-that..." - how hard is it to do? I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, was thinking that Andrew Alexander made his awkward motion out of being, understandably, anxious and showed himself not in the very best way already, and I just didn't want to cause extra negative attention from the ArbCom to this insertion. And now what does your reaction suggest? this interfering may have been intentionally rude after all?? - Introvert 01:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Irpen I put it all onto your talk page... wanted to keep it all in one place. Kind regards - Introvert 02:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Українська Повстанська Армія

I downloaded it from somewhere maybe two years ago. All I remember is that it was not copyrighted. Sorry. But I have some more in my collection, give me your e-mail and I'll send it over. Kasmicheskiy Pyeshyekhod aka Space Cadet 01:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I just sent some pictures your way. Let me know if you got them fine. Space Cadet 02:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Translation from Rusyn

"If you know Rusyn, could you please translate for me the caption to the picture there that says: "Перед кунківском церквю капітан ПВ одберат мельдунок"."

I do not speak Rusyn, but since I speak Serbian, I can understand part of the sentence. Translation would be like this: "In front of the Kunkivska(?) church, the captain PV (одберат мельдунок)(?)". I do not understand last two words. PANONIAN (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My Ukrainian is good enough to understand what you translated :). That's "одберат мельдунок" is what I have a problem with. If you know any Rusyn speakers at Wiki, please ask them. I know you take an interest in the topic, so you might know some people. Thanks! --Irpen 18:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It might be "receives/heres a report", but I am not sure.--AndriyK 18:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe "confiscates property"? Template:Lang-ua. Any Rusyns speakers please? --Irpen 18:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure why I think so, but (based on the vague associations in my head) it seems to me that "мельдунок" is a blank or form of some sort.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! See, how we all have trouble with the modern Rusyn text despite being fluent in Russian and Ukrainian! This link suggests that it it property. From this one I infer that it is some kind of asylum. Olha Kobylianska (uk:Кобилянська Ольга Юліанівна) uses the word in her "Zemlya" novel and it looks like something different too. And some claim that Rusyn language is just a dialect of Ukrainian, of course. --Irpen 18:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is what User:Yakudza wrote on my talk page about this:

See http://www.lemko.org/lemko/slovnyk.html

• мельдувати - доповідати

Мельдунок - доповідь (in Ukrainian), доклад (in russian) - Report(?)

одберат мельдунок - give a report (This only my version source from dictionary) (User:Yakudza)

PANONIAN (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that. There is still no clarity, see above. --Irpen 18:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Here not "Rusyn speakers", but "German speakers" are needed - Meldung - German word --Yakudza 00:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! And одберат pbbly means "receives" indeed. Thanks again, --Irpen 00:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to add one more language to the Slav talk. In Polish "odbierać" means exactly "receive", and "meldunek" has two meanings. One is "report" in military terminology and the other is the registered place of living or stay. E.g. your home address. Like during communism everyone had to have the address registered and written in ID. So "odbierać meldunek" might have two meanings either receive report (or even listen to a report), or receive an appartement/flat/house (the place gov chose to register you at). However, I think you are right and he probably receives report.--SylwiaS | talk 01:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Since we do not have any photos of the events themselves, and possibly there were none taken due to their nature, I think a screenshot from the film is suitable to add to the artice. I hope, others would find it acceptable, when I add it. Cheers, --Irpen 01:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I can only guess what you're talking about, but I'm sure it's fine. BTW "odbierać mienie" would indeed mean "to confiscate property", and "meldunek" is often in a written form. Everyone was right :)--SylwiaS | talk 02:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I was talking about this article. The phrase in question is the caption to the third image from top. --Irpen 02:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting! Sure it’s right to add it. The village where the church is, is called Kunkowa, and PV stands for Wojsko Polskie. It’s a pity that he didn’t finish the film. You may also want to check pictures on Polish Wiki and here (Ukrainian version for you). Check the boards 23 and following. You may also find there our infamous general Jaruzelski getting his early experience as an officer. I was thinking about dividing the article similarly to how IPN did it, and add information plus pictures. I’m sure someone can cut them out of there.--SylwiaS | talk 05:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

An answer to your message in my talk page

Hello. I just thought such move could have solved the dispute which was then in place, I did not thought that someone could object the new name I have proposed as it was self descriptive and probably the only way to describe exactly *those* territories (and it seems that two other users as well moved or tried to move the same article in few last weeks without discussing). I did not create artificial history, but deleted spaces in redirects (at first I, due to copying and pasting the redirect, incidently wrote "Redirect New name" with space instead of "RedirectNew name"). Now I noticed that my solution was not approved by the other people, therefore I will disucuss and think of other proposals which, I hope, will work better; I like to solve neutrality disputes in Misplaced Pages. Kaiser 747 09:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for a warm wellcome

Hi and thanks for a warm wellcome on my talk page. Ukrained 17:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Image deletions

I restored the image Image:Lipovan monument.jpg from a mirror site and rv the edit to Lipovans. I deleted the image because the uploader had not made a contribution in a few months and I figured the odds of them showing up and sourcing the image were small. The speedy delete process for no source images does not require posting on the articles talk page. That would be too time consuming and we would never get rid of the backlog of no source images. Although, I might consider doing that on some of the nicer images like this one -Nv8200p talk 20:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Image:Lipovan monument.jpg has been listed for deletion

You've got 7 days to find a source and tag properly. -Nv8200p talk 20:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Did I upload the original image? --Irpen 20:44, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know how to recover the original upload record but I'm pretty sure you did not upload that image, as your current User Contributions would have alerted me that you are an active user and I would have posted an Image Deletion Warning on your talk page. However, you said on my talk page that you "could have written a reasonable fairuse justification or even figure out that it is a free license anyway" so I put the deletion warning on your page to let you know I still intend to delete the image if the tagging is not corrected soon -Nv8200p talk 20:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Misleading vote summary

Maybe it'll be easier to explain in personal talk page ? You're saying that the "PoP" name is common in English usage only in the context of history of Poland. What is the other possible context. The article describes an event from the history of Poland exactly, so what's your point ? What would be the most used name for this from "wider European perspective" then ? --Wojsyl 20:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Any explanation ? --Wojsyl 10:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I thought I explained at talk, but I will add to your summary as soon as I have a minute. --Irpen 15:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hero City

Images are back. Please source and tag or they will have to be deleted. -Nv8200p talk 05:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

There is no requirement in the ifd process to leave a warning on the article's talk page (just the uploaders) for image deletions. You might start a discussion on a process change. . . -Nv8200p talk 15:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I never said there was a requirement. The point is do we want to damage Misplaced Pages article's more than we absolutely have to. I was trying to suggest for you a way that would ensure that images that can be kept are kept. I wrote it to you rather than at the policy page because we had an onoging conversation on the issue and you happened to delete the images in the articles on my watchlist. As for the requirement I will try to set some time to raise this ath the village pump but in any case, I don't see why my request is difficult or unreasonable. It certainly makes sense if we want to avoid deleting the keepable images. --Irpen 18:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I will keep your suggestion in mind, but use it at my disgression -Thanks Nv8200p talk 20:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Operation Wisła and Holodomor articles

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that:

1. you insist on mentioning the brutality of Polish against Ukrainians in 1918 to give the broader context of the 1947 events in Operation Wisła, and at the same time:
2. you justify removing paragraph about repressions against Ukrainian elite from Holodomor article, explaining that it does not belong there.

Does it not seem to you like double standards, especially that the Stalinist repressions agains Ukraine are very closely tied together, and only the broader context allows to explain the purpose of the artificial famine. Why do you think that hiding this (documented) information would be useful ? --Wojsyl 18:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I will correct you if you seem wrong as you allowed me. One thing is a bare mention which puts something into context. The other thing is adding a whole section on a marginally related topic to a narrow article. Please reduce the chapter to the mention of cultural purge in view of this if you insist in having it there. --Irpen 18:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

YOU HATE?

YOU HATE? WHY COMMUNIST!