Ghirla:

I see you've been editing my Battle of Krasnoi article...you added Hess's famous painting of the battle yesterday. I have read a great deal about Napoleon's 1812 Invasion of Russia, and I'd like to collaborate with others in creating/maintaining articles on the 1812 war in Wikipedia. I'm interested in Russian sources regarding these battles, as they have been traditionally overlooked by western historians who write about the 1812 war. Contact me at my home email. Regards, Kenmore

---

Holy crap, you've contributed exponentially! I envy you! Good work. Aaрон Кинни (t) 06:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take it from me who's been living here in the West for ten years. They look and sound more menacing than they are. If you can, please don't become angry. You can keep any article you like for yourself, but not on Wikipedia. They do it to prevent a hierarchy from springing up. I'm not telling you to be awash wtih joy when your article becomes edited, but it wouldn't hurt to take a filosofskaja perspektiva on the thing. --VKokielov 17:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second that. I would be devastated if you really quit. Check the preceding heading, for instance. --Pan Gerwazy 20:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. I would be immensely sad if you would quit, Ghirla :( Please stay! -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fourthed. Per above - you are one of the most productive editors. It would be a significant loss for Wikipedia if you left. --Tēlex 23:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fifthed. You simply cannot do it to us abakharev 01:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But of course! Also, please see this. --Irpen 04:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read all of the context here, but from what I have seen of your contributions, I hope you stay! Jbhood 10:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirlandajo! how could you have ever got caught up in such a knot? Think of me! think of User:Giano" We need you here. --Wetman 16:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On July 9, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Spanish Baroque, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Mgm|^(talk) 20:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ghirla... I think that there is a structural problem with our editions. I thank (again) your efforts and encourage you to continue with this project, I think that it is worthwhile. When I first heard about it, I felt so surprised and emotioned thinking in a free, universal Enciclopedia, at everybody´s hands, free and collaborative, I couldn´t resist to form part of it. I don´t know more of your leaving than the messages above, but think it twice.

Now...I think part of the problem could be that we cannot think that the only valid point of view is ours. I know that you write a lot (A LOT) in this wikipedia, and it can be tiring to see that your editions are changed. If we change what we think is bad (or false, or incomplete...) somebody else can think that that was complete, or true or fine. THAT IS THE POINT FOR THE TALK PAGES. I say this for several editions and reversions you have just made because that was your point of view, without a simple word, as if you were tired of giving explanations to poor ignorants. Some of them have been already discussed, but now I find:

1- That the article you have made of Baroque Architecture is "untouchable": no word can be added or removed without a reversion. The only explanation is: "Garcilaso, please integrate your additions into Spanish Baroque and Spanish architecture; this article is just a brief overview; it cannot be endless)". Well, you may think that the article is perfect like that, but I think it is not. If it gives the only explanation of Churrigueresque as a superficial, decorative style for plain facades, the vission of the style is incomplete, and not "enciclopedian". After that briliant speech about facades, one can be mistaken. Not mentioning two important baroque spatial structures like Granada`s Charterhouse or Transparente from the Cathedral of Toledo is form my point of view, unwise for a general overview of the style. The same happens to the Madrid 17th century baroque. Who are you to decide about what is relevant or what is not more than other wikipedists? I told you once, and I implore again: Ask before deleting!

2-You didn´t even know about the existence of the First Romanesque and find yourself capable to decide WITHOUT discussing the fact, which is the correct name for the article. As you recognized, there are other wikipedian who know more about that subject. Some have participated in the discussion, and found that the best name for the article is First Romanesque. Please, please, ASK before deleting or moving, yours is not the only point of view in the world, and perhaps others have good documentation too, although their level of English could be worse. I again encourage you to continue with your valious apportations to this project, the only thing I want to transmit you is that listening and talking and improving a poor article is much better that the best of the editions if it is authoritarian, and collaterally, one could learn a lot!. Yours sincerely, До скорой встречи,Garcilaso 16:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my greetings for deciding to stay here. I see that you have changed the article on First Romanesque, thank you for your help. About Baroque, you have a message in Talk:Baroque architecture--Garcilaso 18:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the only way to have an opinion of yours is to edit the article and get it together with your reversion... I am still waiting for your answer, I don`t want to be acussed of "revert warring" if I change the article Baroque architecture after your silence. Yours eagerly, --Garcilaso 09:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wanting to create a father arseny page but lack info. Please help. Thanks LoveMonkey 17:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I leave this site for five fucking minutes, and what do I return to? - Shock! I'm mortified you uncouth bastard Ghirla, you have used the "eff word" in public - what sort of dumb fucking bastard are you? Rude edit summaries too? - it's beyond belief - you should be flogged off the site while simultaneously being tarred and feathered. Well that all seems to have happened, so would you mind now returning so we can all get on with the project in hand, and in future remember some people have very middle class sensibilities and while you and I may periodically say to each other "your last edit was a load of fucking rubbish" some other people are of a little more delicate disposition. I'm glad to see Wetman has tried to talk common sense into you - (he could be forgiven, as the only gentleman on the site, for thinking he keeps some very strange company) - so come on get real and lets get on with it! Oh and if you are now seeing sense, could you please expand Alessio Tramello (no-one else, save Wetman, is likely to have the ability) as per request on my talk page as I have been skiving from a real life job to go and watch football, and now have to spend a few serious days in the real fucking world Giano | talk 20:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi there, Andrey! I've registered as KNewman in Russian Wikipedia myself like a month ago. I certainly understand your position, for I see how people abuse Wikipedia and its valuable contributors. I'm also thinking about moving to the Russian Wikipedia myself (you prolly noticed how I've been submitting only stubs lately). I'm gradually losing interest, but the habit (addiction?) won't let me go :). Maybe, something will change. Anyway, what will your name be in the Russian Wikipedia? Lemme know. Take care and try to visit us here more often. Cheers! KNewman 05:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you go. This is a big loss to the English Wikipedia. Good luck with the Russian language version. 172 | Talk 06:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a delightful contribution, Giano. I'm sure Ghirla will reconsider his thoughts on leaving, especially since you actually left your real life job momentarily, to go and watch football. Dr. Dan 22:55, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! - are you trying to make a point here? Giano | talk 13:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, can't I give you a f-----g compliment without there being a hidden agenda, or some deep thought behind it? If I was trying to make a point, believe me, you wouldn't have to ask me if I was. Dr. Dan 13:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No you f-----g can't, because this is the grumpy page; and Mr Grumpy himself seems to be sadly absent - let us all just hope he returns to continue his valuable edits, or in all seriousness, it will be Wikipedia's loss. Giano | talk 22:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright fine, then don't f-----g, thank me in that case! Dr. Dan 02:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit comment for undoing Kurt Leyman's edit on Winter War was "rvv", despite his edit comment and his entry on the Talk page. While I agree with your revision, I don't think Kurt's edit was vandalism. Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. -- JHunterJ 15:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JHunterJ, Kurt have shown enough to assume POV pushing rather than bad faith. And please do not use patronizing templates to leave a message to anyone but newbies. If you have anything to say to the user, like Ghirla, please take a minute to write it on your own. --Irpen 19:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we all just love Nixer. I could explain him for the zillionth time that what he does in plain rude, but technically he is not violating anything. As long as he doesn't, I just don't want to waste my time on one letter discrepancy, moving stuff back and forth. In this context, it doesn't make one iota of a difference. Unless his moves interfere with work of other editors (and please let me know if they do), I abstain.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I was in Aleksin and Popovka yesterday. I now know that the last 2 sentences in that little section I wrote on the estate were rubbish. The house burnt down before WW2 having been used as a Dom Kulturi since the revolution. Are there any problems other than that? I think it would be a good idea to have some reference to the L'vov family's estate in Popovka on their page. I belive they were only there from the mid 19th century until the revolution but I still think it's relevant. There are various memorials to Georgi Evgenevich in both Aleksin and Popovka.

Thanks again.

Could you expand Caucasian Avars by translating above mentioned article? I would be very grateful.

Regards, Luka Jačov 23:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I shall try to find time to translate some bits of this stuff over the following days. I don't relish their unsourced genocide blabber, though. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any time you revert without discussion I will be happy to re-revert you. Note that I did not re-revert Mikkalai's revert even though he made the exact same revert because he entered discussion on the talk page. --Ideogram 01:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla, please, please,please forget about this guy and his reverts.

Remember June 17th? Yes, that was when you had a row over the redirection/disambiguation page Oleg, had a row with Halibutt and supported me against a RUSSIAN user over Pyotr Leschenko. June 17th was also the day when Ideogram proposed to mediate between you and Suicup. [1] The same day, he was at the village pump asking whether sending e-mails to other guys someone had a tiff with before proposing that person for RfC, would be considered canvassing for votes. [2] (archive, so you'll have to search for "Ideogram") Three days later, he is at your talk page, threatening with ArbCom. When you take this off, he suggests an RfC on you at the Russo-Turkish War talk page. All of this within his first month at Wikipedia. And now the mediator is in a revert war with you over exactly the same matter! So, forget it, putting up a NPOV disputed tag over that section was the only thing to do.--Pan Gerwazy 12:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your alert. I have had apprehensions about this account from the very start. It would have been instructive to check it for sockpuppeteering, too. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's either really a young newbie who, in spite of or because of being at the computer for 16 hours every day, has failed as a moderator - or he's a returnee making calculated errors. In both cases, he won't be socketpuppeteering, I think. But again: forget about him. Take care and uspehov at Russian Wiki. (yes, I've been there) --Pan Gerwazy 13:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite amusing how paranoid you people are. Ghirla has accused me of trolling, wikistalking, revert-warring, and now sockpuppetry. You people are really incapable of assuming good faith, aren't you? --Ideogram 13:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That's not ridiculous at all, although I admit I should have cited a source for it. It's not my opinion, but an opinion expressed in several of my sources. (I'm not qualified to have an opinion on that question.) Here is one source:

"It is one of the finest in America, and, according to [Alexander von] Humboldt, second only to the statue of Marcus Aurelius in Rome." [3]

The original Humboldt quote is "M. Tolsa, professor of sculpture at Mexico, was even able to cast an equestrian statue of King Charles the Fourth; a work which, with the exception of the Marcus Aurelius at Rome, surpasses in beauty and purity of style everything which remains in this way in Europe."[4]

I actually toned that statement down somewhat to allow for the passage of time, for one thing. Both of the statues mentioned in the quote are used as illustrations in the Wikipedia article Equestrian statue.

Here is a quote from Frances Calderón de la Barca's Life in Mexico:

We spent a long time here examining these antiquities; but we have seen nothing in Mexico to equal the beauty of the colossal equestrian statue in bronze of Charles IV, placed on a pedestal of Mexican marble, which stands in the court of the University, but formerly adorned the middle of the square. It is a magnificent picture of sculpture, the masterpiece of Tolosa, remarkable for the noble simplicity and purity of its style, and was made at the expense of an ex-viceroy, the Marquis of Branciforte.[5]

My intention was to show the level of artistic achievement in Mexico at the time. I think that is an important point to make. I plan to put the direct quote from Humboldt in the article. I don't see how there could be any objection to that. But please let me know what you think. Rbraunwa 17:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I put the Humboldt quote in the article. Thanks for adding the other image, by the way. Rbraunwa 06:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 July, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Hospicio Cabañas, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 17 July, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Vitebsk Rail Terminal, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- Grue  11:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I do not know when the photo was taken. What it would be your advice? (meladina 13:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• I have reuploaded my photo as PD-self. Are you sure it is Falconet not Pietro Stagi? abakharev 15:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not me who uploaded the image, so I'm not in the position to comment. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 16:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway. Did you translate the Avarian Khanate from Russian Wikipedia too? Two new articles came from this who couldnt be more satisfied. Luka Jačov 16:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We seem to be unable to agree on what to leave here, as I've changed it several times now only to have you revert it. Since continuing as we've been is pointless and fruitless, let's see if we can come to some sort of agreement about what to put in. The official name of the city on the Bosphorus has not been Constantinople for several hundred years, since the Ottoman takeover in 1453. It seems like a better idea to me to list the then-official name of the city rather than a Western name, but I am not hard set on that. However, I have a problem with the phrase "Bulgaria and several Orthodox Slavic states were precluded from gaining independence after centuries of the Muslim Ottoman yoke." The whole sentence reads as being negatively biased against Muslims and Ottomans, and positively biased towards the Orthodox Slavs. The word "yoke" in particular has only negative meanings in this context. While some may have/do consider the Ottoman rule of the Balkans to be oppressive, it is not the place of a neutral encyclopedia to decide whether or not it was oppressive. And finally, just to set the record straight, I am neither Turkish nor Muslim, nor do I have any feelings one way or the other about Turks or Muslims. My changes have not been nationalist, rather they are simply an attempt to keep the article neutral. Considering the anti-Muslim Ottoman and pro-Orthodox Slavic nature of this phrase, however, I can't help but wonder if you may have some bias yourself? I don't mean that as an insult, just an observation. I sincerely hope we can work this problem out to both of our satisfaction. Please feel free to post any comments on my talk page as well. Tev 23:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Tev's talk page. --VKokielov 07:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me for my third opinion. I gave it to you. It wouldn't insult you if I did what you just did?

I wipe my hands. Do what you want. Settle it between yourselves. --VKokielov 07:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard that it's easier to break than to make? Take a look at my history of contributions. How many times did I revert anything? How many times did I erase anything? Why is that? --VKokielov 08:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't consider this sentence to be POV. I interpret it as a reflection of the 19th century state of mind of the involved Balkan Slavs, as an explanation of their feelings and motivation, which itself is a historical fact. -- Voyevoda 09:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I got everything of what VKokielov said there, but I'm satisfied with the article as it is now. Thanks to everyone involved, I'd much rather have resolved this peacefully, and I'm glad we could do so. Tev 14:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, "yoke" is actually a word I would, too, usually avoid using. When I deal with the topic I'd almost always refer to the period as 'Ottoman rule', because I believe this term reflects the essence of it better (although 'Turkish yoke' was once used in the Bulgarian historiography, it is now obsolescent). Also, referring to the Ottoman Empire as 'Turkish' is anachronistic. The years Bulgaria spent under the Ottoman Empire are about 480, so 'almost five centuries' would be better in my opinion (this is usually how it is referred to). Hope my opinion was of use to you :) Todor→Bozhinov 22:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other opinions are always welcomed in a dispute, and I think you managed to sum up my point in regards to the use of yoke far better than I managed to! Tev 05:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghirlandajo,

You changed the redirect of Dafni from the disambiguation page to the monastery page, stating that it caused the article to be orphaned. I don't understand this, as there would still be tonnes of links to the monastery page, especially from the World Heritage template you recently changed to reflect the move. The point of a disambiguation page is for people who type a subject into the search box. Preferably, no article should link to a disambiguation page, but directly link to the desired article. So the argument of changing a redirect due to orphaning reasons shouldn't occur. The links that now link to the Dafni redirect (since the exclusion of the world heritage areas) are mostly trying to link to one the towns. I would like to change it back, but would rather wait for your reply. Thanks --liquidGhoul 11:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was listed on Requested Moves, and it was in the backlogs. Therefore it wasn't moved hastily, as it was at RM for a longer period than it should have been. Secondly, there has been a discussion on the talk page since July 4, which is ample time. Your reason for not moving was addressed by the other editors in the discussion, and you never replied to them. How am I suppposed to know the validity of your claim if you no longer discuss it? I did check for myself, and the article said that "Daphni is a monastery", and there was no mention of a shrine. It has been 15 days since your last edit on the talk page, and it looks as though you conceeded defeat or don't care enough to participate. If you actually persisted with a discussion, then you may have swayed other voters, and your vote would have held more power as it is substantiated. Consensus requires discussion, and according to that discussion, consensus was reached. --liquidGhoul 12:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what Ghirla is talking about. I already reverted the Dafni page so it links to the Dafni (disambiguation) page. One by one, I am fixing all links that the "link to" the Dafni page. A lot of them are meant to link to the suburb Dafni south of Athens while a few of them are meant to link to various other places called Dafni (some of which don't even have articles). Only a few on them were meant to link to Daphni Monastery. Hope this helps.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 14:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, all done. Please see my note here for more info.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 15:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi, I am mediating the Georgy Zhukov dispute and welcome your comments on the mediation page. BrownHornet21 01:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

School project (or whatever that is) is back again, I would guess. I wonder if they are going to pillage articles on Russian cities every semester; it's getting quite tiring. I still have a backlog from previous occurences. I wish they at least answered any inquiries, but they never do, which is a pity. If we could show them how to do things right, they could be very useful. Anyway, I copyedited Orenburg, please feel free to review in case I missed anything.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was it? I have nothing to look it up at this time. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 July, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sarir, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- Grue  17:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cited some academics in this article but it doesn't seem to show the source from which you pulled the information. Could you please add that while it's probably still fresh in your mind? gren グレン 07:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Привет! Как я выяснил, существует 2 статьи про одного моего земляка. Mikhail Devyatayev и Mikhail Petrovich Devyatayev. Нельзя ли привлечь общественнось к разарботке одной и наиболее полной статьи :) Кстати, среди жителей Казани Девятаев считается "сомнительным героем", т.к. как рассказывают, немцы после его побега провели децимацию узников лагеря... зато куда большей его заслугой считается тоЮ, что он испытывал и водил первыые в мире суда на подводных крыльях ("Ракеты"). --Untifler 14:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I inserted "Russian Tsardom" (the term found in "Muscovy" intro) to avoid the "Muscovy" reference, which sounds stupid in reference to this time period. Could you please split the Muscovy article to make a good reference to a period of Russian history after "великое княжество Московское" and before Russian Empire? Is there a good English term? `'mikka (t) 18:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Petrine Russia was Imperial Russia in all but the name. As Russia was de facto imperial, not Muscovite, between the foundation of St Pete in 1703 and Peter's assumption of the imperial title in 1721, the link to Imperial Russia is quite justified. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the proble is that in RTW 1710-11 the rererence is to Russia (an article about the modern state). Please re-read carefully my questions. While you are right, it was not called "Empire". IMO we need a good reference term for this intermediate time period. `'mikka (t) 18:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 July, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Avar Khanate, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

-- Grue  19:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Это как?! Этот стиль - не только высотки в Москве. Такое здание не могло быть построено до революции, ни в эпоху конструктивизма, ни тем более во времена хрущёвок/брежневок. Это типичный стиль сталинского периода. Почему ты думаешь иначе? ----Ъыь ^(mailbox) 11:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

А это - тоже не сталинский стиль?! ----Ъыь ^(mailbox) 11:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. P.S. Я не из Красноярска. --Ъыь ^(mailbox) 14:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ghirlandajo for the explanation of the "peacock language". Now I really agree with you on that. And you really understand about styles of architecture. Drama of songs is when a poet becomes a playwriter and writes a play Juraune 11:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 July, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pella Palace, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Once again, thanks for the great article -- Samir धर्म 13:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the first time I tell you this. You do not have any editorial control over the presentation or content of an article. This revert had no justification whatsoever. Circeus 15:43, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I've noticed that you've edited articles pertaining to the Eastern Orthodox Church. I wanted to extend an invitation to you to join the WikiProject dedicated to organizing and improving articles on the subject, which can be found at: WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This WikiProject was begun because a need was perceived to raise the level of quality of articles on Wikipedia which deal with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

You can find information on the project page about the WikiProject, as well as how to join and how to indicate that you are a member of the project. Additionally, you may be interested in helping out with our collaboration of the month. I hope you'll consider joining and thank you for your contributions thus far! —A.S. Damick ^{talk contribs} 18:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what is the problem with inclusion. I can see a potential case for not having it at all (that the link is rather coincidental and not necessarily worthy of a navigational template, but I doubt that'll be enough for TFD), but as long as the template exists, I am not sure what arguments can be proposed against its inclusion in Moscow or Kiev. Is there some potential PoV issue that I'm not seeing?

I can see one or two ways the template can be refactored, though. Right now, I'm not sure why it should take as wide a space as it does, and the split by countries does not seem to be so relevant. After all, it is their status as Hero Cities that is outlined in the emplate, not their exact location ({{Metros in FSU}}, to take a random example, has no such split). Besides, if I am not mitaken, they were all part of the same political entity at the time they were awarded. Circeus 14:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I'll rework it as soon as I'm done with my watchlist review. Circeus 17:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the version now better? Circeus 02:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re this. "Of which it is now considered a suburb" implies that there is an official definition of a "suburb" (there is none in Russia). It also suggests that Kola is currently subordinated to Murmansk or is even a part of it, but in reality it is not directly subordinated to either Murmansk or to Murmansk Oblast. It is a raion-level town, the administrative center of its own Kolsky Raion.

The fact is that Kola is located in the vicinity of Murmansk, and that Murmansk and Kola residents probably view Kola as a "suburb", because Kola was Murmansk's sattelite for so long. That, however, is just a colloquial expression. I am not convinced that such wording is better for encyclopedic purposes than my version.

If you have any suggestions as to how to improve wording without losing essential information, I am quite open to hearing them. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would still like to hear your response to this, please.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's what I thought (that you used the term in informal sense). I do believe that "satellite" is more precise, though. A "suburb" in general is a residential district, i.e., a part of town within its administrative boundaries or an administrative entity immediately adjacent to them. Although there is no official definition of a suburb in Russia, even in informal sense it is somewhat misleading when applied to Kola. A "satellite" town is one closely associated with a bigger urban entity, but still administratively separate from it.

My other question was why you removed the bit about Kola being granted town status again in 1965. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it does, but it's not immediately obvious. Anyway, I don't have strong feelings about this. Thanks for taking time to answer.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page back to Pik Lenina because it is not clear that Independence Peak is the correct name. A Tajik presidental web page contradicts this and was cited on the talk page. I think that Lenina should be retained until the situation is clarified; this is, after all, a Tajik mountain, not a Russian one. I thought it was OK to move pages (back) in this manner but the move was contested (unfortunately I overlooked this on my watchlist) so I will look into and probably take up the proper procedure. Viewfinder 01:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. I wouldn't speak too soon. The Poles are pretty tenacious, and doubtless will campaign vigorously or find some device to get it moved to a Polonocentric name. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid these fanatics already started this campaign. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your edit comments on the page for Nevsky Prospekt about the "superior" historical image that I replaced. I had not read the Nevsky Prospekt page prior to visiting today but was certainly surprised not to find a modern picture in place. I realized that I had a few, though they were certainly not the most stellar examples. I guess there's no reason to "orphan" one of the historical pictures, but I hope you aren't implying that there shouldn't be a picture there from the last hundred years! Maybe all three can be on there? (I only delinked the one because of the excess of pictures on the page!) If you have a better modern picture, that would also be fabulous. Let me know what you think InvictaHOG 16:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirlandajo, I agree with you that there have been some problems from some members of the Polish Wikipedian community. However, I find this particular comment that you made about Poles being a type of "Holes", offensive [6]. Could I please ask you to reconsider your words, and remove the comment? --Elonka 17:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghirlandajo, you have been active since the above request was made, but I see no reply here or on Elonka's talk page. Please respond as soon as possible, see WP:AN/I#Ethnic_slur for more on this subject. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ghirlandajo, I've restored the above comment that you accidentally removed. Please be more careful in the future. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirlandajo, I see that following my request, that you did indeed comment out the statement that I had concerns about [7], though I didn't find out about this until after your block (I don't routinely scour your contributions). In 20-20 hindsight, I would have liked if you had told me that you took the action. However, for what it's worth, I would like to thank you for removing the comment, and I apologize for any mis-match in communications. On the whole, I think that you are a very productive and hard-working editor, and I welcome your point-of-view in discussions, as long as you are able to present them in a civil manner. At this point, if you are willing, I too am willing to wipe the slate clean and start fresh, and look forward to working with you towards our common goal of improving Wikipedia. Is this acceptable to you? --Elonka 18:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Здравствуй Гирландайо! Хочу спросить - чем тебе так понравились зимнее фотки летнего курорта? :) Речь идет о Светлогорске. Если кому интересно, на статье уже есть ссылка на Wikimedia Commons где старые фотки и другие (кстати я туда свои помещу чтобы потом на Русской и других уикипедиях разместить). Еще вопрос - почему ревертал последний параграф? Moonshiner 23:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that you have changed the names within the article, but not moved it to Yury Veldten. What is your source for his "original name", and, if correct, would it still be preferred to use the "original" over the version more commonly used today? (See WP:NC for article naming conventions). Also (and this is a matter of personal taste), I think I prefer the previous image. --Dystopos 16:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is never a reason to make personal remarks about another editor, and nationality has nothing to do with editing. If you have a complaint about a specific editor's behavior, that's one thing, but there is no reason to refer to groups of editors by their nationality, as you did here. This is not the first time this has been a problem, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/AndriyK#Ghirlandajo_warned and Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Ghirlandajo. Thus, I am blocking you for 48 hours and warning you again to avoid personal remarks. Friday (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Half a year ago, when Piotr enthusiastically pursued his anti-Ghirlandajo campaign to which the above links allude, the ArbCom decided the issues of blocking, not some stray and reckless admin who failed to explain which "ethnic slur" I used and to which editor I applied it. That such cheap and habitual tricks from the editor with whom I have not spoken or otherwise interacted for months is given full credit now, shows how low the standards have plunged here and that the likes of him, bonny-like manipulating through delations behind the back of others, are more needed here than myself. The Poles use all of us like holes. There is no denying it now. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 19:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk is cheap unless you state succinctly where is the offense. Piotrus always has a grudge against me, if you follow his incessant and groundless complaints which have been going on for two years, I feel pity for you. I can see no offense in literal copying and pastying a comment from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, which has caused no reproach there. Why don't you block User:Miborovsky who first posted this joke? Why don't you block a dozen editors who joined him? Although I never addressed it to a Polish editor, I deleted the comment immediately following Elonka's request above, yet Balcer restored it a minute later. Why don't you block Balcer, especially as it was he who disregarded the consensus by moving Jogaila as he thought fit? The whole affair belies your assertion that "nationality has nothing to do with editing". I see that you chose to single me out of numerous editors who were accessory to this rather harmless joke, without a prior warning, only because one Polish admin pursues his rabid anti-Ghirlandajo crusade on WP:AN and there is no instrument to defrock him, as admins are no held accountable in this project. In short, this project becomes less reputable day by day and evolves into a haven for brainless admins who seek to oust content creators. If you didn't bother to look into the matters before fucking me, fuck you all too. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:04, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a diff of the edit in question, as you can see in the message I left you. I have no opinion on the other matters you bring up here. You may also wish to look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ethnic_slur, which is what brought this to my attention. Friday (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S volkami zhit, po volchyi vyt. Protiv loma net priyoma esli net drugogo loma. Duraka rabota lyubit. Proletarii vseh stran soedinaites. Ili pan ili propal. Tolko blednolitsy mozhet tri raza nastupit na odni i te zhe grabli. That's all I can say in this respect. `'mikka (t) 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A translation upon request of curious colleagues: To live with wolves means to howl like wolves. There is no technique against a pick (a long heavy pointed metal bar used for digging (and ass-kicking); no wikipedia article looks like) if you don't have another pick. A fool is loved by hard work. Proletarians of all countries, unite! Either you be of szlachta or you are done in. <<< Chingachgook The Great Snake, Osceola The Seminole Chieftain and Sherlock Holmes are sitting in the night by the fire silently smoking a Peace pipe. There is a rustle in the bushes. Chingachgook steps into the darkness, there is a smacking sound, Chinga returns with a black eye, and proceeds with silent smoking... There is another rustle in the bushes. Osceola steps into the darkness, there is a smacking sound, Osceola returns with a black eye, and proceeds with silent smoking...There is yet another rustle. Mr. Holmes steps into the darkness, there is a smacking sound, then another one... Holmes returns with two black eyes, Chingachgook solemnly nods to Osceola: "Only Whiteface can step twice onto the one and the same rake."...>>> Eto vsyo chto ya mogu skazat po etomu povodu. `'mikka (t) 00:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment

{{unblock reviewed}}

• | While there is a very late night in Russia now, I am putting this request on my own judgement at the talk page of one of the most valuable editors who, I think, was blocked in error. I am asking Friday or another neutral an uninvolved admin to review the matter giving it a thorough attention. For details, please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#A_thorough_review_is_requested at WP:ANI and links thereof. --Irpen 02:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• |2= This is only a 48-hour block. While I'm sure Ghirlandajo appreciates Irpen's support, I'm not going to even consider unblocking if Ghirlandajo doesn't make the request.Mangojuice^talk 16:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the issuer of the block, I'm obviously not neutral here. I wish for more input at an/i, tho. Friday (talk) 03:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any admin that would try and review this block is hereby strongly encouraged to read the whole WP:ANI thread, and click on all evidence provided by both parties, not just Piotrus. It will give a clear picture of what is going on and hopefully lead to unblock. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 11:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also the discussion on my talkpage. dab (ᛏ) 16:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• User unblocked after 24 h. I maintain that immediate long blocks are warranted only in the case of grave abuse. Any "cumulative" accusations require deliberation. We are not going to block Elonka for defamation of Ghirla when she wrongfully insisted that Ghrla said "Poles are holes", are we?

(BTW I don't see her rushing to apologize for misunderstanding, but rather a flurry of "yes, but..." from Polish wikipedians. Which hardly can be interpreted as an intention to bury a hatchet. I suggest everyone to stop for a while and think: what is the ultimate goal: to punish Ghirla or to improve the cooperation?) `'mikka (t) 17:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone tell me, or translate for me, the meaning (as a native speaker of English, I don't understand the remark), what the meaning of the phrase the Poles use us like holes is suppose to mean in English. It's seems pejorative on the surface, but I honestly don't understand its intent or what it is supposed to mean. Thanks, Dr. Dan 18:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Holes I presume would be taken to refer to Sexual orifices. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 18:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold on here now. First of all, the exact phrase of Ghirla is The Poles treat other wikipedians as holes. That is why I firmly stand that grave accusations and resulting long block require proper deliberation. Of course, the Poles use us like holes sounds as "Poles fuck us". While "The Poles treat other wikipedians as holes" means "Poles treat other wikipedians as empty space", i.e., Poles ignore our opinion and do whatever they want one way or another (well, after some thinking, it is basically the same as the first version :-) but at least not so offensively phrased). FUI, there is a common Russian expression "to give (or to have) a hole from bublik". (wow, a missing article here! : "bublik" is a ring-shaped roll of white bread or pastry, like bagel, but definitely different: large hole and stiff crust. The Sbitenshchik in the picture has bubliks on top of the string and a string of smaller rings called baranki. Still smaller (and drier) rings exist (not shown), called sushki). `'mikka (t) 18:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Not sure where this is leading us, but I would like to point out that 3 minutes before Ghirla wrote his second version of the "joke" (interestingly, I would not be surprised if it was a Dutchman who invented thisjoke) the word "holes" was used by someone else in the meaning of "empty space": [[8]].--Pan Gerwazy 18:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder to list DYK proposals at the bottom of the relevant date, rather than the top. BigHaz 22:34, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ghirlandajo:

It's Bob Atchison from the Alexander Palace Time Machine. I changed, corrected (we have redone many of the online books) and added some links on some of your pages that pertain to the Romanovs and the Alexander Palace, but you deleted them as spam. We have thousands of pages in our site - as you know - and Yahoo named it "Site of the Year" a few years back. Millions of people visit the site every year and our 20 online books are used by schools around the globe. Our discussion forum on Russian History has around 4,000 registered users and 200,000 postings in the 18 months. We are not trying to get more traffic via these links - we have lots already. I posted these from my IP - I didn't get an account until just now so that I could write you.

• I answered in User talk:Bob Atchison. `'mikka (t) 04:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this addition, about which purported knyaz I have never heard. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a problem that I cannot use checkuser, as the logs do not go back far enough. Molobo's last edit was so long ago that I get no results, and have nothing to compare the current IPs to (even at Molobo's own request). The IP editor in question, however, is clearly a sockpuppet of someone, and someone who's been in the thick of it before. [9] Unfortunately, it's on many IPs, and so there's no easy solution. I suggest you go to WP:ANI and present the clear evidence that this is not a new user, but an abusive reincarnation of a probably banned user, and see if you can get some admins on his tail. Dmcdevit·t 17:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your supportive comments here [10] They are appreciated. That Fred Bauder thinks I can be banned instead of Eternal Equinox has caused me to have a severe sense of humour failure. In retrospect, of course instead of making light of Eternal Equinox, I should have taken her very seriously - which is what she wanted - but frankly she and her edits on our talk pages were (at best) a joke - so one could either laugh or cry, and crying has never been my style. That Fred Bauder thinks Bishonen should be "cautioned" is, in short, disgusting. She seems to spend hours and hours trying to create harmony on the site, and takes her responsibilities as an admin 100 times more seriously then most of the others. I think the Arb-com now needs a huge kick, and to rid itself of insulting and incompetent buffoons. I expect I shall stick around Wikipedia, but at the moment mu entheusiasm for it is at an all time low. Sorry this is a (sort of) spammed message, but when I saw all of your comments for the first time this evening, I felt a quick response was necessary, but that makes it no less sincere. Thanks once again, it's nice to feel supported. Giano | talk 19:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 1 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Tauride Palace, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Syrthiss 13:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi Ghirla - I don't know anything about it, but it looks fairly referenced, and agreement seems to have been reached between editors, so I assume it's ok. The only way to be sure is to check the references yourself, of course. regards, dab (ᛏ) 22:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting for someone to point out. Hahahha. Thanks. --Bhadani 15:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reserve the right to disappoint you. --Bhadani 15:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Bhadani 15:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, I knew you'd ask! Anyway, first of all, Google is not our friend, it's just a tool that can easily be misused (any common typo would collect a respectable number of hits, for example). Second, your googlefight link is to "Bryansk region" vs. "the Bryansk region", which is not the same as Bryansk Oblast ("Bryansk region" can refer to any area around Bryansk, not necessarily to just the oblast). "Bryansk region" can easily take the definite article, when one speaks of a certain (i.e., previously defined) region around Bryansk. Third, look at this :) Fourth, the number of hits returned in both cases is too small to make an accurate judgement. Fifth, I actually happened to ask native speakers about what they think of this issue—you can find the discussion in my archives here—the bottom line is that while using the definite article before the name of a krai/oblast is not entirely incorrect, it sounds archaic. I ain't gonna argue with an English major on that :) And finally, the majority of articles utilizing the similar construct ("in X Oblast") do not use definite articles, so I removed the one in question partially for consistency sake. Hope this answers your questions.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that you may be interested: [11] - [12] - [13] & BTW, like you I too had thought of leaving, but did not as we have miles to go! --Bhadani 17:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May be you would like to:: value-add to these comments. Regards. --Bhadani 17:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Andrei! I got this info from the Russian Wikipedia. There's also a Мой Город encyclopedia (sort of), which says the same. If you know for sure you can prove otherwise, go ahead and change it, I'm all for it :). KNewman 18:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

Вы пишите по-английски на аварской странице, что "Шамхальство Тарковское съыграло выдающуюся роль в разгроме Надиршаха в местности Андала". Во-первых,не "Андала", а "Андалал", а во-вторых вы всё перепутали. Кумыки (тюркоязычный народ в Дагестане) были не только покорены Надиршахом, но выступили даже в качестве его союзников. что же касается Казикумухцев (кавказоязычных лакцев), то они первоначально попытались сопротивляться Надиршаху, однако были разбиты.Шамхал Сурхайхан сдался в плен. Егьо сын-Муртазаали сумел бежать с небольшим отрядом. Аварские вольные общества вместе с самым крупным вольным обществом- Андалал ('Andalal четыре дня (под трёхдневным проливным дождём) бились с Надиршахом. Никакой помощи от лакского Муртазаали не было. Он явился со своей конницей лишь на четвёртый день, когда исход битвы был уже решён.--80.237.35.135 22:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ghirla, I'm truly sorry to bother you at your talk page, but if you don't mind to give me just a little moment, I would like to talk with you for a minute. I swear, it won't take long.

I wish to thank you for taking the time to take part in my RfA. The fact that one of the greatest contributors Wikipedia can boast of having has noticed it, is in itself a flattery to me, and this I tell you from the heart. I must tell you, tho, that your words have left me very concerned. You express that promoting new admins is a threat to hard working editors. I am worried that you, or anyone, may think of me as I threat to your evidently great work. I'm not sure if you're speaking on a general basis, or just about me; the fact that you said this solely at my RfA seems to indicate the latter, which is why I'm concerned. Have I done something you consider wrong, or acted inappropriately, or did something that may lead you to think I could abuse the tools? I'm simply asking you this in order to improve, since I don't want you to change your opinion in the least - I've said at my RfA, and many times, that one should express what our heart really tells us, and that means your !vote should stay as it is. I'm only asking you this because of the concern that being distrusted causes me.

Dear Ghirla, I'm sorry to bother you, I truly am. I just wish to make sure that you know you have nothing to fear from me - in fact, the only time that I recall we've ever interacted was when I agreed with a point you expressed once. I hold you in the highest respect, and I'd be extremely happy to talk with you if you wish more information on the matter. Warm regards, and До свидания, Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 16:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a very sweet thing you did, my dear Andrey, tho I didn't want you to switch your vote, but just to put your mind at rest! :) I'm so incredibly happy that this has served me to add yet one more Russian friend to my list, and I hope you consider me your own from this moment on. Someday, soon I hope, we should talk more and I'd be delighted to hear your words about your beautiful country, which I was blessed to visit seven years ago. Indeed, the absence of Izehar, and especially Latinus, who is a dear friend of mine, is saddening. I hold the hope that someday they'll surprise us and return to WP - and if that happens, make sure to bring the champagne, I'll bring the cake! :) Hugs, and всего наилучшего! Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 16:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Girlandajo, I am lituanizing only Lithuanian names. Algirdas is one of them. Could you provide your arguments, why I am not rigth, stating, that Olgierd is polonised version of name Algirdas. Orionus 11:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ghirlandajo. At the moment I really do not have enough competence to dispute with you Olgierd/Algirdas problem. If you are right, my apologies are here [14].

Yes, this stub as it stands now is quite funny. According to this website, although some of the CR became derelict, a lot of them are still functioning and operated by children, including the one in Yaroslavl. Also, interwiki there is wrong and should point here, not to a CR in Minsk. OK, I'll try to fix the article, although I don't know, whether I'll have a time to expand it. Cmapm 18:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Monomakhcap.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have time please to have a look on the World War II. There is some movement leading to Nazi apology end even saying Germany started the war some users call "bias against German people". Probably I need some support.--Nixer 09:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanx for the attention paid to my efforts. I was not able to find out the exact amount of Russian troops who participated in the battle. The original figure 22000 was a mistake and i deleted it. I found in От Тарутино до Малоярославца. К 190-летию Малоярославецкого сражения. / Сб. статей. – Калуга: «Золотая аллея», 2002 [15] that the total amount in the Tarutino camp was 97000 but it does not mention how much did really participate in the assault. Probably you have better sources? Blacklake (Talk) 20:20 August 7 2006 (UTC)

• Hi. I sent an e-mail to Kenmore. Now waiting... Blacklake (Talk) 10:43 August 9 2006 UTC

You should reconsider your wording, becase it's biased and not based on any facts (ureferenced, and cannot be refernced). it's not only Lithuanian historians who find first capital of GDL in Vilnius - but also, Polish, German, Belarusians. I'm preparing list of references. an dpleas, explain what does mean "traditionaly"?--Lokyz 07:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with Gediminyds now? Asking for references is nationalistic trolling? Look to a WP:Style for a words to be avoided - it's obvious that "some sources" is not a proof neither reference, and merely an opinion. Any reference would help here. Also not mentioning hypothesis as a brother is neglecting research, and is also a POV.--Lokyz 11:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you take a look at the top of this page, you will see my warning that "Edits by established ghirlaphobes from Poland and former Polish dominions will be promptly removed". That's what I'm going to do with your trolling. I see that your edits are motivated solely by lithuanian nationalism. As such, they will be reverted on sight. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a declaration, to a simple quoestion. Sounds very cooperative. Do you mean all my edits will, be reverted by you without even evaluating? BTW I've never considered myself form Polish dominion or Ghirlaphobe, just wondering - when i did became one.--Lokyz 11:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kiy Island, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hi, I noticed your two beautiful images of Novodevichy Convent. I have a less lovely picture, but one which is in the public domain. I was thinking I might replace one of the fair use pictures but thought you might have some feelings one way or the other (or even have a superb picture of your own!) InvictaHOG 02:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got busy editing! I have uploaded two images to the commons of the convent! The categorization is going slowly, though InvictaHOG 20:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

There exist category "Nobel Prize winners" and even "Heroes of Socialist Labour" why do you oppose the category "Stalin Prize winners"?--Nixer 17:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please list me the phrases you feel wrong and I will deal with them. I do agree the article is biased. Unfortunately I have no knowledge here. `'mikka (t) 18:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit because 1,000,000 is sourced here. Search with Khrushchev and you'll come up with "According to Khrushchev, 1.5 million men were sent to Finland and one million of them were killed. 1000 aircraft, 2300 tanks and armored cars and an enormous amount of other war.."

That's a very high and unrealistic estimate but if that's true that Krushchev said that then it should be like that. Show a source that shows 270,000? I was not able not find. --Pudeo 19:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It indeed seems to be true, check this. --Pudeo 19:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a myth resulting IMHO from crappy knowledge of Russian, see article's talk for details.

If there is another source supporting the figure, okay. But there is no such thing in Khrushchev's memoirs. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 20:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many sources in Polish. But check out this: [16] Is it enough?

Lajsikonik 23:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Ghirlandajo. You seem knowledgeable in the area, so I'll ask you if Igor was the father of Svyatoslav. If so, then there should be a clear statement of this in Svyatoslav's article. --Jugbo 17:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kamenny Monastery, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks Ghirla. Tweaked the tagline a bit, hope it's ok. Cheers -- Samir धर्म 23:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 14 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pechenga Monastery, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

And another. Thanks kindly for your work at DYK! -- Samir धर्म 06:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was your reply On January 16, 2006 when I suggested that the result should read "Marginal French victory:"

"It's OK with me but I would like to know what other editors think."

In your last edit, you spoke about "consensus," but no such thing exists among the editors involved. There are basically two camps: those who want to label it "indecisive" and those who want something like "Pyrrhic victory." There's no consensus; don't try to suggest there is.UberCryxic 15:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article New Holland Island, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

I returned Finnish name to Vyborg at the time when it was refered officially in Finnish (in a similar manner it is still referred in it's Swedish form of Vyborg's Swedish era. It is used in the similar way as in the article of Byzantium/Constatinopolis/Istanbul or Tsaritsyn/Stalingrad/Volgograd, where the historic names are used when explaining their periods. In fact, I'm not satisfied how the history is presented currently, it gives too much space to the last century, and highlights it against previous centuries.

Also, after the Winter War, the town was incorporated to Karelo-Finnish SSR and it retained it's Finnish name. Only after the Continuation War was the town (with Priozersk) incorporated to Leningrad Oblast. (BTW, should we also stop talking about the Siege of Leningrad and talk about the Siege of Saint Petersburg instead?)

And I truly like to see more text about current Vyborg. --Whiskey 13:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just re-reading Palladian architecture this evening, it realy does need a brief section on Russian Palladianism, that picture dumped at the bottom of the page looks all wrong - please write just a few words for a section on the subject - if you don't - I will, and it will be all wrong, and then all you Russians will pile in on it - so in the long run it will be more simple for you to do it in the first instance.........please? .........nice begging pretty please? Giano | talk 19:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Khrenovsky stud is situated near the town of Bobrov in Voronezh oblast', not near Novomoskovsk in Tula oblast'. See here. Also thanks for the image and for the two DYK nominations. Probably you can find some more images for this article? Blacklake (Talk) 11:38 August 16 2006

OK, I'll see what I can do. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and thank you for the honor. You seem to be well in control of your material, I will defer to you any decisions. Regards, Haiduc 11:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[17]. Do we really require links in other languages? Thanks. --Bhadani 13:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On 16 August, 2006, a fact from the article Águas Livres Aqueduct, which you recently nominated, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hello, I propose that we use Template:coor title dm instead of Template:CoorHeader for geographic coordinates of cities and towns. The latter one requires seconds, which are useless to indicate for large objects like towns. The seconds are normally omitted, which results in a treble apostrophe with the latter template.

On 19 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Uzkoye, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

On 22 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Zymne Monastery, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

I'm sorry about my edits. I will stick the template on the talk pages. Thanks for pointing this out to me. -- Underneath-it-All 17:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Could you please support our request at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages (Belarusian - Orthography Revision of 1959). Thank you! -- 82.209.xx.xx 10:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for standing up for the truth here: [[18]]

Apparantely this user does not desist and now claims Ossetic is not an Indo-European language! Please see Ossetic and its talk page.

That is why I have complained against this user and ask you if you have time to also complain: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Barefact

--Ali doostzadeh 01:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you dont belive that members of the Ruriks family, pat. Svyatoslav, Volodymer and Yaroslav, had been using "trident"-like symbols as personal crests on coins and seals, you should look through e-net pages (even russian pages http://russianchange.narod.ru/ or http://geraldika.ru/) about the early "heraldry" or Rus. The Rurikids used "trident" not because they were Ukrainian nationalists, but because it was their family symbol. Regards--133.41.4.47 13:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you dont belive that members of the Ruriks family, pat. Svyatoslav, Volodymer and Yaroslav, had been using "trident"-like symbols as personal crests on coins and seals, you should look through e-net pages (even russian pages http://russianchange.narod.ru/ or http://geraldika.ru/ or http://www.gerb.bel.ru/pages/russia/retro.htm) about the early "heraldry" or Rus. The Rurikids used "trident" not because they were Ukrainian nationalists, but because it was their family symbol. Regards--133.41.4.47 13:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another OR by the same user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masguts

--alidoostzadeh 09:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When you've unpacked, take a look at Château de Maisons, which is just a translation of French Wikipedia. --Wetman 07:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome note. Have actually been here for sometime, but only recently configuring this username. Nice to have your note! —Antonios Aigyptos^talk 09:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment. On Andrea del Sarto you stated that wikipedia entries should not be "Critical assessment and legacy - WP is not image gallery; you can't list all of Sarto's paintings here)" . I disagree in part. I think an entry can list all of painters works or if not, in the future such an entry can be made into its own category. I would not want an entry to have all his images, but references to these is often a useful resource for someone to have. I thinks we need to set a balance here also, some modern artists have thousands of artworks, for them such as list would be impractical, but for most of the artists from the Renaissance, at most some of them have a hundred or so works worthy of recollection. I would vote for allowing such lists or if not, rather than deleting them, making them a linked category. Thanks.

CARAVAGGISTI

Before accusing anybody, first please investigate. Note the date when it was written. Renata 11:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Cowman109 has alerted me to the following cases of gross incivility and what appear to be trolling or deliberately inflammatory comments: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28]

I hope you'll agree that we cannot improve Wikipedia by encouraging that kind of warfare and personal attacks. Please tone it down. --Tony Sidaway 15:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]