• If you left a message at my talk, I will most likely respond here rather than at your own talk to preserve the context of the discussion, so please stop by later. However, please consider in many cases to use the article's talk for the issues related to specific articles. Similarly, if I left the message at your talk earlier, I ask you to respond there for the same reason. Don't worry, I will see it!
• I never censor my talk page from most anything, including the criticism of myself left by others. However, I may remove clearly trollish entries, personal attacks on myself (unless I find them amusing) and on others (even less tolerance to those). The rest will be occasionally archived.
• I can speedily delete postings that appear to me as instances of m:copyright paranoia as I see fit.
• Please stop by at the Wikipedia's Ukraine portal and Russia portal.
• Thank you! --Irpen

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well, self-awarding legitimacy, or lack of it, should not be affected by the fact whether or not it is accompanied by a rejection of a different award, should it? Anyway, I am extremely modest, at least as much as you are, as you could see. I only displayed a ribbon at my user page. Please note, that I was awarded an Order of B. Kh. 1st class skipping the lower two classes. As you can read from an article, 1st class is "awarded to front or army commanders for successful direction of combat operations that led to the liberation of a region or town inflicting heavy casualties on the enemy." I hope our enemies would not recover from such heavy casualties and no one will ever challenge from now on that our cabal rules the Wikipedia. Ура! --Irpen 05:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I will explain it at the article's talk itself for the one last time. --Irpen 22:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I took your above words as a promise. Do you plan to keep it some day? Halibutt 15:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

		An Award
		I, User:Alex Bakharev award this Barnstar to Irpen for his heroic work protecting Wikipedia from the Bad Faith Edits and Vandalism

I am SO glad you are back! While at it, is there a ribbon for this star? If not, could you make one for me? Thanks! --Irpen 01:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, take Image:WikiDefender rib.png. Thanks again. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 02:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Irpen, I've been thinking that since the "bad tempered anon bickering" incident, there has been a gap between us. I would like to apologise for having been on the wrong side of WP:CIV and hope you accept this barnstar for patching up. Izehar 23:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot! I, from my side, fully retract my remarks about the possibility of bad faith on your side (that is if I made any, which I don't think I did in relation to you anyway). Thank you for taking an extra care to check for the possibilities of open proxies. Could you show me how to do it? Next time, I will revert any contributions from such IP's on sight. --Irpen 23:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Прошу обратить внимание сюда, на мой взгляд проект достойный.

• Standartization of Kievan Rus' names

Kazak 07:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

I started on it Here nothing much yet, but the link is 100% ace with all those pre-1973 photos. Would give a helping hand?--Kuban Cossack 19:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will, but I can't promise a definite time frame. Too much work these days. But thanks! --Irpen 19:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at his contributions. What you will see is a POV warrior who has been blocked before for his behavior under this user name and also as DengXiaoPing. So this isn't new. Deng's a user who assumes the worst in users, who thinks he is correct 100% of the time despite evidence to the contrary and who uses personal attacks to try to get his way. He's very good at calling people "liars" and telling them that their views are "irrelevant" and he often says "of course you are wrong" to people who disagrees with. If you would like specific diffs, I can get them for you. He has spent the last few days virtually stalking User:Kurt Leyman and reversing virtually every edit made. And as I said, he's been blocked for this behavior before, so this is hardly an isolated incident. I stand by my block. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 03:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I see now that you have quite strict standards in defining what constitutes a PA, and how severe it has to be to become a blockable offence. In the future, if I see POV-pushers who resort to personal attacks, I will know who to contact. I was sick and tired because of some fellows here. I thought that once I don't want to spend time compiling RfC and ArbCom cases, I have to accept that there is little I can do about some some uncivil and abusive POV-pushers short of starting to write-up RfC's using the time I would rather spend writing articles.

Now I know that I should have contacted you. I sure will from now on. Regards, --Irpen 03:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :) Yeah I apologize for the block log. I tried to give the most recent example of his behavior instead of the most representative. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for you help today. Next time Bonny comes back, I'll know who to contact! ;) —Khoikhoi 01:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention it (Ukrainian: не варто подяки) :)!. But also do ask others as well because those who fight Bonny's socks don't make new friends among more reasonable Romanian contributors who still unfortunately make use of him as a battering ram because he promotes the right POV despite in the wrong way. I am not generalizing over an entire community and I don't want to call names here as well. In any case, we should spread the duty of guarding WP from bad-faith users somewhat evenly. That said, as I always did, I won't hesitate to do all I can to keep such fellows at bay. It's just that if more people actively get themselves involved, life would have been way easier around here. --Irpen 01:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I already asked Ghirla, who else do you think we need help from? --—Khoikhoi 01:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The good place to consider would be regional notice boards, like the urgent announcement sections of Portal:Russia/New article announcements, Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements and, yes, a Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. Some Romanian users feel ashamed by such compatriots and may help as well. Cheers, --Irpen 01:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks again. --—Khoikhoi 02:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to commmend you on your remarkable civility and, as always, amazing dedication to WP. I will alternate my postings, but am generally more interested in improving the state of dance and music articles. I marvel at the combined work of all the Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian members. Sure there will be times to disagree about certain articles, but the manufacture of content from that area is stagerring to be sure.

Thank you for the additional links about language issues. The present system seems ill-suited to stave of our stubborn-headed colleagues (we all have some in our respective communites), and I hope discussions will lead to further reforms. I hope you realize by now that I am not the type that intends to begin any warring, but I am known to back up others when their actions seem sincere. Good luck with KK; he seems like he would make for a good time out with friends :)

Not a big fan of the Ukrainian Canadian dialect. But I would like to tackle Ukrainian Americans at some point.--tufkaa 23:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would the images on this official site qualify for such a tag? As the company is state owned. If yes that means that I'll be able to do all the stations of the Kiev Metro and then it WILL altogether become a featured article. In the meantime I still would like to upgrade DnieproGES to the FA standard and nominate it. --Kuban Cossack 13:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kazak, any Ukrainian logo qualifies. The law speaks inclusively of symbols and signs of enterprises, institutions and organizations and does not even say "state only". Reread the tag, item d)--Irpen 18:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant photographs! I could not care less about logos.--Kuban Cossack 19:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, got you wrong. Give me a couple of days to email them with the request for permission, which I don't expect will be a problem. You could email them too, but I think it is more courteous to write to them in Ukrainian rather than in Russian. So, I will gladly do it for you. --Irpen 19:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they had a Russian version which after their update back in late 2005 was purged. I e-mailed them a few times and got no reply whatsover. Given how often they update I cannot promise a reply. But go to the Dnepr station and have a look the photo there is the same as in our wiki. I think that might reply that all of their photos are in public domain...--Kuban Cossack 19:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I will email them again and we'll see. --Irpen 19:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You keep complaining about this article. But why not just follow the Wikipedia practice and edit it, introducing changes which will make it less POV? This is the Wikipedia way, after all. Be bold. Sitting on the sidelines and telling others to fix articles is not going to accomplish anything. Balcer 03:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a specialist enough in international politics. The editors who are, and who wrote it, are Poles. So, I chose the best venue. I also asked user:172 to look at it. If he gets interested, the normalcy of the article is them assured. --Irpen 03:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insidious games at Soviet partisan

Irpen, what freacking games are you playing in??? What the hell does this nasty comment mean? And where is fucking logic in your edits to that article? You kept (although biased) my important thesises, but reverted other non-political issues like terms in the lead. So what are you trying to do? Promote some point or just provoke a conflict?

Discuss issues before changing them in the article. Or you'll get a real war till the last drop of my blood you mother fucker!!!AlexPU 07:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow

That's the most amazing message I've ever seen at my talk and I've seen a lot. I regret my first thought to remove it. Better yet, I will keep it. Let it shine! Thanks, Alex! --Irpen 07:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figured I place links here to the past messages from the same contributor left at my talk that are now in archives and not in the plain view:

• November, 2005: original, "modified"
• March 2005 a nice welcoming me to Wiki

That's it for now. --Irpen 08:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your request of evaluation

Hi. Yesterday you requested my evaluation of your behaviour, and here it is:

• you ARE "the shame" in Wikipedia
• but you can't be "a shame on the Ukrainian community" since you don't belong to such

In case if you need assessment of your activities, just use a special purpose register here. AlexPU 06:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving your entry to a desginated section I specifically marked for you at my talk. I don't remember requesting your opinion of myself since you made it public at your disgusting talk page. Since you expressed it, I stopped caring. If you keep trolling, you visit here will be short. If you somehow undergo a major transformation and manage to stay, this would be just fine as far as I am conserned. I don't feel good though being a subject of your obsession. Not that I care myself, but it is rather unhealthy for your own sake. --Irpen 07:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, stop it. Irpen, don't call his talk page "disgusting". Alex's user page is one of the cleverest I've seen, better than yours. Irpen, don't build a wall. KPbIC 07:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His user talk is an attack page as well as most of his entries into the article's and personal talks. I have a wall between myself and people with a filthy mouth. There is nothing to build. When he makes edits or suggestions outside of his crusade venue, I will respond disregarding his past offences, as I did just today at talk:Viktor Yushchenko. When he just plainly trolls, he is just banging his head against the wall. I have enough patience to stand through far worse things than his bad mouth. --Irpen 07:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't have a wall between yourself "and people with a filthy mouth". If you were you would have treated Kuban Kazak differently.

You are trying to build a wall with AlexPU and came to the point at which you release yourself from any productive articles' discuss with AlexPU. That would be a wrong point. KPbIC 07:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 134, your comparison of AlexPU with Kuban kazak is totally improper because:

• I did chastise KK rather strongly after his spats of incivility (which apparently worked, btw) and if he keeps being uncivil Ezhiki will block him sooner than any other admin and if he gets blocked, I would never interfere (this has been discussed)
• Kazak, compared to AlexPU is a teacher in the good manners school.
• Most of Kazak's contributions at talk pages are civil while almost all talk entries by AlexPU range between incivil and horrific (like the one above that beats all the records).

I don't remember seeing you criticizing AlexPU on the issues (from which I infer that you view him uncivil but with the right POV). At the same time I gad frequent disagreements with Kazak (and Ghirla) on the article's talk pages. Examples are abundant. That said, I do treat each edit from any editor even guilty of whatever trolling in the past based on its own merit. Examples are abundant but if you doubt that, let me know and I will give you diffs. Best, --Irpen 01:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AlexPU definitely has some specific knowledge, and he is a journalist, so it would valuable for the project if he is around. He basically created the article on Rudnev, adding that story on Kovpak/Rudnev conflict, which probably the other had no idea of, and on which I actually put “fact” template, as without a reference the story sounds questionable. Also, speaking on who should be a teacher for whom, it seems that AlexPU has got your civility message pretty fast. But we will see… KPbIC 20:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AlexPU claims that he is a journalist but his Rudniev article is a bunch of unreferenced speculations and conspiracy theories. It also included false claims, like his beeing not a communist. I am writing a replacement now. I would love to see the material restored in the referenced form. He got no message on the civilty whatsoever. I've been here longer than you and I've seen this editor. That he simply makes no edits now is the reason why we don't see his diatribes. As soon as he is back, they will resume. Fortunately, Wikipedia has got much less tolerant to such behavior lately. More often than not we see instant blocks of some fellows without even an ArbCom. If he returns as a civil editor, that would be a different story. --Irpen 20:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I haven't been able to work on the article! If you need help, John Kenney, Slrubenstein, Jtdirl, and Rjensen are also historians and/or social scientists. 172 | Talk 06:00, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Will contact them. --Irpen 06:03, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look what I found yesterday

• Ать
  Ать
• Два
  Два

Йопт, how was it possible to ruin such a design? --Kuban Cossack 16:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC) You SHOULD archive a good half you your page [reply]

Ответ тут.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would this and this (scroll down to Лингвистический лохотрон) be of any use to you?—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have it now next to me. I think I already asked you for a list of terms to check, I am sorry if you gave it to me but I can't find it now - I remember we talked about the list...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 20:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! First of all, I would like to know the names, Davies uses in the English (original) version of his book for the towns/villages listed in Template:Campaignbox Polish-Soviet War. I am almost sure that Wołodarka, Nowochwastów, Wasylkowce and others have to go from en-Wiki to pl-wiki where no one in sane mind would object to them. Check the table for other names (Mironówka anyone?). I would also be very much interested whether he mentions such thing as the Battle of Wołodarka and, if yes, whether he mentions a "Polish victory" there. If you could hold on to the book for a while, I will come up with more questions. Please keep checking out my talk once in a while. There will be plenty of entries, including by myself, in response to some comments as I have missed replying to several on time due to real life things. I really appreciate that so many people, read my talk and care to comment. I know you are busy with other things than scrutinizing my talk, but just check for responses, if you can. I find it extremely important that the questions and answers are kept at the same page. Regards, --Irpen 21:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please contribute, if you have sources? Talk:Camps for Russian prisoners and internees in Poland (1919-1924) Xx236 08:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comment concerning your conduct is filled.--AndriyK 16:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not engage in edit warring when in conflict with other editors, as you have been doing today and recently. Take a look at your recent edits at [1], [2], [3], [4]. Edit warring is a poor way to solve disputes. Actually, it inflames them. All of those instances of recent edit warring are unacceptable, as well as the ones I haven't mentioned. Please use WP:DR: go to mediation or RFC. As you know, persistent edit warring may lead to blocks. Dmcdevit·t 07:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday, you deleted the dispute tag twice from the article Uktainization. I would like to point you out that the dispute concerning this article has not been resolved yet. There is a discussion at the talk. Please note, that blanking dispute tag may be qualified as WP:Vandalism.--Mbuk 21:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was placed improperly contrary to the sources cited in the article and its talk. I added more source. The tag was placed by the user who uses tag-trolling as the easy way to push a POV in the lack of the desire to write anything at all. You are making a big mistake by allowing yourself to be blindly lead by AndriyK whose remaining tenure at WP will likely be short despite my efforts to turn his efforts into anything creative. --Irpen 00:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You cited the sources after several cycles of tag removal. The tag was placed properly, because the sources were not cited at the time when the tag was reinserted.--Mbuk 20:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are making a false statement, again simply wasting the time of yourself and more importantly of others. Other sources were cited earlier at the talk page, e.g. here. I do not intend to engage into such fruitless discussion with you anymore since I more and more get to conclusion that you are either not reading other people's entries or simply act in bad faith in order just to make a point. That is until I see any change in your behavior which is until now of the blind supporter of a very problematic user. Your pointless pestering would either be unanswered or removed, when you enter it at user talk page. So, better leave it at the article's talk so that other people would see its merit on their own in the context of the entire talk page. If you enter anything substantial, you will og course get a response. --Irpen 21:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reread the talk. None of the sources cited there define Ukrainization as you did in the article. It looks like it you Original Research. Therefore, tag insertion was (and still is) justified.

Please avoid personal attacks and foccuse your efforts on the discussed issue. Thanks.--Mbuk 23:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please seize your perpetual harassment. I never personally attacked anyone. Your pestering is a waste of time. --Irpen 04:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not pestering. I pointed out a real OR problem at Ukrainization.--Mbuk 08:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you accused me in personal attack unjustly while there were none and you know it. Similarly to you going around talk pages accusing others instead of engaging into any productive activity. Please do not expect that people will be wasting time to feed you. --Irpen 18:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please reread WP:NPA.--Mbuk 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

God! Irpen, I admire your patience. --Tēlex 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen,

I just wanted to thank you for this. It was good to read some reasoned thought, both about how our sysop temperment is changing as newer, less-encultured people become sysops, and on the individual cases, how mis-application of and sometimes shear insouciance to the guidance can distort our policies into damaging the encyclopædia. Certainly, it makes a rather nice change from the reactionary stuff that so-often pervades AN. Keep up the good work, etc.. :-)

Yours,

James F. (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the barnstar. It's always nice to be recognized for doing this sort of work. --tufkaa 17:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, I've warned you before, and you are not a new user, so I am disappointed to see you continuing to engage in edit warring with AndriyK and others at Ukrainization. [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10] are all recent reverts, mostly regarding the tags. I don't care the reason, edit warring is never acceptable or appropriate; edit warring never improves a conflict, but always makes it worse; the proper response to a content dispute is talk page discussion and dispute resolution, and no edit warring. As the article has already been protected before, and you are not a new editor, and you've even been participating in the discussions about edit warring, so a warning would be pointless, I'm giving you and the rest of the edit warriors there a 24 hour block to cool down. Dmcdevit·t 04:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcdevit, I am not going to loose my sleep over this first block of me in my long time of participation in this project and countless articles I created, wrote from scratch or extensively edited. But in case you are interested to see my response, here is one. To start with, please take a look at this thread at WP:AN for some ideas many users found interesting. Now, let's study your list of edits that you think shows I was revert warring. In the chronological order:

1. [11] This "recent" edit is actually from a week ago. It is well explained at talk and in the summary. Basically, the user, who does nothing at WP but tagging the article others wrote, tagged just one more without any explanation at talk. I responded with the message that tags cannot be used without explanations, since they point to the dispute at talk while there there was none. Note, again, that this was an edit 1 week ago. How recent is that?
2. [12] This edit (also from three (!) days ago, also a noteworthy detail) was not a "revert warring" but a well explained at talk removal of the tag (see also edit summary for that). Moreover, the other change of that edit is also explained at talk and Lysy and I who disagreed about that phrase worked out the solution for this phrase exactly through getting our edits closer to the mutually acceptable version and extensively discussing at talk.
3. [13] Next edit (also from two (!) days ago) was explained at talk. The tag Elonka inserted was simply a wrong tag (factual accuracy dispute), since no one ever disputed a single fact in that article I wrote. It is a very well referenced article. No one disputed facts. If it is POV or OR was disputed, it is the duty of the tagger to provide the proper tag, this was simply an improper tag as was later agreed. At least the article ended up without that tag, even though the tagger reinserted it once later. How is this edit warring?
4. [14] Next edit was part of mine and Lysy work over the version of this particular sentence. This was indeed a yesterday's edit. Lysy and I were not edit warring but editing the article and discussing it at talk and eventually we arrived to a mutually acceptable compromise, as he later acknowledged at talk
5. [15] This edit is similar to the edit number 4 from two days prior to that. It was explained, the topic was being discussed (there is never a discussion during the sterile revert wars). As I said, others accepted that the "factual accuracy tag" is inapplicable when there is no factual accuracy dispute, only a POV/OR one.
6. [16] Finally, the last edit was a reshufling of the intro, following mine and Lysy's work on it. This was not a revert but an expansion.

Having said that, I leave it to others to you and others to judge whether this was a revert war or the complex article undergoing a painful, but useful growth, that you interrupted by blocking me. I could see that you don't want to look partial and it is tempting to block the other side when you blocked the first one (AndriyK). However, AndriyK did nothing to the article but tagging it in various ways and revert warring (that's most of his WP activity) while Lysy (who actually supported AndriyK's position but acted differently) and myself were actually seeking for a compromise which partially emerged due to our efforts and the rest of it will be coming soon.

You are right that as an experienced user I should know what I am doing. And this was exactly the case. I did not see this as a revert war, but an article developing, perhaps in pains, over the good faith editors disagreement (between Lysy and myself), exaggerated by onlookers who added gasoline to fire by tagging needlessly, reverting and doing nothing else.

If you want me blocked despite this all, fine with me. If, after reading this all, you will take another look at this article's development and see that on my and Lysy's part this was a development rather than an edit war, this would be just as well.

I am not saying that I should not be blocked just because I technically did not violate 3RR. Sometimes less than 3RR amounts for revert warring. I am saying that after a more careful look, you will see that while some participants were revert warring, others were modifying the article and looking for the ways to do so at its talk.

Finally, let me say that I appreciate your desire to keep the hot heads cooler. Articles like this need an outside arbiter who will chastise the disrupting party and, when necessary, use some force to relieve the pressure. If you think that my activity was edit warring rather than editing, so be it. --Irpen 05:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read all this, I've taken another look at the conflict, and I still respectfully disagree. First, to clear up any misconceptions, I didn't make any of my blocks out of some notion of symmetry in the "sides" of the conflict. I block one and and I get told I'm favoring a side in the dispute, I block two and I'm told I only blocked [insert name here] so I wouldn't look partial. The only resolution is to block the deserving, and that's what I've tried to do. I am convinced that you have been edit warring at that article, particularly over the tags, and you have been edit warring with, AndriyK especially, there for months now. Perhaps you've been caught in the moment, but take a minute to look through the entire history of that article, all the way through 2005, especially the Irpen and AndriyK edits: it's rather startling. It's past when I should have gone to bed by now, and I don't have the stamina for as long of a reply as yours, but you should also read my other responses: [17] and [18]. A 24 hour block isn't going to prevent you from continuing to help out here, and we do appreciate your contributions, butI feel I need to send a message that all of you need to stay calm when editing in conflict, and use dispute resolution and not edit warring. Dmcdevit·t 06:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcdevit, the 24 hour block is not going to prevent me from contributing. Neither it is going to do anything bad to my life either. Neither I am going to make a big deal out of this. I may have been wrong, too and I have a project at work and housekeeping things that are well behind.

The only reason why I am talking here is that I disagree that I edit warred and deserved a block. I may be wrong at that and I am not trying to make a fuss out of it, or post "unblock" templates or "threaten" the coparticipants with my leaving the project, demand apologies, or doing other silly things. I simply requested your more careful examination of the matter.

In the thread at WP:AN I pointed out to you above, I said basically one thing. Admins should assume that established, experienced and productive users are more likely to know exactly what they are doing and before imposing the block, take an extra minute to check for the context of the events. If the block is still deserved, block them all right. However, with the established users there is likely more to it. I was reverting AndriyK for the one simple reason (and not only at this article but at others too). I demanded that he provided a good-faith explanation if he tags the article he "doesn't like" marring it with this or that tag. Tag requires an explanation at the talk page. He refused to give any explanation or repeated the arguments that were discussed by the community, and backed with sources. Still, I did not revert him too many times because other users were reverting him as well, which just proves that his tags were unwarranted.

As long as he refused to provide an explanation, I maintained that the tag removal was warranted. There is no need for excellent articles to display bad-faith tags. The refusal of the tagger to elaborate as well as AndriyK's past history at Wikipedia was seen by me as a proof that this was indeed bad faith tagging. I try my best to avoid edit warring and always look for the dispute resolution. However, I see reverting of bad faith edits on the par with reverting of simple vandalism. No one can demand dispute resolution with vandals. Bad-faith is a more tricky and borderline case and I am well aware of AGF and other policy guidelines. I've assumed good faith of AndriyK for a very long time. Even during the arbitration I brought against him I did not request a block that ArbCom instituted. I asked for reversal of the dirty moves and a ruling that would ban him from revert warring in the future. His talk page and archive documents my multiple attempts to stretch my hand to him that he spit on many times. Similar, my talk page above and Mbuk's talk page document how I tried with infinite patience, that amazed some onlookers, to talk to that guy Mbuk and in a very friendly way before he exhausted my patience by his persistence in driving endless circles in discussions and acting as AndriyK's revert proxy. That both contributed virtually no content to Wikipedia despite my calls for them to start, just revert warring, tagging lef and right and wikilawyering, is also a sign of a problem

However, these two users continue with their single activity, tagging the articles they happen to "not like" and serving as each other's revert proxies. I warned Mbuk in the past about revert warring here. It didn't work. I hope your warning him just now would work after his intrigue. Whether you decide to keep my block, or agree with me that my actions did not warrant it, I will be around with many more edits. Good night, --Irpen 06:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, I explained the tag [19]. AndriyK did it as well [20], [21].--Mbuk 18:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went to bed last night, then to work this morning, and I expected to see a lot more interest in this block by now than it got at Alex's AN listing: WP:AN#Can_somebody_review_the_blocks (which was precisely zero). I recognize this wasn't straitforward, and I was hoping to get more opinions of it be outsiders, but let me make another statement in any case. AndriyK and Mbuk were edit warring. They were quite clearly and quite simply edit warring over the tags. However, I think there was some kind of misunderstanding: I never accused Lysy of edit warring, and while I don't personally prefer single reverts to only discussion when actively collaborating on a developing article, that can be a valid method if done amicably, as it appears was the case here. By extension, I didn't mean to accuse you of edit warring with Lysy. But, AndriyK and Mbuk were edit warring mostly about the tags, and they weren't edit warring with themselves, they were edit warring with you, Telex, and Grafikm. In what has apparently turned out to be the least controversial of my blocks, I blocked AndriyK for a week for his edit warring (which I believe was not vandalism; replacing an article with a penis is vandalism, being obstinate and disruptive is wrong and sanctionable, but a different category from "vandalism"), but this is what I mean when I say pursue dispute respolution: discussion, I'm glad you tried that; mediation has failed; repeated blocked affect no change; then you need to finish it and take it to the last step: arbitration. If I know anything about arbitration (which I do), an arbitration request against AndriyK and Mbuk would get accepted instantly. I don't find anything that you've said about the two (other than calling it vandalism) that I disagree with, so take it to arbitration and get it dealt with. One last thing: "Still, I did not revert him too many times because other users were reverting him as well, which just proves that his tags were unwarranted," this is the problem I think needs addressing. If AndriyK/Mbuk continue to add tags improperly, rather than revert even more than once, the best thing to do is to ask around for any uninvolved editors you know to take a look, ask for help on ANI early on (and get someone like Elonka in), and follow the dispute resolution process I outlined, all the way to arbitration if need be. Reverting over and over again will not solve the problem, especially if it is only one party at fault. Dmcdevit·t 21:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dmcdevit, I am more than happy you take an interest in these controversies that need to be addressed anyway. So, no grudge on my part. Now to respond, you only confirmed that was I was thinking of doing all along. To take it to another arbitration against those two fellows is the right thing to do despite the giant time waste it would cause, judging from the time I had to waste on AndriyK's previous Arbitration. That previous what seemed an open-and-shut case about dirty tricks, frivolous moves, sterile revert warring, horrific personal attacks and vote fraud with meatpuppets, still took two (!) months for the ArbCom to decide. Note that at that ArbCom case my only request to the Arbiters was to strip AndriyK off the trolling tools. While ArbCom did rule on reversal of all his frivolous page moves and gave him a one months ban to think about his behavior, it did not address the other problem, revert warring. I requested putting him on the revert and PA parole or restrict his "revert quota" to a solid number less than 3RR. This was not done. I hope this will be done next time.

Another reason why I did not take it to ArbCom is that, as I said repeatedly, it is never my intention to have any of my opponents blocked or banned. I want them reformed or supervised, since blocking people is un-wiki.

Now, I never said that what AndriyK and Mbuk were doing here is vandalism. I said that these are bad-faith edits of the users who do mostly trolling in WP. I still attempted to resolve the disputes, despite their bad faith, and to no avail. I said above one thing, which you misunderstood, perhaps because I was not clear. While they were not vandalizing per se, attempting to resolve anything with bad-faith editors is as productive as attempting to resolve anything with vandals.

Finally, I wrote at WP:AN (see this thread) that when Admins deal with established long-time contributors and think of a block, they should study the matter even more thoroughly than in the ordinary cases. The reason is not to give some editors more slack for their past accomplishments but that editors like myself (or Piotrus or Mikka who all found themselves blocked at their own time by the troll's provocation) are more likely to have known what they were doing and chances were, they were doing the right thing. It might have not be so in my particular case. I tried my best but to err is human. That you did not block Mbuk, a fierce edit warrior claiming that he hasn't been warned before, shows that you did not study the matter. My warning him against revert warring is at the very page where you warned him, just several entries above. I simply asked you to study the matter and reconsider. You say you did and you still stand by your block of me. So be it, today was the most productive day at work I had in months.

User Mbuk's tenure at Wiki is characterized by a huge number of entries that are either wikilawyering (Wikipedia space, see e.g. two frivolous RfC he started against myself and against Telex) or driving his opponents nuts with endless talking them in circles while he himself refuses to listen. At the same time, he made only 26 edits (!) in the mainspace of which 14 are frivolous taggings. AndriyK, following his emergence from the block, made a total of ~250 edits in the main space in 6 months of which over a hundred are sterile reverts judging by edit summaries only (probably many more but I just don't want to click on each diff). It is even strange that ArbCom is necessary at all for those fellows to be stopped from what they are doing, too obvious it seems to me. u I am well aware of all venues of the dispute resolution and I actively participate in them all. Of all ways, everything was tried with AndriyK including the Arbitration. It did not help. The reasons why the second arbitration was not filed, were that it is a giant effort that would not allow me to create content while I spend time on it and that I by all means hoped things can be changed without having my opponents blocked.

Perhaps, I was wrong and I indeed made errors and having me blocked along with a troll is the right thing while giving another one only a warning. As I said at WP:AN, I thoroughly support Admins dealing with the abuse on their own thus saving us all the time from compiling the countless RfC's and ArbCom's just increasing the backlog.

I will add more to the discussion with user: Future Perfect at Sunrise at your talk once I can edit, which is going to be soon anyway. --Irpen 22:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Irpen said. Mbuk's and AndriyK's sole activity (judging by their contributions) seems to be tag insertions and reverts on various Ukraine-related pages. If someone wants I can give detailed statistics (the detailed version of what Irpen quotes above). The rest of their edits are basically endless talking and wikilawyering, as we still have to see both of them actually write something. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never commented about any of these issues, but I've been loosely following them from the sidelines. I've seen you guys show a lot of proof when it comes to Mbuk and AndriyK, and you're offering to show more. Great. But it's useless at this point unless you guys follow up with an arbitration request. Dmcdevit already recommended arbitration, I would recommend the same. No point replying to their edits anylonger or reverting anything they do. A WP article won't suffer too much over a week of wrong tagging, so leave them happy and file your request. -- mno 14:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Strange request time: can you make this article into a nice stub at uk:О, Канада? I ask you this since I found the Ukrainian lyrics at [22] and it should give you a head start. TIA. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi Irpen,

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

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

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

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

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

Lately I am thinking of creating a series of articles, partly inspired by your contributions to Kielce Pogrom. This would be a disambig page Kiev Pogrom, which would lead to Kiev Pogrom (1881), Kiev Pogrom (1905) and Kiev Pogrom (1945) (I hope that's all of them). The last one is especially interesting, seeing as it occured after the Nazis were defeated (see [23]). Any thoughts on this would be appreciated. I hope you will have no objections to this, and look forward to your contributions to these articles. Balcer 17:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balcer, how would I possibly object since we all know that those events happened? I actually mentioned some of those sparingly in other articles but never thought of writing a separate article, just did not get to it. Why don't you start those and I will see how I can help. --Irpen 18:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I knew you would have no problem about the two older ones, since they are significant historical events, but I wondered what you would think about a separate article for the one that occured in 1945. That event has been rather unknown, and I only found one book (though quite a respectable one) that discusses it. Is that 1945 pogrom well known in Ukraine? Balcer 18:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I particularly remember reading about this one, but I've read about the problem in general. While the issue of the local collaboration in the Nazi Genocide is reasonably well known, the issue of the frictions that happened soon after the liberation of the territory, while less known, are still covered here and there. I will take a look and see what I can come up with. --Irpen 18:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Dear Irpen, Holodomor is realy disputable topic in the academia. The disputability of any mass ethnic killing that is "genocide" is normal thing. While some researchers, institutions and govermennts show some events as a "genocide", others oppose to their explanations. For example, the Holocoust is not recognized by many Muslim countries and anti-semitic institutions as a "genocide", but I think you will not deny that it was a "genocide". Another examples are the mascare of Armenians by Turks or killing of Christians in Sudan. These "genocides" are recognized only some buy Western powers, while the majority of the world see them just as "mass kiling". My point is that if the historical fenomana is viewed as "genocide" by some scholars and goverments, let it be so. In case of Ukraine and some other countries the mainstream academic institutionsand and the official documents refer to Holodomor as a "genocide". You or me may dislike it, but this is a fact.--Alex Kov 18:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get the idea that scholars from the West are not politically motivated? --Alex Kov 18:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, I have blocked you for 9 hrs four doing 4 reverts at this page, at 7.02 on 28/8 and 4.46, 5.14 and 6.30 on 29/8, which consisted of removing the tag, and/or rewording the paragraph about Ukrainian languages at "most significant". Please refrain from excessive reverting once this block expires. Thanks, Blnguyen | rant-line 08:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, I'm sorry. I don't agree with your edits (as expressed in the talk), but it has never been my intention to go into edit war about it. I recognize the validity of some of your points, and I'll address the rest. Again, sorry for the mess, which resulted in useless blocks, KPbIC 17:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for spamming your talk page, but since you had contributed in the past to the WP:NC(GN) proposal, which is currently ready for a wider consultation, I thought you might want to give it another look now and, hopefully, suggest some final improvements. Thanks. --Lysy^talk 22:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you once helped me before, let me help you and explain that the above refers to Erika Steinbach. You were named there:[24] All the best, --Pan Gerwazy 23:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Erika Steinbach ? --Lysy^talk 05:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean it is pure coincidence? OK, I will believe you. And if you believe I believe, doskonale. Sorry, Irpen - looks like I should have put my warning to you under a new header.--Pan Gerwazy 13:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pan Gerwazy, you are always welcome at my talk. Please do post anything you find fit to tell me. It is a pleasure to talk to you. Sorry, there seems to have been some misunderstandings of my involvement (or lack of it) on mine (or others') part. As for the NC I occasionally share my thoughts in that discussion, but even if the final set of rules never crystallize, I note that at the Eastern Front most issues have settled through the reasonable rules of thumb and when discussions erupt, they die out reasonably soon. Stay in touch! --Irpen 17:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Procedure for changing this policy. Fred Bauder 01:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since in the past you shown interest in issue of minorities in Poland and such, I think you'd like to look at this article - I have added info and links from all articles mentioning minorities in Poland I could recall.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So far it seems to me as just some forked content but I will see what I can do at some point. --Irpen 01:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Irpen, since you appear in the log of Transnistria as one of the original "top contributors" to the page, you ought to come back from time to time and take a look at evolution of that page and its Talk page. Right now, we are having an informal poll on the inclusion, or not, of some links and we haven't had a lot of input yet from others. Talk:Transnistria#List_of_links_for_discussion If you have the time, please stop by and help the rest of us with your feedback and thoughts. - Mauco 05:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to do that. I need some time though to sort out several wiki-issues but I will try to remember. Thanks a lot for alerting me. I can't help but notice how much the discussion pages on these and related issues has improved since earlier times. Cheers, --Irpen 01:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, I appreciate our genetlman's agreement about 3RR; nonetheless I am sure I have not broken the rule: feel free to point to me specific edits that would indicate otherwise. As for reverting your hours of work: I did that with heavy heart, but I thought (and still think) that that particular edit contained no new and useful information, but was simply rewording the article into less NPOVed one.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way I'd do it is this. Pirogov and Pirogovo (disambiguation) should be two separate dabs (Nikolai Pirogov isn't the only notable person by that name; I'll add more on Monday), but interlinked with each other via the "see also" section. Pirogovo proper should definitely redirect to Pyrohiv (note that "(Kiev)" disambiguator is unnecessary, unless there are other entities by the name of "Pyrohiv"), and Pyrohiv should contain a dablink at the top stating that "Pirogovo redirects here; for other uses see Pirogovo (disambiguation)". All Russian villages named "Pirogovo" should be listed at Pirogovo (disambiguation)—I don't have my master list with me at the moment, but I'll check on Monday to see how many there are. Geo-locations are inherently notable, so they should be listed, although I usually don't list minor villages, adding a statement that "such and such is the name of several rural settlements in Russia" to the disambiguation pages instead. I plan on going through the villages when all districts/cities/towns/urban-type settlements are interlinked and disambiguated.

Let me know if this explanation is too confusing. If you wish, I can implement this scheme on Monday after I check the master list of the Russian settlements.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Please re-check in case I missed anything. Also, the article on Nikolay Ivanovich Pirogov states that he was born in Pirogovo, Ukraine. I take it's different from Pyrohiv, but could you look into it, please? The "modern name" spelling would need to be corrected at the very least. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! You never know what you are going to find once you start untangling all those redirects/dabs. Thanks for fixing it!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 October, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pyrohiv, 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 am preparing an article about this poorly-documented and -understood time in Russian history, for eventual migration into the main article space. I would like to make it as comprehensive as possible. Your comments and additions (including from sources critical of or in opposition to the theories presented so far) would be most welcome. In particular I would like to expound on the attitude of both Normanists and anti-Normanists to this issue. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you can easily see, I have not falcified any data. I took the pains to add the numbers from the census. Column 3 reports the number of Moldavians + the number of Romanians, therefore there is a difference of 750 (Romanians). Since all numbers are averaged to hundreds, the result is that some numbers who averaged down before now average up. If you add the numbers raion by raion for Budjak, and for the whole of the Odessa oblast, you will see the match.

Please, do not revert the page. If you list point by point your objections, I would be very glad to discuss every single issue.

Yes, the article is poorly referenced, because I would rather find the more solid references, than web pages, and it would be better to find references in English. If you could help with referencing, it would be fantastic. But even before my edits, it was poorly referenced. I mean we should find appropriate referenced for all the article, not only for the resent additions.

Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.20.50 (talk • contribs)

1. All the cities in question had a Finnish speaking majority, so the Finnish name is to be used instead of the Swedish. 2. It is clear you do not know the status of Finland in the period... It was autonomous from 1809, when Finland was annexed to Russia, until 1917, Finland's independence. And it had a large autonomy, so it would be very wrong to say "Russian controlled". --Jaakko Sivonen 17:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In light of your comment in this diff, may I humbly suggest you read again through WP:AGF policy?

Balcer, with users who we know for months we do not need to assume anything. It's perfectly appropriate to consider what people do and what people have done before. This is not the first time you force me or others to waste time on clearly harmless image which cannot possibly pose any threat to the foundation. Carnildo does this full-time. Others do it occasionally. -Irpen 03:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is not the first time. It is the second time. Obviously, I am a serial abuser in this matter. Balcer 05:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue at hand is that this activity is disruptive, annoying and damages Wikipedia articles. When user:Fisss was uploading stolen images, I was first to condemn him and requested his block. Here we get vintage images from non-existing state/etnities and there are many. Alex, Ghirla, Grafik and myself had only that much time. Now 500 images are gone. Soviet cosmonaut articles are naked. Check Robert Falk. Take a look at this. (Note, that Konchalovsky died over 50 years ago. Deletionists do not care. Images are now gone.) All gone. And in this mess you come with patronizing template at the user talk and the deleting template at the image page, the image that was saved by mere luck from the recent assault. If you want to help, help. Extra annoyance during this catastrophe is unwelcome. --Irpen 07:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it was precisely the carelessness with the copyright rationale for PD-Soviet that led to the deletion of hundreds of images and a massive disruption of Wikipedia. We should try harder to avoid such a disaster in the future. If you are retagging images, especially with fair use tags, please make sure that the rationale for this is provided. This is not just my personal suggestion, but Wikipedia policy. Let's get the copyright status of these images right this time, shall we? Otherwise, they will get deleted eventually. Balcer 02:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Balcer, right now we are in a middle of a huge disaster as several hundreds of SovietPD images were deleted on the whim of a few wikilawyers. No rationale to disprove PD-USSR was given and several users are taking infinite pains to sort out what is not deleted yet. It takes all the time we have and additional disrpuption is unwarranted. Second, hitting the talk pages of the established users with patronizing templates created to deal with newbies is on the border of trolling. Third, the source of the image is lost as another helpful user deleted the file (with the source) from commons today (along with 458 other images). You may go and thank user:Drini at his talk page in commons for that. Fourth, nothing prevents you from trying to come up with a fairuse rationale. I prefer to deal with clearly harmless images only when forced to do so by self-appointed copyright police at Wiki. Or by yourself, when you chose to invovle yourself in this policing. Whatever time I have on Wiki which is not spent on writing articles and discussing them at talk pages, is spent by me in search of appropriate and usable images. If you want to help, the least useful is to add to an image a tag that leads to an automatic deletion. Much more helpful is to try to contact the uploaders and interesting parties or, best yet, do something about it yourself as others are busy with writing article about Ukraine. --Irpen 03:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be great if one could tag images as Template:Clearly harmless, but such a tag does not exist. Fair use is a rather restrictive license, and the fair use tag itself prominently requires that specific rationale be provided. I was not an uploader of the image and I know too little about it to write such a rationale myself. Anyway, I do not need the abuse from you, so I will not bother with trying to improve the copyright situation of any ex PD-Soviet images any further. Good luck with trying to retag all post-1954 former PD-Soviet images as fair use without any justification. We shall see how long they last. Balcer 05:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse from me? That's interesting. You hit the talk page of a well respected user:Alex Bakharev with a patronizing newbie template, hit the obviously harmless image with the template that sends it towards deletion, state (falsely) that the image is used at the Portal (it's not), state (falsely) that all images are retagged as fairuse and than complain that it is you who are abused. Who told you that all Soviet images were to be retagged as fair use? They were carefully and painstakenly sorted out and, unfortunately only about 5 users took part as no one else cared but a huge number of people where just itching to have them deleted. I hope the happiness of those who achieved their goal is greater than the grief and feeling of a catastrophe of those who painstakenly built the articles about USSR, Russia, Ukraine and other topics. I do not request not to be "bothered" but you helped exactly zero in imrpoving the situation with Soviet images. Actually the net sum of your "help" was negative as you added your voice to the those of Wikilawyeres. OK, I will stop ranting. Enough said. --Irpen 07:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could read again what I wrote on Alex's talk page. (see [25]). Since you erased it so quickly, let me quote here the sentence I added at the end:

Sorry to bother you about this, and for using this ugly template, but the picture is a featured one on Ukraine portal and as such its license should be specified correctly.

Portal talk:Ukraine/Featured picture places the picture in the category "Past selected pictures", which seems to indicate to me that it was/is a Featured picture. If I am wrong on this point, please correct me.

It was a featured picture at the time when Soviet-PD was not assaulted yet. --Irpen 04:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, enough of this. The situation was resolved quickly, and debating it further only wastes our time. Balcer 13:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peace, guys. Balcer, I am not feel offended in any way. I have commented out the picture from the talk page of the Ukrainian portal. You had valid reasons to ask for the Fair Use Rationale and it is much better to warn uploader (the mover actually, I just transferred it from Commons, then the PD-Soviet was deleted there but still legal on en-wiki) that just silently post it for deletion. The text of the template as much my fault as yours - we should make it more friendly. But you have to understand us, for the last 10 days we were mostly sorting the image problems (look for the last thousand of my edits here and on commons to understand what I mean), a few hundreds of the images were retagged as fair use and most lack the fair use rationales as yet. We would add the rationales eventually but give us some time. As a matter of fact, I expected that the demand for the rationales would come from the members of the Fair-Usage project (Abu Badalai, Lupo, Carnildo or Renata) not from the people usually more interested in content, thus, there was some over-reaction. Now, I think the issue is closed Alex Bakharev 21:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Irpen,

You added some details to this page. Zenon was my Great Uncle, I only learned of him one year ago. I wanted to ask if you have any information about him or Hryhorij Kossak (his brother). Do you know of any other resources?

Thank you,

Mark

Sorry, I can't help you with that. I added a little info to the article when I was tiding it up and it was a while ago and I was using the info I could quickly google. I have no knowledge on the issue other than what I wrote. Regards, --Irpen 03:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Irpen, I don’t think that user:Ldingley had some hidden intention when notifying them about the draft. AFAIK, he is very much interested in Poland and I presume he needed a feedback from Polish users who mostly work on military history articles. Also, I always report relevant articles on the Portal:Russia noticeboard despite being continuously discouraged by this sort of feedback[26] [27] Once the article is moved to the mainspace, I’m going to announce it. I do need some constructive advice and your comments will be very much welcomed. Regards, --Kober 05:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see any hidded agenda. I just found the choice strange. Even within the MilHist project there are editors who specialize in Russia's military history and their feedback was not requested. --Irpen 07:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not mind I can correct some smaller spelling things here and there for you. I will not do any edit changes. Just spelling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jallor (talk • contribs)

Sure I don't mind you correcting my spelling and grammar. Moreover, I don't mind you correcting and editing over anything I write in mainspace. --Irpen 07:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hey, long time!

I looked through all the Soviet AFV images on commons, and found that Alex had already combed through and retagged the appropriate ones. What should I look at? Is there a talk page to coordinate the effort?

Cheers. —Michael Z. 2006-10-21 04:25 Z

It may only be a matter of time until PD-Russia is challenged, and who knows how well it can be defended? Can you think of any way we can anticipate this and deal with it?

Do you know of any Ukrainian or Russian photo archives which provide good public access? Do you think it's possible to gain access to public-domain Soviet photos, with solid documentation of their provenance or copyright status? It would be nice to send someone in with a scanner and make some of this stuff accessible forever. I'm not in any position to help directly, but maybe we could take up a collection to provide some incentive for a volunteer. —Michael Z. 2006-10-21 05:12 Z

Hey Irpen, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 05:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Can you please take a look at the article? A user pushes nationalistic propaganda and rejects any discussion in the talk page.--Nixer 15:52, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Really could you moderate on that one. Because some statments pushed by Nixer are pure nonsense. I know it's touchy subject and should not be left to Nixer, but rather to more rational users, so consensus could be reached. Thanks. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 15:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like managed to solve it for now. Sorry for bothering. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 17:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a hand to sort the dispute out. --Kuban Cossack 17:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[28] vs [29]. Would you like to explain what's the difference between "libarating" and "alliance"?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can explain if you want as I always welcome scrutiny of my contributions and I do not consider my edits faultless. Now, that I am better read on on the 1918-1920 events, I would not have placed the PP allaince into the quotation marks. Note that over the last several days I gave the KO a new once-over and I did not add the quotation marks. Now, I find the wording Petlura-Pilsudski allance appropriate. What I would still object to would be passingly calling it a Polish-Ukrainian alliance as the degree to which Petlura represented Ukraine as well as his legitimacy to do so is rather questionable. But Petlura-Pilsudki allaince is, IMO, and acceptable wording. I am not quotizing it anymore, as you can notice. Also, I changed the red link of the future article to the neutral Treaty of Warsaw (1920) that both matches other similar articles and allowes to avoid the controversy in the title. --Irpen 02:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although it seems we tend to disagree on an increasing number of things recently (a saddening development contrary to my August expectations :( ) I do think that 'P-P alliance' is an acceptable phrase; ToW is also reasonable. Having said that, I would appreciate it if you could tell me what kind of edits are needed to make you withdraw your objection to the History of Solidarity.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:40, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. If you have time, have a look at the discussion of the copyright status of photos of gov. buildings on my discussion page. That lawyer -- I have serious doubts a lawyer would spend time editing Wikipedia -- is correct that someone holds a copyright to the photos. His claim that the cabinet per se can hold a copyright is junk and it comes amid allegations that people from FSU are sort of "uncivilized". Sashazlv 04:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC) Just one thing. It occurred to me he is a typical chronofag: does not offer anything constructive and wastes someone else's time. Sashazlv 04:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the discussion. What can I say? Only this. Sad indeed. --Irpen 05:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Shannernanner 13:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with rules. I did not break 3RR either. Reverts are regretable but you refused to explain at talk why you reverted by suggestions. More here. --Irpen 01:34, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop falsely accusing me of refusing to explain my edits at talk. That is not true. As soon as you requested that I do so, I did (edit summary requesting dated 13:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC), discussion comment dated 09:18, 26 October 2006 (UTC)). Shannernanner 01:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as you explained I stopped reverting you and followed to the discussion. --Irpen 01:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are saying you were reverting my edits because I was not explaining myself, I left edit summaries every time which I believe properly explained exactly why I did so and what policy backed it up. If you wished further clarification at any earlier point, you needed only ask. Shannernanner 01:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the Bonni-suspected IP on War of Transnistria. I was going to do it but you beat me to it. Could I ask you to also please keep an eye on Transnistria itself? Or maybe even help us out on the talk-page? The page had to be locked down (Khoi requested it) because of constant edit warring. I am trying to hold the fort, but I have already been getting a lot of abuse. Just today, one other contributor left in disgust with the ultra-nationalist Romanian trolls[30]. I have to deal with KGB-accusations, and worse, on an almost daily basis (just today alone, I was told that I was a paid spinmeister for the mafia[31], and that I was a pro-Putin dictator[32].) - Mauco 23:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how much I will be able to help. I left that article a while ago for these very reasons and never came back. I will see what I can do. --Irpen 23:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think that's not a bad nucleus, and links to a lot of the relevant articles. I'd still like to see a beginning section about Ukraine during the revolution, but I don't know much about it, and I really have to devote more time to work for the next week (or year). Cheers. —Michael Z. 2006-10-28 01:35 Z

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Kelly Martin is thanked for her long and honorable service. As Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway gave up their sysop and other rights under controversial circumstances, they must get them back through normal channels. Giano II may, if developers cooperate, be restored to access to the account Giano. He is requested to avoid sweeping condemnations of other users when he has a grievance. Jdforrester is reminded to maintain decorum appropriate for an Arbitrator.

For the Arbitration Committee. Arbitration Committee Clerk, Thatcher131 14:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start writing some articles again and finishing projects I left open. Please take a look at Mezhirich. It came up while I was editing Avramenko and I was shocked at what I found on the internet. Any idea why the UkieWP doesn't have an article? Anyway, I don't even know what type of current settlement is there, so please fill it in if you have an index of Ukrainian settlements handy!--tufkaa 01:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, haven't got to that yet. --Irpen 10:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References added.

Regards,

Realismadder

Thanks a lot! --Irpen 10:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you will be interested in this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Halibutt M.K. 23:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But me no speak English. Just kidding. Alright, I haven't noticed that I used Romanian alot lately. I'll try to remember to write in English. Dapiks 05:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree. Perhaps the way to solve this would be to mention in the article that Romanians living in Ukraine, Serbia, Moldova, PMR, Bulgaria, Hungary, Albania, Macedonia and Greece are not part of the diaspora and then give the numbers for the rest.Dapiks 05:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. --Irpen 10:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Irpen. I've translated the dialogue between Bonaparte and I into Romanian, as requested. Please see User talk:Ronline. If there's anything else you'd like translated, please let me know. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 07:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it won't be necessary as editors will understand the need to use English in Wiki-space and keep their native languages for the private comunication, which are OK to have as well of course. Thanks, --Irpen 10:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, got that Irpen. Thanks. James5555 10:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure and thank you! --Irpen 10:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Irpen, the Kiev Expedition article we had discussed a while back has has been moved. I know you oppose unilateral moves, so I thought I'd let you know. Appleseed (Talk) 03:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Irpen. I had this article on my watchlist, because I had originally raised an issue on its talk page. I wonder if anybody else it watching it: dsomebody keeps making POV changes to it. Persoanlly, I would like to see the original version referenced as well, but I think the current version is more problematic. Can you please have a look? Dahn 12:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely thank you for your explanation and attention. Really I did not mention to make any harm to your (and - now our) work here. Thank you for your moral position in highely provocative and discusseble themes. Russianname 13:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. With good faith from all sides those disputes will we sorted out. --Irpen 20:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing the "replaceable fair use" tag is considered vandalism, and will be treated as such. Please stop doing it. If you disagree with the tag's application to that image, then follow the instructions listed therein. —Chowbok ☠ 03:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please ceize attacking the properly used images that make Wikipedia a better source by providing illustrations to the articles. The image under question is properly tagged. If you disagree take your grievances to the image's talk page. --Irpen 03:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't trying to insult you. If I were consistently confusing two very different words in a language that I didn't speak natively, I would very much want to be corrected, especially if I spent a lot of time writing an encyclopedia in that language. But apparently not everyone feels this way. I won't do it again. —Chowbok ☠ 16:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look what I found Большая Советская Энциклопедия. Thousands of 1970s images from the 3rd edition that can be uploaded under fair use for anything. Also right now I have the original 1950s 2nd edition of the encyclopedia in 50+ hardbacks with excellend PD images in them. Any requests? --Kuban Cossack 13:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I know about the site and even uploaded images from it. The problem with fairuse images are going only to get worse as more and more editors instead of content creation make assaulting articles under Copyright pretences as their main activity. But, 1950 GSE would be PD as the publisher "Sovetskaya Entsiklopediya", that publshied all tomes, was a Soviet legal etnity and as such, under current opinion of WP wanna be copyright experts, it is PD-RU (you don't know of course how things will change. Once those got a taste of blood by deleting PD-USSR-1972, they might assalt PD-1954 as well.) Anyway, what you can do is to check that particular image uploaded from the 70s edition is also present in the 1950 edition. If it is, we can replace the restrictive tags, such as "historic", with a least restrictive PD. Cheers, --Irpen 20:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently moved article which seems controversial. You must refrain from such moves without a Request for Move procedure. It is regarded as disrupting Wikipedia. If you continue to move a controversial article, it is regarded edit warring, and moves are even graver than warring on content of an article. Such offence may lead to your blocking, and in extreme cases, banning from editing Wikipedia. Do not do it again. Marrtel 02:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. Could you be a little more specific? If you are talking about Vyborg (castle), I simply moved it back after someone else made an undiscussed move. Generally, you should learn to assume good faith and ask questions politely instead of throwing warnings left and right which may be considered trolling and may lead to yourself being blocked for harrassment. --Irpen 02:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your "Warning on AGF": "Wikipedia guidelines dictate that you assume good faith in dealing with other editors. Please stop being uncivil to your fellow editors, and assume that they are here to improve Wikipedia. Thank you. --Irpen 02:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

This is a clearly undeserved warning from Irpen. I warned Irpen against his moves of controversial articles without RM - Irpen has recently made such controversial moves. As result, Irpen throwns "AGF" warning to me. I think I let readers to decide who breaks against AGF and acts disingenuouosly. Marrtel 02:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I epxlained to you that I just moved the article back to where it was. Take your grievances to the editor who moved it without discussion. I just returned the article to its location. --Irpen 03:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well aside from calling me a "pain in the ass", mind you that it is those two very admins that have being bullying me and "personally attacking me" and not the other way around. And by the way, I do not see anyone here as an opponent. I have been contributing to wikipedia for quite some time now. Yes sometimes I may come out too strongly. Sometimes I have even had grievences with you but most times we came together on most stuff because despite what you might think I often seek to be reasonable, despite what you rightfully call "my strong convictions".Dapiks 02:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consta, the problem is that you act too strongly all the time. You blame them, they blame you. There is nothing new at that. Just chill out. --Irpen 03:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Irpen. My point is that politics should be kept out of userspace. I have put a couple of political userboxes on my subpage in response to some users who support separatist entities. I generally dislike them, however, and I will eagerly remove them if we all reach a sort of consensus on limiting any kind of political agenda on userpages. However, since we cannot prevent people from expressing their views, one should try to avoid the most extreme forms of political propaganda like this. Anyway, I agree with you that we should leave such users alone. Thanks, Kober 07:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea what you're bragging about. //Halibutt 08:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Irpen but I still fail to understand you. I consider removal of interwiki links an act of vandalism. I don't like Polish wiki either and consider it much, much inferior to other versions. However, I don't go on a campaign to remove interwiki links to that project. Same goes for the problems people in Poland have with the Silesian wikipedia.

If the Siberian wiki, for whatever it is, is now part of our project - we should live with it. Specific articles on English wiki are not the place for discussion on a future of one of wikipedias. Especially that, as far as I can tell, there's no obscenities at ru-sib:Великой Новгород. //Halibutt 21:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, we got off on the wrong foot, but I really don't want to keep on fighting with you. What do you say we end this now? I promise not to attack you or say any more snotty things if you do the same. Deal? —Chowbok ☠ 16:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a slight edit to the last version you changed in addition to describing Orange revolution as democratic. Please see the article's (Talk:Orange Revolution) talk page. --Riurik ^(discuss) 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, you think this is worthy of an article? [33], [34] Let me know what you think. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 02:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is sure worthy of an article if it is already establisged. Is it? --Irpen 04:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was established once in 1997, but then disbanded because the VR decided not to fund it. And now they're trying to re-establish it again. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 05:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... So what do you think? — Alex ^(T|C|E) 00:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't object to an article of course. --Irpen 00:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to see your opinion on starting one. Some poeple might think it's too early. In addition, we need to move the current National Bureau of Investigation page to National Bureau of Investigation (Philippines). I guess you're neutral on it, eh? — Alex ^(T|C|E) 00:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know I share your sentiment on copyright paranoia, and I completly agree that the recent deletion of SovietPD can only be described as a catastrophe. Nonetheless I would like to think that eventually all images egligible for PD and other free licences will be nicely organized on Commons. I have found in the past that if an image is deleted from commons, a friendly admin can restore it so I can either correct the missing source/copyright info or take it to wiki for fair use. If I see your image, I will ask you before tagging it with NC in the future - but perhaps we can have some sort of a tag that sais 'although this image is in Commons, please leave a local copy here'? On another note, which version do you think is better: Image:German Soviet.jpg or Image:Germans and Soviets3.jpg?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to honor your request, I don't play with commons that often anyway.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Encyclopaedia Editing Dude contiuously removes links to the Soviet archives, declassified in early 1990s from Josef Stalin, insterting links to an eyewitness interview made by BBC and other biased and/or non-reliable sources. He refuses to talk and removes my comments from his talk page [35]. He also said that he will break any rules to restore his version. I requested RFC on this topic and in two weeks received only one comment (in favor of my version). Please do something to make the user to discuss his changes.--Nixer 17:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing these link? They don't constitute linkspam; they're links to other language articles. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See user talk:A4. --Irpen 02:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Irpen, I'm a little surprised by your response. When I moved the page to Kiev Expedition several months ago, you reverted me for making a unilateral move and asked me to use the talk page. I obliged, and after a week passed with no objections (including from you) I moved it again. Because of this interaction I solicited your input when Ghirlandajo moved the page, but this time the unilateral move did not interest you. As for the actual name of the article, I am always open to discussion. However, I was snubbed by Ghirlandajo, you were silent until now. Appleseed (Talk) 22:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just stumbled upon Image:Kukryniksy-razgromim.jpg. Bah, I should've checked the discussion first. In the future, don't hesistate to call me for such votes, I'd be happy to help.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I herebe authorise that this vote to support closure of sib-wiki and this vote to oppose the sib-wikisource were cast by me. --Irpen 19:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there was a problem with voter nr 2 as well? Point being that I cannot find the history before November 4th! --Pan Gerwazy 20:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, "authorise" is incorrect here. Should be "certify". I have decided to put a re-vote there. No prob. --Pan Gerwazy 20:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The proposal to close Siberian wiki was made on Nov 2, 23:59. At least one account voted "contra" was created on Nov 3. Do you think the date in the announcement at the top of the page should be changed to Nov 3? --Yms 06:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this would be a fair thing to do. If the proposal was submitted one minute before midnight GMT. Accounts that have votes should be created on Nov. 2 or earlier. I will ammend appropriately. --Irpen 04:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hi - I did not apply the block hastily. Pls see this response to Bishonen's concerns. Rama's arrow 05:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you would be interested in this vote. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally I managed to write something about someone who ruined my life before it started. Where do you think I should announce it? This looks like an entry for at least four country portals. Funnily, when I first started on it, there was no Norwegian version. Now that I am reasonably OK with it, there it is. Someting in the air over Europe, I suppose. --Pan Gerwazy 17:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty of copyediting the article a bit; good work, PG. You should definitely announce it at the German board, and the Ukrainian, Polish, and Russian boards would be relevant because of this individual's actions. Cheers, Olessi 18:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the edit conflict, Irpen, I'll try to remember the inuse template for the future. Olessi 18:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it is all merged now. --Irpen 18:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like that map or user who created it? It false. Have you never read books about cartography? --Alex Kov 08:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :-)

BTW, did you ever considered to archive your user talk page...? Yuval Y • Chat • 22:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do it from time to time. Maybe there is time. --Irpen 22:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't panic. Even though I'm an administrator in commons, I'm not a "copyright freak" (as far as I know..)

Best regards, Yuval Y • Chat • 23:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodnight :-) (If you reply, I'll read it tommorow...) Yuval Y • Chat • 00:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind if you add the picture to Russo-Lithuanian Wars instead of Matejko's. Thanks. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some Jelly beans for you. I love jelly beans as they have sugar in them and most people love sugar. But on the other hand just receiving somthing from somone else just makes you happy and also just giving this to you makes me happy. I hope to spread the jelly beans all over Wikipedia, so here, you can have this lot. Please enjoy them. (I like the lime ones.)

Editors need a bit of a sugar high too.

An apple a day keeps -The Doctor- away. Or does it! ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:20, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The tag won't be there for "months". An admin will look at the photo in the next few days; either he'll agree with me and delete the image, or he'll agree with you and remove the tag. Again, if you think it "frivolous", that's what the "disputed" tag is for. —Chowbok ☠ 21:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. —Chowbok ☠ 21:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He asked in Polish, I replied using that language as courtesy, which I find not an issue on private talk pages. As for his revert, ask him, I reverted him and made a critical comment in edit summary. Also, as I noted on talk of that article, please be careful with 3RR. PS. I see no need to report you, per our understanding. But I will also not stop others from enforcing Wiki policies, and if a user ask me how to report a 3RR, I am as likely to tell this to him as if he ask me how to report an admin abuse or an personal attack or any other problem - without concern if he than intends to report me, my friend, my collegue or a troll.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you know full well, I was not revert warring but expanding the article which I did. Your fellow reverted me blindly and left an insulting entry about myself at your talk in Polish (my understanding of Polish is not zero). I am all so tired of this and I am leaving the article to you and your friends. Have fun with it and write more about the civilizing "expedition" of the Koniecpolski and his mercenaries into Ukraine. --Irpen 22:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempthing to start the process. Not sure if I'm going about it correctly though. The only page I can find on RfC is here [36] and it seems all I have to do is post a short summary of the problem? TheQuandry 15:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I've decided to go ahead and do the RfC myself after all. [37] Please feel free to make additions, provide commentary and find others to comment if you like. TheQuandry 03:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Taras Fedorovych, 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.

--Aksi_great (talk) 14:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about some 1950s photographs of Kiev... http://interesniy.kiev.ua/old/photo/kiev-54? I think PD-RUSSIA is applicable...barely, as they must have taken prior to the publishing of the album. Otherwise standard Fair-use. There is loads of vintage shots on that site. [38]. The other point is that my Hotel Ukrayina is now about 70% done. I could use a good reference or two, particularly for the Ginzburg house (its going to be a combined article), and some general proofreading. --Kuban Cossack 01:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pics are great and we could certainly use some of them. I will see what I can find with Ukrayina hotel. --Irpen 01:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see you had left me a message until just now while looking in my History file, by accident. I didn't have the usual new message notice that pops up when others write me. Which comment are you telling me to put in another section, please? I have made more than one comment and I don't know what you mean by threaded. I edited myself and was making sure my updated edit to myself to clarify myself was distinguished. What is it you want me to put in a separate section, and where on the page are you saying the section needs to go? On a discussion page? I want my caveats (i.e., my differences from the other people) kept in my endorsement. I do not want a separate section. Otherwise it's as though I have to write a separate view, and I didn't see a place to write a separate view since I didn't see myself as an Outside View. I thought the places to write are the original complaint view, Chowbok's response, and an outside view, but I'm one of the people he's been writing to so I wouldn't think I'm an outside view. I don't want my comments separated out that explain my view. Are you saying all I can say in the endorsement is my name without any explanation of my endorsement? It's not a "threaded" answer. I just put some italics for readability when I tried to edit myself. If that looks like threading then I can remove the italics. This is just turning into a nightmare where I can't even be part of adding a comment without being taken to task for how I write a comment. It's time consuming and taking me away from everything else; I had my family yelling at me earlier because I couldn't finish getting the replies done and it's a holiday and they were trying to leave the house. You are now asking me to go back in and spend yet more time on where you want me to put which part of which comment? – Bebop 03:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, I have attempted to do what I think you were asking me to. I hope I did what you requested properly. I have moved my lengthy comments to the Discussion page and provided a link to them. I didn't think I was an "outside" view per se because I am "another user endorsing the main view" but with a few additional thoughts, so I put my discussion in the Discussion page. I have a section in the discussion page for my additional thoughts on the endorsement of the main view and a separate Discussion page section about my thoughts on Robth's view. Thanks. – Bebop 04:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]