Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:45, 12 November 2005

• User talk:Irpen/archived closed issues
• User talk:Irpen/archived closed issues 02
• User talk:Irpen/archived closed issues 03
• User talk:Irpen/archived closed issues 04
• User talk:Irpen/archived closed issues 05

Transnistria

I see nothing disputed in this page. --Vasile 04:55, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) I am not able to see what are the the statements and ideas really DISPUTED in the article. It's just a pretention of POV. --Vasile 13:43, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You definetely know nothing about the subject as you pretend. You just want make this article to disappear, disturbing and harassing anyone wants to edit this article. You don't respect the wikipedia rules and you should report yourself to the wikipedia staff. --Vasile 18:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:Transnistria/archive_1#Response_from_the_"Challenger_of_neutrality". --Irpen

Take your Stalinist propaganda elsewhere

Stop the propaganda. It ain't working! Obviously there are tons of people that disagree with you. The smartest way would have been to provide some proof along with your complaints but you did not do that.

So I will politely ask you to either adress the subject of Transnistria in a mature manner or stop herassing the discussion page. Duca

Replied at Talk:Transnistria/archive_1#Response. --Irpen

Ukrainian Oblast's Infobox

Hello! I think we need the new inobox for Ukrainian Oblasts. I inserted flag and CoA of Zhytomyr Oblast, but without an infobox it seems...

If you want - create this infobox, please- then I will try to find more flags and CoAs.

Secundo: Could you check English names for the raions in Zhytomyr Oblast. Cheers! Vuvar1 18:57, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Re: Transnistria

Hi! First let me say that I'm not going to pretend to know anything about the subject of this article, so I will not get involved in discussions on the content of the article. That said, when I saw the request for protection I felt that the parties involved here might benefit from me, as an outsider, monitoring the debate and intervening if necessary. My take on the situation at the moment is that there appears to be useful (if not always civil) discussion going on on the talk page for this article, and that the edit war on the article itself is not out of control. So I have chosen to take a low-key approach—making sure that editors are aware of, and stick to the the three revert rule, but not (yet) procecting the article. Protection at this point might cause a further hardening of positions rather than fostering compromise, however, if within the next day or so it looks like this strategy is not working I will protect the article (if no one else has done so before me). JeremyA 5 July 2005 04:37 (UTC)

I agree with you, the situation seems to have changed during the last 12 hours or so. The discussion at the talk is no doubt useful and civility can and should be handled by RfC rather than protection if gets out of control. I requested the admin action only due to persistent removal of the POV tag. If it is kept intact, the process may be resolved in a regular way. I will get back with my request of protection only if the practice of the tag removal returns to the article. Thanks for your participation. --Irpen July 5, 2005 04:49 (UTC)

Wikiportal:Ukraine

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

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

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

Re re Transnistria

Your only contribution in "dispute" is restoring tags. Please stop these obstructing manoeuvres, read more wiki-regulations and try something new. --Vasile 11:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Russian tsarinas

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

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

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

Alexandras

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

Needs NPOV for Mintimer Shaymiev

Большую часть текста я взял с официального сайта, поэтому возможно что и не везде НТЗ. С удовольствием прийму участие в обсуждении данного вопроса. --Untifler 16:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Untifler! Спасибо за сообщение. Я к сожалению мало чем могу помочь с материалом для этой статьи. Но даже при моей недостаточной квалификации в этом вопросе, мне показалось, что есть достаточно оснований для НТЗ флага. Наверное Вы со мной согласитесь, что трудно ожидать нейтральной биографии президента на официальном президентском сайте. Впрочем, я понимаю, что даже человеку, следящему за политикой Татарстана, понадобилось бы выделить немало времени, чтобы написать статью о президенте нейтрально и энциклопедично с нуля, и при ограниченном времени до этого могут и не дойти пока руки. На мой взгляд, лучше иметь даже предвзятую, но какую-никакую статью в ВП, чем не иметь ничего. Но естественно, случайный читатель, вероятно осведомленный о традициях в политике бСССР еще менее меня, должен быть предупрежден, что я и сделал.

У меня есть еще одно опасение. Эта статья во многом напрямую взята с президентского сайта. Я не уверен, что это разрешено с точки зрения авторского права. Российский закон подходит к авторскому праву на текст, опубликованоого государственными учреждениями, более избирательно чем американский закон (В штатах считается общественным практически всё, что публикуется государственными организациями). Посмотрите статью 8 росийского закона об авторском праве на wikisource wikisource:Закон об авторском праве и смежных правах#Статья 8. Произведения, не являющиеся объектами авторского права. В любом случае, пожалуйста не воспринимайте мою позицию как критику. Это просто мои предложения. Я слишком мало разбираюсь в предмете, чтобы самому активно учавствовать в этой статье. С уважением, --Irpen 04:43, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Вроде тут нет автогрских прав: сообщения о событиях и фактах, имеющие информационный характер. (А чем ещё является биография?). Если что, то пускай судятся :) --Untifler 12:25, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Exquisite icons

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

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

Re your e-mail

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Kaliningrad Oblast edits

Hello! There have been a number of recent extensive edits to the Kaliningrad Oblast article. The additions look to be in good faith, but I am not terribly familiar with the great amount of Lithuanian history presented now. I also am not sure if that article is the proper place for that content. You might be interested in taking a look at it. Olessi 21:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up! I posted a short request at the article's talk page to start some meaningfull improvement. We'll see how it will go from that. Regards, --Irpen 21:45, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Зеркало недели

I'm concerned that you've added references to a weekly magazine articles to Polish-Soviet War article. While I have nothing against this particular weekly (and I admin I do not know it), I doubt if a popular magazine features research articles that qualify for encyclopedic references in a historical article. What do you think ? --Wojsyl 21:35, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

This is the most reputable Ukrainian weekly. It has a history section written very solidly with no crackpot stuff and it has a full tri-lingual archive available online, especially valuable for online WP. Check the Zerkalo Nedeli article in WP I wrote. Since "WP is not the source" you can also check RU/UA/EN articles from the more recent time to see the level of this publication. --Irpen 21:41, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

PBW talks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kostomarov

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kiev Offensive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Belarus/Belorussia

I'm really not sure if it makes sense to continue this chat on the article's talk page, therefore I'm responding here. I'm not a Belarusia myself, but from what I've heard they were complaining that "Belorussia" was coined by tsarist ochrana, and then further exploited by Soviet propagandists, primarilty to make an impression in the West, that "BeloRussia" is just some kind of "Russia", so this was clearly attached to Russian ideology of imperialism. They also accused Moscovites of stealing the word "Rus" from Kievan Rus (or actually from Ukraine this time). I don't know how much truth there is to it, but particularly the Belarusians that I knew were quite grave about this. You'd probably know better about the Ukraine. Are you Russian, by the way ? I meant no offence. --Wojsyl 22:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the alleged implication of the name, please take a look at Etymology of Rus and derivatives, Great Russia, Little Russia and White Russia articles (the Great and the Little were written by myself, initially). As you can see from there, this is much older than the Soviet propagandist or even Russian Imperialist inventions. That "steeling" thing is a new popular fallacy in certain circles. --Irpen 05:06, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

To comment on the above issue, there are some who do take offense to Belorussia and it's spellings, due to the fact the Byelorussia was the Soviet name for Belarus (hence trying to rekindle the Soviet era) and Belorussia was used by Tsarist Russia to refer to the Belarusians. You can find it at White Russia. Also, to Irpen, thanks for voting on My Belarusy. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 06:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, there are some who take offense on things. In Ukraine, for example, there are fringe circles who still call things that are Russian as "Muscovite" and refuse to apply the Rus-rooted word on principle. I only said that this attitude isn't typical. Also, Wojsyl, please check your mailbox. --Irpen 06:27, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Allow me

Wow! Thanks :) , I am honored! Actually, I am trying to contribute to Russia-related article too. But, due to a much larger number of great editors there, my contribution to RU remains rather insignificant.

I was already thinking of awarding myself an Орден "Дружбы народов"' (Why can't I award myself if Brezhnev could?) but with this more prestigeous award, my vanity is more than satisfied for a while for now :). Cheers, --Irpen 22:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Remember, Brezhnev awarded himself the Order of Victory, but it was taken from him after his death. Many of his honours were revoked, such as the Polish Order of Military Merit. Zach (Sound Off) 04:53, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, you did not revoke Mikkalai's barnstar you awarded to him when he single-handily substituted it by the Hero of the Soviet Union that he chose for himself and still displays it on his page? So, don't try to scare me, I will award myself with something when I feel like doing this. If this gets revoked after my death, well, I will see what I would do then. --Irpen 05:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Mikkalai rejected the Barnstar, and he replaced it with the HSU. I threw my hands up and moved on. Zach (Sound Off) 05:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

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

While I agree about the cabal, I was not tyring to pick a fight. I was trying to inject some knowledge. Plus, I see that your taking my route on the ribbon bars. :) Zach (Sound Off) 05:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Wołodarka

Ok, Irpen, let us end this whole dispute. If you please, just explain on my talk page how is it that the Russians achieved nothing and were defeated yet the Poles did not win. Halibutt 11:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

Halibutt, I did respond at that time. Please check dates. To what you wrote later, there is nothing new to add and I view that I said more than enough. Since there are no new questions, there were no new answers for some time. The note about the dispute should stay unless other editors, not just you, views them unwarranted. Not everyohe has to agree, but there has to be an overwhelming majority. So far, to you were rejecting proposals from three (!) editors and insist on your version. I spent to much effort on this to abandon it now. Unless I see that several editors view my position unjustifued, I see no reason to withdraw my objections. --Irpen 19:29, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Since you do not respond at my talk page and it is quite difficult to monitor talk pages of all the people I leave messages to, I replied in the article's talk page. I hope you'll respond there and not here. Halibutt 22:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, now that you have the article blocked, could yopu possibly PROVIDE SOURCES to the version you so fiercefully promote? Also, answering my question (only one, really simple question) would be a step in good direction... Halibutt 01:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks from Dietwald

Irpen, thanks for the nice welcome message:) I will try to contribute more to the topics, and I hope we can get along. You will notice every once in a while that I am a staunch Russophile, and do not hesitate to point out the errors of my ways when I talk about THE Ukraine...;)

--Dietwald 13:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Hero of the Russian Federation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yuriy Yekhanurov

Hi, can you help me with translating his biography in Talk:Yuriy_Yekhanurov? There is some popular demand for that. Sashazlv 03:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that. --Irpen 03:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Holodomor letter

Hi, I had a very difficult week and could not answer the e-mail earlier.

I think what you say makes sense.

I also recall my late grandfather telling me that his mother instructed him and his sisters to stay at home and beware of strangers. Those strangers were hungry and dying peasants (and their children) who flooded Kherson from neighboring communities. The grandfather was about 10-11 at that time. He told me the story some time before the collapse of SU (in fact, he died in 1991): without witnesses and I wasn't supposed to share it.

I don't know exactly where the grandfather's family originated from. I heard that his mother fled with children from either Donetsk or Luhansk regions, where they had a farm (khutor). In order to avoid persecution. No details about exact location and time are available. In the process, they modified their last name and, apparently, the mother concealed the details from the children.

Strangely enough, I haven't heard the story from the other grandfather's family. His parents lived in a village between Nikolayev and Kherson. One of the reasons may be that they were very reluctant to share the memories.

Best, Sashazlv 21:55, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Phobia or incompetence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ukrainians' picture

I don't mind you changed it. If Khrushchev's ethnical background is not clear, be it so. I think, Korolev is a person prominent enough to replace him.Voyevoda 17:35, 5 October 2005 (CET)

Misplaced Pages is not a propaganda machine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

it is easy to figure percentage of speakers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stalingrad

Hello, I am wondering if you could help me with a problem I have encountered. A certain "Kurt Leyman" in the Stalingrad artcile keeps changing the Red Army casualties into the millions. The number given by William Craig (and the numbers I use) in his well-respected "Enemy at the Gates" is 850000 Axis military, 750000 Soviet military, and 40000 Soviet civilain casualties, while Leymann never offers any sources for his numbers. In addition, he never comments on his edits and never responds on his user talk page (there have been many other complaints against him). Also, Kurt Leymann has been deleting the passage about the losses of the German sattelites for no apparent reason - thus I am forced to correct him far too often. Is there any way to stop him from doing this? Kazak 01:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Try a WP:RFC. Zach (Sound Off) 01:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC can be used if the situation gets out of hand but this unsourced intrusion may not require it. Just revert and let me know if you are approaching a 3RR limit. So that I will revert him when you can't. I will keep an eye but can't promise to me quick on my own. I have my hands full with several disputes right now. In any case I will try to help and don't hesitate to drop me a note. --Irpen 02:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Why are you lying?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ru Pravda

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

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

Ukraine related topics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent changes to Russia

I'm not sure if you saw this edit from yesterday; since there was some vandalism afterwards it is possible that it got lost in the shuffle. Some, but not all, of it has been addressed. It looks rather POV to me... Olessi 18:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! It's crasy that no one noticed. --Irpen 19:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Survey_guidelines#Fixing_giant_loopholes

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

Copyvio.

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

Discussion on maidanua.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kiev Metro (and others)

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

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

Page moves

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

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

user's IP

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

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

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

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

Funny Misunderstanding

"Rm nonsensical chauvinistic claims" is my standard comment for fixing typos, missing punctuation or spelling errors. I just like the sound of it. This time I corrected "past" to "passed". The "three hundred years" comment I deleted by mistake. Sorry to have startled you. Kasmicheskiy Pyeshyekhod aka Space Cadet 17:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

None taken, thanks man. Could you please take a look Talk:Kiev#Summary_of_older_discussions_over_names_in_the_articles, I would be interested in your opinion. Thanks, --Irpen 18:07, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I would probably like to see the Polish name on Lwów, Kamieniec Podolski, Stanisławów and a few other places. I can live without Kijów, Połtawa and Charków. And I am strongly against the use of anything but the current English name in the middle of an article. Exception from the above would of course be cities that had their name changed, like Königsberg, Vowgograd etc. What does Britannica say on Kijów? What's your stand on the Gdańsk/Danzig controversy and how do you feel about the fact that Britannica has an article "Free City of Gdańsk" instead of "Free City of Danzig"? Aha, sorry about the "Vstavay strana..." bit. I thought you guys were going to laugh, not get upset. Truly yours, Space Cadet 19:01, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Space, this discussion is only about the other names to be mentioned in the second line and nothing else. The rest we can decide separately. What do you say then? --Irpen 19:08, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll say I'll stick to the way Britannica does it! Space Cadet 21:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank Halibutt :)

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

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

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

Kievan Rus

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

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

The Chernihiv issue

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

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

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

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

Piłsudski's nationalism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re: 3RR

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

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

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

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

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

PMW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naming rules

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

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

Misplaced Pages is not a "Russian Orthodox Encyclopaedia"

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

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

Please read WP:NPOV carefully.

NPOV policy often means presenting multiple points of view.

Please pay attention that pushing Orthodox POV is against the WP policies.--AndriyK 20:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Map names

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

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

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

Please pay attention: lies is against WP policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why don't comment on the Columbia Encyclopedia?

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

The new reference I added is a publication by historians.

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

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

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

Early review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zemsky Sobor

No Russian wiki article (interlink)? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

There is indeed no separate article in ru-wiki. There is a chapter here at ru:Политический строй допетровской Руси article. --Irpen 03:10, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

user:Molobo

User:Molobo's unrestrained chauvinism constrained me to make some harsh editing on Russophobia, but I'm afraid it's the only language our Polish friends understand. Trusting your expertise in wikilaws, may I ask your advice as to whether his/her endless and pointless reverts on Belovezhskaya Pushcha (I don't know why the Polish name is preferred here) should be classified as a 3RR violation? --Ghirlandajo 15:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Nope I tried to create new versions better fitting the desription then the quite strange "East Slavic" rulers.I tried Soviet leaders and then leaders of Ukraine,Belarus,Russia, both of which seem to fit more with the proper terminoly in politics.Thus at the same time avoiding 3RR. If a Polish and Czech president meet should we say that leaders of West Slavs meet ? That would be very, very bizarre.

--Molobo 16:48, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Huh, I see that you can speak English on talk pages. As your contributions indicate, you prefer Polish when speaking to your cronies, which doesn't meet the Misplaced Pages Guidelines, I think. Anyway, we are not kids and we all know that it has been a favourite Polish strategem for centuries - to drive wedges between East Slavic nations, which have been speaking the same language up to the 16th century at least, and then to say that Belarus and Ukraine are closer to Poland, because it was dominating and oppressing them for a century or so. The Poles and Czechs have had different destinies, both politically and culturally, for more than a millenium. Your comparison is not very apposite, to say the least. --Ghirlandajo 16:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Anyway, we are not kids and we all know that it has been a favourite Polish strategem for centuries - to drive wedges between East Slavic nations, which have been speaking the same language up to the 16th century at least. Ekhem ? What are you saying that I am part of some conspiracy ? The West Slavs have had different destinies And your constant classfification of various diverse nations such as Poles or Czechs as some Slavs(which are just language group really) with alledged unfied goals and policies.) Sorry but this is hilerious. --Molobo 17:03, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

LOL. That's sweet :) Guys, seroiusly, stop personal attacks, especially on poor Irpen's page. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, there has been a discussion recently about 3RR on whether repeated removal of the same info from the article 4 times within 24 hours qualifies as 3RR vilation if it is combined by some other changes that seem to technically put the editor under the 3RR. The outcome seemed to have been that this is a 3RR violation and the user may be blocked for it. I don't want to list you for blocking since you might not have known about it, but I want to advise you that this is a blockable violation for the future. I will say more at the article's talk pages. Also, please consider using English for talk pages and save other languages for email communication. Russian and Ukrainian editors seem to abide by this rule, btw. --Irpen 17:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Russophobia

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

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

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

Please don't treat the comment

As personal attack. I only wanted AndriyK to know that I find diversity of opinions of value to keep articles neutral and rich in information otherwise unknown to other users.My comment was in now way connected to you. --Molobo 17:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Oleg of Chernihiv

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

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

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

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

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

It is not only nice, it is necessary.

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

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

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

Please do not blank factural information

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

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

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

edit comments

Your stupid homeboy called me a "demented spaceman", but I don't see you reprimanding him! Another thing: did my "rm nonsensical chauvinistc claims" comment really mislead you? When I removed a loose "r"? Thought you were smarter than that. Space Cadet 20:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes it mislead me because if you whould have said that you just corrected the typo I would not have bothered to go and check your edit since you are an established Wikipedian and I have too many articles at my watchlist to check each change in each of them. I certainly have to check the article when it was edited with such a summary. Neither I approve the "demented spaceman" remark of course. --Irpen 20:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I still don't see you reprimand your (distant) "cousin", though. What up? Different standards for own blood, different for "praklyatiy vrag"? Space Cadet 21:01, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It's enough to check your own contributions for today to see that they are limited to calling others "you morons" and the like. You also twice styled me "unmotivated maniac", whatever this is supposed to stand for. Have you ever checked Misplaced Pages:Civility? You may as well go to a nearest pub if your prime motive in wikiediting is to indulge in extravagant verbal abuse. --Ghirlandajo 21:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I did talk to him about this in the past and it is not my business to tell adult people what to do more than once, unless I am dealing with activity that hurts the articles themsleves, like vandalism and POV issues. However, I would not have gone to your talk page just to reprimand you for inflamatory summaries in the first place. For me, having to waste my time checking the edits when you only corrected the typo was a more significant issue. I never go to check edits marked (m - typo) when I know the editor as a reasonable person. --Irpen 21:23, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Fine! So now that you know I'm also a reasonable person, don't go and check my edits marked "rm nonsensical, chauvinist claims". Space Cadet 21:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Outright fools?

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

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

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

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

Your edits

Dear Irpen, you have purged the link to my newly-written Subdivisions of Kiev from the Kiev page. Without any freaking discussion or notice. Could I kindly ask you to revert such a vandalous edit of yours, and not to do that ever? AlexPU 09:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

That's a bit harsh, Alex. If something doesn't look right, it's best to discuss it with an editor before making accusations. —Michael Z. 2005-11-12 17:13 Z

OK, let's put aside the word vandal. For now ... And I've reverted that edit for myself AlexPU

This sounds all too familiar. Wasn't I saying just that lately?

Alex, I suggest you take a look at the recent heat in Ukrainian topics in WP and try to help cooling it off rather than heating it up. As for your change, I linked to an article that seemed to me more appropriate. I have nothing against your article and if you would just changed something back, I would not have called you a vandal. I made a change that seemed to me for better, you may disagree too. As for two articles now raions vs subdivisions this is a topic of a separate discussion. I would say, we merge them. --Irpen 18:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm too busy now to study Wikiethics pages thoroughly (which I'll definitely do sooner or later, becoming a kind of Wiki prosecutor :) ). But I guess I've never orphaned anybody's article, at least without notice. Again, this is purely the editing ethics issue. It has freaking nothing to do with Ukraine, Russia, Startrek or any particular topic. So please don't ask me cool or heat something. I'll watch your a... edits, zemliak. Best wishes, AlexPU 18:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

By heating up I meant calling a good-faith edit a vandalism. You are jumping he gun all too fast. You are welcome to watch my edits. I could only welcome that. --Irpen 21:45, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Mediation concerning St Volodymyr's Cathedral

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

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

Please read more literature before you edit articles

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

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

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

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

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