Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:38, 1 May 2006

• 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

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

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)

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)

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)

it is easy to figure percentage of speakers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you lying?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Holodomor

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

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

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

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

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

So, where do we go from here? I originally thought, and I am still inclined to think, that AA may have his heart on the right spot. But, somebody prescribe him valium and give him a book on basic logic. It's very frustrating. But, I am not yielding, I think discussing holocaust denial for almost ten years has given me the required stamina... Dietwald 20:20, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

holodomor comments

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

Polish invasion of Russia

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

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

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

Mediation process, maybe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Józef Piłsudski's forces plundering of the Western Ukraine

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

Misleading vote summary

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

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

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

Operation Wisła and Holodomor articles

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

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

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

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

Thanks Irpen

Irpen you should get another Bohdan order for helping new users like myself. Thank you for your comment and look forward to working on these projects--Riurik 23:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Allow me too

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

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

Irpen, take Image:WikiDefender rib.png. Thanks again. Zach 02:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Brutality of Poles 1918

I've not forgotten to look for the brutality of Polish against Ukrainians in 1918. I've looked up several potential sources, but so far found nothing notable. It may be because all these sources were of Polish origin. One of them menioned that the early fights were desperate and resulted in later hatred. However I was not able to find anything more specific, particularly anything that would imply that Poles were more brutal than Ukrainians. Have you had any success on this in the meantime ? --Wojsyl 22:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't checked yet but I remember. Could you take a look at talk:Bukovina, its history and several related paged? --Irpen 22:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have Bukovina on my watchlist, but at the moment: (a) I don't think I'm competent enough to voice my opinion, (b) you know I'm sceptic towards EB and prefer more scholarly appropriate sources. I'll watch for further development and hopefully learn more in the meantime. --Wojsyl 23:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have a book on Romanian history in 19th and 20th centuries (Małgorzata Willaume, "Rumunia", Warszawa 2004, ISBN 8388542745) and searched for the information on Romanian intentions towards Bukovina in 19th century, but did not found anything firm on this (contrary to Transylvania). Maybe it's obvious but it can be difficult to find hard facts on this, other than personal opinions of individual authors. --Wojsyl 17:29, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too

Thanks Irpen. І Вас з Новим Роком! Веселих Свят! Ukrained 00:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! Happy New Year! C Новым Годом! З Новим Роком! abakharev 00:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's to the happier one, Irpen! to you and yours - from me and mine :) thank you, so much. - Introvert 00:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey Irpen. I'm adding my thanks and best wishes also. May 2006 be a good year for you and your close ones ;) mno 01:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Joining to everybody in thanks and wish you to keep up your titanic work! З Новим Роком і Різдвом!--Oleh Petriv 02:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

It's not New Year for another four hours, but it's New Year by wiki time. Happy New Year! --Berkut 04:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

З новим роком. Thanks for adding an entry on my talk page ^^ -Iopq 06:21, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to see you around too! Happy New Year! 172 07:44, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Спасибо, Ирпенюшка! Тебя также с праздниками! А газ им всё-таки отключили... KNewman 08:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

very thoughtful of you:) Best wishesDietwald 19:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Irpen. Щасливого нового pокy!--SylwiaS | talk 19:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Best regards and thanks for the congratulation. I just want to let you know that after reading the replies on Zach's discussion page, I have decided to suspend my participation until the issue with advertisements gets clarified. My impression is that they (administrators) discussed it amongst themselves and agreed it would be "a lesser evil" to keep things going. As soon as the first ad is posted, I will quit permanently. I feel I was cheated out. Sashazlv 20:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy New Year to you, too ! --Wojsyl 20:15, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Спасибо за поздравление! И тебя тоже с праздником!--Pecher 19:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Koniuchy massacre at WP:RM

Hi there. Why have you reopened the vote to rename after it's been closed by an admin ? --Wojsyl 22:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I explained at talk. --Irpen 22:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you have quoted the policy stating that the vote can be removed "earlier at the discretion of an administrator", which actually happened, so actually your reopening the vote violates the very policy that you mentioned. Did you do this because you were not happy with the result of the vote ? --Wojsyl 22:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I explained clearly that whoever closed the vote violated the policy which doesn't call for premature closure for the lack of consensus. It only calls for premature closure to implement the move if consensus is easy to determine early enough. Please continue this at the article's talk. --Irpen 22:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I am surprized by your accusation but I guess I have to take it though I thought you knew me better by now. --Irpen 22:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You often surprise me, and I surprise you ;-) The rest in the article's talk. --Wojsyl 23:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen these edits: , ,  ? Wonder why he did not care to post a similar message in the Polish message board ? Sigh. --Wojsyl 22:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, did you or anyone post the announcement of WP:RM listing of Partitions of Poland at RU board once Piotrus posted it to the PL one? --Irpen 22:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I posted it anywhere. Have you seen me recruiting on Polish message board ? Still, Partitions of Poland are relevant to Poland, don't you think ? How is the Koniuchy massacre relevant to Ukraine, Belarus or Russia ? And who is a nationalist here ? I wonder why are you still defending this attitude. --Wojsyl 22:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not say anything about nationalists. You accused Ghirla not in nationalism but in "not caring" to post it at a Polish board as well. All I meant in my response is that people tend to post announcement at places where their preferred POV will get most of the support and gave a similar example with the PoP announcement. I am not making a judgement on why people do that. And, yes, the actions of Soviet partisans and allegations to their war crimes are relevant to the History of RU. --Irpen 23:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since you mentioned PoP, I've specifically asked only non-Polish people to voice their opinions there, including a number of Lithuanians, of whom I knew that they will have different POV than mine and I did it exactly in order to have well balanced representation of view on the PoP issue, so it does not seem that "people tend to post announcement at places where their preferred POV will get most of the support" unless they're interested in pushing their POV only. That's also the reason why I've *not* asked for support of Polish editors on Koniuchy or why I've posted the announcement about Huta Pieniacka to Ukrainian notice board first, before I posted it to the Polish one. But your mileage may vary of course. I'm constantly attempting to assume good faith, but sometimes the evidence is just too obvious. I have the feeling that if there were more Ghirlas on wiki I would really turn into a Russophobe :-( Anyway, forget it. --Wojsyl 00:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Orden

Many thanks, Irpen. I am not sure I desreve all this. Thanks abakharev 06:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Apology

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

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

Holodomor

Thanks for the link to the Himka article! The link is especially helpful following the constructive suggestion by Dietwald on Talk:Holodomor: "What SHOULD be done is to expand the discussion on politization. The issue is unduly politicised, which in itself deserver a considerable discussion." I'm also expecting to gather support for writing a much-needed entry on the Soviet famine of 1932-1934. Perhaps such an entry would be a strong candidate for Misplaced Pages:Collaboration of the week?

You're right about Andrew Alexander. I'm not too optimistic about the Holodomor since he is somewhat on the territorial side. Still, he has demonstrated an interest in adding well-sourced factual content and is relatively civil. We'll see how the discussion goes on the talk page. If it goes well enough, hopefully you will feel inclined to return to the article. Thanks again for the help! 172 20:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. If you get the chance, will you be able to restore the NPOV version of the Holodomor intro? Ultramarine kept on restoring the Andrew Alexander version until I'd used up my three reverts. Interestingly, he does indeed seem to be stalking me. Cold War, for example, was an article that wasn't on his watchlist until yesterday, when he probably found out that the article had been in my recent user contributions history. 172 20:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Also, thanks for the thought-provoking comments on nationalism and education in Ukraine. I'm about to leave my computer so my reply has to be too brief. I'll continue to try to do my best on the Holodomor article. In the meantime, I suppose we'll have to put up with more grandstanding from the usual quarters before much progress can be made. I'll be able to put up with them for at least another week, given that the famine is now such an important topic. Thanks again! 172 21:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Standartization of Kievan Rus' names

Прошу обратить внимание сюда, на мой взгляд проект достойный.

• Standartization of Kievan Rus' names

Kazak 07:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Unwarranted warnings

Perhaps you need to make sure that you compare the original with the current text in Ukrainian language prior to posting and reposting ridiculous warnings. There is no even remote semblance of copyright violation. Just imagination.--Andrew Alexander 08:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I did compare with the original. I will not be "reposting", I said enough. I just wanted to make sure you are aware of the problem with the text you keep restoring. --Irpen 08:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Please post the results in that case here or on the discussion page. Which words or sentences are the same? Always ready to correct those problems.--Andrew Alexander 08:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

What I would like to do first of all, is to restore much of the removed information from the article deleted by your now blocked friend as well as by yourself. I made a committment to myself to get back to this article once the arbitration is over. If my expansion of the article will prompt a discussion and in the end it would be decided to restore the phrases you "borrowed" from wumag, we will discuss their modifications. I will need a little time to go over several months of edits to not forget good faith changes of so many users to be included. --Irpen 08:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

DYK

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Verkhovna Rada building, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for the Info

The article was interesting to say the least. And easy enough to read and understand without needing a dictionary or help from some translation program. Thank you. The Marshal and Colonel were amateurs next to their mentor, Pilsudski. If I'm not mistaken, I believe Beck was actually Hitler's guest at Berchtesgaden for New Years, 1939. The facts concerning their blunders need to be brought forth accurately and without bias. That it will be vociferously challenged, is to be expected. One should be prepared. It seems this group of editors enjoys entrapping people into reverting wars, and they then try to have them blocked, or removed from participation in the Misplaced Pages project. Hopefully, the powers that be, will begin to see what's going on here. Dr. Dan 06:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

amusing entry

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

Thanks for support

Hi Irpen,

Thank you for your support with Novostroika. I admit there's a lot of issues with the article, and my comments on the request to delete page was that they're free to do as they wish. I am generally disappointed with the state of wikipedia, where if information is not necessarily relevat it is deleted rather than changed/moved. Best, mno 20:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

talk:Polish September Campaign

Irpen, why can't you stay on topic? As to your latest comment, either point me to a text where you see my applause or strike the comment. You don't value me highly, but you don't have to resort to slander, do you. Halibutt 21:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, I will moderate my comment all right. I took your lack of response to Molobo's pasting and to my attempts to undo them as your support of his actions. "applause" might have been an exaggeration and I will moderate it. In any case, slander is an overkill and you know it. You know that your "You don't value me highly" is wrong. I don't want to go into details and I do not want even to spend time to reassure you here because it is to obvious. I would like certain things in your editing to be different and I don't deny it. I am sure you have a wish or two regarding my and some others' edits as well. So it is fine as it was. There is no need for both of us to loose temper over topical disputes. --Irpen 08:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales didn't intervene either, did he. Nor did "your fellow" Ghirlandajo intervene, which doesn't mean he applauds Molobo. Anyway, let's move along. Halibutt 10:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not mix apples with oranges. Jimbo and Ghirla have nothing to do with this. The discussion was between you, Piotrus, Molobo and myself. And when Molobo started his habitual trolling there was a dead silence from both of you and my desperate attempts to undo his damage. This stuff is still in the article, he periodically restored megabytes of outside material at the talk page, making it unreadable and I can't simply succeed if I oppose such a dedicated and fervent troll just on my own. Instead of doing something to help restore the working climate in the article, you went into unrelated jokes about clocks and watches which is not only off-topic but also insensitive, as I explained at the article's talk. --Irpen 19:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

And here go your double standards. You feel I am responsible for Molobo's actions yet you don't feel obliged to intervene when Ghirlandajo starts his habitual trolling... also, you are somehow silent when I'm trying to undo damage done by your own actions. You frequently resort to off topic (as in the case of Wołodarka where you in most cases either wrote huge chunks of text about battle of Moscow instead of staying on topic), yet you're holding the same attitude against others. Ignoring the log in your own eye is not something unusual anyway. Halibutt 12:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and you just copied Molobo's conduct in clogging the talk page of Battle of Olszynka Grochowska with a large chunk of text from our private chat on your own conduct rather than the article. If it was Molobo to do it you'd most probably call him a troll and move the huge piece of unrelated discussion out of the talk page. However, when it is you to do the same - it's perfectly ok... Halibutt

Thanks!

I like help out where I can. You've done some good work here. Tufkaa 04:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Your accusations

I said I won't use your talk page any more but apparently I was wrong. After you recently accused me of being a troll and told me to read one of the definitions of who a troll is, I'd like to point you to some of the definition you perfectly seem to fit. For instance WP:TROLL#Edit_warring, WP:TROLL#Misuse of process might come in handy. Are you satisfied now? Halibutt 15:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support in my RfA

Just wanted to drop a quick note — nothing fancy! — to say thanks for your vote of confidence in my recent request for adminship. As you might have noticed it was unsuccessful; most objections related to my lack of experience. While I disagree that nearly 4000 edits, whether spread over two months or ten, constitutes a lack of experience, I respect the vote and will try again at a later date. I'm disappointed that I won't be able to help out in the meantime as much as I could with admin access, but again I appreciate your support and hope I'll have it the next time I am nominated. ⇒ BRossow /_C 18:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Kharkiv/Kharkov again

I suggest we revote on the name В Харькове русскому языку придан статус официального--Kuban Cossack 02:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should change anything. The legitimacy of this decision is still questionable. However, most importantly, the naming issue was decided based on the prevailing English language usage. I specifically conducted the search for prevailing names for all Oblast centers in Ukraine in major English Language media and other encyclopedias. All except of Kiev and Odessa are called through the transliteration of Ukrainian names. For details see this and this. Prevailing modern English language usage is the primary factor to determine the article name. At least that's how it was decided earlier to implement the vaguely formulated (perhaps on purpose) official guideline Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (use English). --03:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point your attention to the writing on the side of this, NEW, aircraft and to this UKRAINIAN company's official website Still I urge you to reconsider your obscure reason about modern use. --Kuban Cossack 23:11, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Also look at the text used on these two memorials, istalled in 1999 and 2001 . --Kuban Cossack 23:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Kazak, it's all very simple. We follow the prevailing modern usage in English language media. Once the major papers search shows the prevailance of Kharkiv, the decision of this or that organization won't affect the article's name. --Irpen 23:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That is ignoring the fact that this or that organisation happens to be Ukrainian state-owned :( I mean don't get me wrong I am not trying to push a POV or anything, just that I continuously gather evidence why the move is more than justified... --Kuban Cossack 11:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we are ignoring what the Ukrainian state or state-own organizations use for whatever because they have zero jurisdiction over English. The only thing that matters is the prevailing modern usage. The best indication of the latter in the major English language media and other language encyclopedia. While LexisNexis major papers search shows an overwhelming advantage of Khrarkiv AND Britannica uses Kharkiv as well, the answer is clear. The article titles should not be changed with each new momental event. Misplaced Pages articles titles reflect the long term trends, avaraged over time. So far, it is Kharkiv. I will do a LexisNexis major paper search one of these days and update you with the results since you seem interested. Stay around! --Irpen 01:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

8 - thankyou-s

Irpen, so kind and so nice of you! (Портрет мне, конечно, льстит :) Wishing all the best and all the success - Vera - Introvert ~? 19:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Others?

Any ideas who are the other generals on the Image:Polish Mil Victory Parade 1945.jpg photo?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I wrote there all I knew. I am no fan of Gen. S. at all and I only identified him at the photo because he was identified at the source where I found the image. I wanted to give others all the info I could. Actually, I was not looking for S' image, I was looking for the parade image and S just happened to be there among the others. I notice you added the parade photo to his article. If you click on the link to the image source, you will see other images of him. I just think the S' article is too short for many images and that's why I did not add them because they would turn an article into a gallery. But feel free to upload them and tag them "PD-USSR". OTOH, it is amusing that the usual suspects are trying to supress the image from the article where it is clearly relevant. Perhaps, you could have a word with some of them. --Irpen 23:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed interesting to know who else was there. This article mentions pl:Stanisław Popławski and Swierczewski. "Swój ślad w zacieraniu śladów niesłusznej historii odcisnął wczoraj premier Marek Belka ogłaszając w napisanym dla „Gazety Wyborczej” artykule, że Rosjanie nie zaprosili Polaków do udziału w moskiewskiej paradzie zwycięstwa w maju 1945 r. Trochę pan premier się pospieszył, bo owszem, generałowie Popławski i Świerczewski już zeszli z tego świata i niczego poświadczyć nie mogą, ale wciąż żyją skromniejsi rangą żołnierze, którzy w polskich pododdziałach maszerowali po placu Czerwonym. "

If you can identify which of the general is Poplawski, you can surely add him to the text under the figure in the image file. I think the names can be used if the image is going to be added to other WP articles, but as for the "Polish contribution..." the parade itself of the forces that helped defeat nazis is enough as a catpion. If the article ever expands to include individuals, they can be mentioned in the caption as well. On a side note, I found it incredible that Polish officials deny such a well known fact.The claim at the Foreign office site as well as the one written by Belka are rather surreal. --Irpen 01:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Another Tribuna article Irpen ? :) Anyway something for Piotrus:.. ... You see now why I have objections towards photo of those being presented as representative picture of Polish contribution in WW2 ? --Molobo 02:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't. But you don't need to convince me that communists were pretty bad. I am well aware of that. However, my Polish is almost non-existent. As for that Trybuna article, it's not "another one". It is the same one. Too bad you didn't check the link I posted a while ago. OTOH, I do read all your links if they are in the language I can understand. Please talk to Piotrus at his page and not mine. Drop your habit of pasting kilobytes of stuff all over Misplaced Pages. Links would suffice. Besides, my Polish is very poor. The small quote above I understood only because I saw that article's translation. --Irpen 03:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Your tactic to delete other users comments is most offensive. --Molobo 22:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Molobo. You are at it again. I didn't delete a single word of your comments. You pasted the huge piece from an external web-site. I explained why this is not appropriate. And several people repeated that to you many times. Please reread what I said at Talk:Renaissance in Poland. --Irpen

Avhustyn Voloshyn

Take a look there should be expanded, but some heavy POV-pushing is going on. (I started to neturalise it) --Kuban Cossack 22:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Rus

Molobo, please praise the achievements of Polish culture in the Polish culture article. This has nothing to do with Kievan Rus and its talk.

I agree, but in case you haven't noticed it was Ghirandajo who started comparing Poland and Polish culture to Rus. Perhaps you should tell him that ?

--Molobo 20:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please don't lie. It was your friend Piotrus who started hailing Poland as a cultural luminary of the world and compare it with backward Muscovy. Although he still perseveres in his POV, I'm not going to tolerate nationalist-motivated revisionism. --Ghirla 21:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see Piotrus starting to mention Poland in discussion page on Kievan Rus. Please point it to us.

--Molobo 22:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

When Piotrus set up a sect fact tag to point out to the disputed section it was removed. Will you agree to setting up it again over the disputed section of the article. --Molobo 20:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It was removed all right but refs were added at that time. --Irpen 20:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Refs were added only to population numbers which we were hardly disputing. --Molobo 20:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC) Also-are you going adress Ghirandajo over his bringing of Polish culture subject since you mistakenly believed it was my while it was him ? --Molobo 20:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I will reread the discussion and if you are right, I will talk to him. Please care to format your comments! --Irpen 20:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is where Ghirandajo started to bring Poland as subject ] --Molobo 20:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you agree then to more general Sect Fact template over the disputed section rather then citatitons required tags ? --Molobo 20:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

When I tried to use a single, more general template, I was reverted . Now, it is not that I doubt that the information in the article is true, but I want to see academic references for those facts. And by all means, there are many article I worked on - including most of my previous FAs - that do not use inline references and would need those templates too. Eventually all articles should be referenced as good as Katyn massacre. Incidentally, if you look at how that article was developed (for example here) you'll see that I added many fact templates to it, which were eventually repalced by proper citations. I'll certainly NOT mind if you are more active in using this template, on Poland-related (or other) articles. As for Halibutt's addition, I advised him to move it to mainspace (although not necessarily to that section). I think that articles tend to improve much more if they are edited by many people, and controverial articles attract more attention than the others.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Statement of principles

"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred. --Jimbo Wales

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.5.124 (talk • contribs)

I don't mind anons editing. I object to using anonymous accounts for edit warring, that's all. Please edit. This wasn't an edit at all. --Irpen 20:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

First, in my humble opinion, it's wrong to focus on identity of editors (whether it's IP, or AndriyK, or Molobo, or somebody else). It's wrong to harass users by summaries like "I will put aside some time to expand the article to set you an example", "write at least one article if you decided to come back", and especially "seize messing up the texts others write". I see AndriyK's small original edition, and another edition proposed by Mzajac and introduced by AndriyK as as an attempt to introduce unbiased and neutral language into the article. If you even don't let a user to introduce a small edition, it's unethical in the same time to ask him to bring the whole article. And even if he'll never bring a whole article, editing what others wrote toward NPOV is still a plus, and it should be respected.

Second, by objecting "using anonymous accounts for edit warring", you basically acknowledged that (1) there is an editing war, and (2) you are actively participating in it. Moreover, once the edition by Mzajac was introduced I see you as the initiator of the recent edit war. (I don't know what was previously; I'm telling you my view on the current situation). Do you think that having a registered account should give its owner additional rights or power? Do you think that it's ethical for an edit war participant to accuse somebody of being unethical? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.5.124 (talk • contribs)

The problem with the conflict between AndriyK's version and the one which was there for months (admitedly written by myself) is that the advantage of the latter is explained in detail at the article's talk. Compromising is good but not for the sake of the compromise itself. Otherwise, we would have to "compromise" Ukrainian articles with the views that, say, the Ukrainian language is the dialect of the Russian or that UPA was a Nazi organization or that Holodomor was caused by bad weather. If someone just makes a random statement at talk, it does not mean that we have to compromise with it. Check recent edits by anon at Orange Revolution. I reverted him without even discussing them. In Khreschatyk the current version is explained and AndriyK failed to provide any explanation to the opposite. His reason is that he doesn't like it. Sorry, that's not good enough to force a compromise. Kuban kazak, doesn't like "I" in Kharkiv. I simply explained to him what's wrong with "O" in modern usage and he withdrew rather than insisting that we look for a compromise with "E". AndriyK just reverts such edits are not worthy of discussion in order to restore to the stable version. He does the same at Russian architecture and a whole bunch of other articles. In fact, for now, that's all he does. I am willing to put aside any issues I have with this editor and discuss things with him based on the merit of his points. He isn't making any points. Just attacks things that he happens to "not like". What should I discuss and compromise then?

Finally, that you edit the articles with ongoing conflicts anonymously is discourteous and unfair. It takes 1 minute to register a throwaway account but that would allow others to talk to you in case of disagreement. It would be best if you put yourself on the equal footing with others and reregister a stable account so that the dialog is possible and you can't pretend to not see what's being said to you. I am talking fairness to others only. But this is only as far as conflicting articles are concerned. Anonymous small corrections are totally all right. But please consider what I've said since you are obviously interested and able to contribute more than that and I know you will. Besides you know that you will. The only reason people actually leave WP is the edit conflicts or sudden sudden changes in life, not the "lack of time". It is too addictive. --Irpen 21:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Some of the issues you mentioned are well noticable. Personally, I didn't intervene on the Russian Architecture article, probably because while from one side I strictly support user rights to put the POV tag, but from the other, as you pointed out, it's also true that a clear statement on the reasons for the tag should follow. In AndriyK's shoes I would work on making his statement as clear and understandable to all as possible. A simple statement "I like it" probably should follow on the other side by a simple question "Why do you like it?". At best, it may follow by some arguments, but lack of discussion, or discussion over discussion, or discussion over author's identity are all worse. On the Kreschatik article it's a different story, and my 2 cents here I have already brought in. In the end, it's wrong to mix separate issues, and to bring any negative attitude toward an editor from one article to the other.

I apologize if my use of IP addresses created an impression that I am ignoring comments that people left on the discussion page for the particular IP I have used. I hope I read all the comments. And emails too. As you mentioned, some are leaving Misplaced Pages after a sudden changes in life, but some are aware that a certain negative change in life may come, and are working (not so successful so far) to avoid it. I don't see a point of creating an account, which we know would be essentially fake, for the purpose of few edits. Hope on your understanding on that.

P.S. I looked a little more over the Russian Architecture talk page. AndriyK did clearly state his objectives back in early December. There was a survey later in December, which resulted in 8 vs. 4 in the favor of keeping Kiev Rus architecture as a part of the article. I don't know Misplaced Pages rules, but in my view POV tag should be a tool for a minority to express disagreement with the majority. The majority's got the article their way, but the minory should have rights at least for a tag (claiming that the view in the article is the view by majority, which is not the same as neutral view). But then, should a view by minority be allowed on Hitler page? Tough question..

As for me personally, I am Ok with Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine are all claiming to be successors of Kiev Rus, including its architecture.

P.P.S. So, I read a few more Misplaced Pages rules and guidelines. According to Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes, survey is mentioned as one of the ways to resolve a dispute. Also from there: "Assume that the other person is acting in good faith unless you have clear evidence to the contrary". Reading more on the surveys Misplaced Pages:Straw polls, what I see is "Decisions should be made by consensus rather than a strict majority rule" (good goal, hard to achive; but in the end the rule is the rule), "A straw poll is just a tool for quickly probing opinions", and "A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority". Thus, there was a survey, but consensus has not being achieved. There are other ways mentioned to resolve the dispute: "Informal Mediation", "Discuss with third parties", "Mediation", "Requesting an advocate". As a last resolt, "Arbitration" is mentioned. But as long as the dispute is not resolved, POV tag should stay. It's both majority amd minority who should initiate further steps to resolve the despute.

Yes you are right and check how much time people spent on the issue in response to his tag, checking the academic sources. BTW, tagging was the second thing he did. The first one was moving it to another title Architecture of Rus, that is despite it goes into the Socialist realism times, and we his trademark dirty trick with artificial history to make sure his point is forced upon others. Then he pasted the whole chapter to Architecture of Kievan Rus without any acknowledgement of the authorship, making an impression that he wrote such a superior article. Only after that he placed a tag and it was given a fare amount of thought by the community.

Michael even took an effort to go to the city library and saw that in academia the approach is similar to the one taken in the article. What more you could ask for from the editors who listened to his objections and gave the matter such a thorough study? Third parties mostly agreed as well. If there is a bias all over the world due to a historic influence of the Russian scholarship in the historiography, the way to address it is in the new scholarly works, not in encyclopedia whose aim is to summarize the matter based on the existing knowledge, rather than to "correct" it. This is very similar to Kiev/Kyiv issue. Both are correct, Kiev is primarily used, hence we use Kiev. We mast defer to the mainstream view and mention the minority view, if they are substantial but clearly as minority view, like Holocaust denial in the Holocaust article, or the whether theory in Holodomor or that Russia is not a descendant of Kievan Rus' but of Finno-Ugric tribes in the North, like some fierce Ukrainian nationalists are trying to portray it. --Irpen 02:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"What more you could ask ...?" There is no consensus on the Russian Architecture article, and it's wrong to claim that it exists. AndriyK has never agreed. Can you prove that he is acting in bad faith? Is he actually acting in the bad faith? Other contributors, such as Yakudza, and A.A. supported the objectives in the survey.

In the end, even if somebody is an evil, should or should not we go by the rules? If not, then who are we?

What I am asking is that we go by the rules.

Yes, my point is that he is acting in bad faith here as he has shown in the past he is able to, like frivolous moves of the articles and falsified voting oto prevent moving them back. If someone throws a tag, we must study his objections first and address them the best we can. Nothing can prevent a bad-faith user from persisting by just saying "I don't agree". He cannot be allowed to screw the articles just because his views differ from the reality. One thing is ignoring someone's objection. Another thing is to persist with objections that were addressed just to stubbornly make a point. --Irpen 03:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Answered on Russian Architecture talk page, but it becomes not so productive.

Basically, AndriyK brought an objective, which was declined. And now you are saying "dispute closed. bring a fresh objective"? :(

Irpen, you are actually good in cooperating with people. Don't look for fresh objectives. Could you just give a fresh look on AndriyK? Please.

Irpen is not a Saint

Irpen's actions:

• Removed POV tag from Russian Architecture article when AndriyK who put the tag is blocked.
• Claimed that the tag is ridiculous, and consensus has been reached.
• Kept removing the tag for a dozen times and counting.

Saint's actions:

• Wait until AndriyK is unblocked.
• Welcome him back to Misplaced Pages.
• Remind that there is a POV tag standing on Russian Architecture article, and propose a few alternatives to finally resolve the dispute.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.5.19 (talk • contribs)

Well, not quite like this. That is I am not a saint for sure, but this is not how it was. I don't even remember whether he was blocked when I removed the tag because this was not a thing I was keeping in mind. There was a considerable amount of time (perhaps even a month) when there were enough ArbCom votes to see that he was going to be blocked and the date when the case was closed and the block applied. During that month he was almost inactive, except trolling at Alex's first RfA. If you reread the ArbCom, I did not call for blocking him. I wanted him banned from moving articles (which was done), from substituting the terminology by revert warring rather than proposing and discussing (which was also done) and to restrict his right to revert war (that is, say, 2RR per day rather than 4) which was not done. Stripped of his trolling tools, he might have started to contribute. I removed the tag because I saw the objections answered, no new objections were raised and the tag was there long enough. Besides, his faithful revert war proxy user:Andrew Alexander was around anyway.

I thought of welcoming him because I actually wanted to do it. The reason I didn't was that I thought that it would have just annoyed him. He sees me as a true evil, worse than Ghirla. The latter is just a Russian, it is normal for Russians to be bad in the eyes of a Russophobe. Myself being a Ukrainian and seeing the Ukrainian nationalism as repugnant at the same time, amounts in the eyes of some as a treason (I see any other nationalism repugnant as well). It's like Vlasovets versus a German, who was more hated at the time of the war? You can see even from talk:Khreschatyk, that I offered him to work things out and this was one of the countless times. He chose to bite a hand I stretched to him every time. I am not an ill-tempered person and I hold no grudge for his badmouthing me at en- and ua-wikis as well as at the outside forums and his emails to others. But if he sees me as such and I "welcome him back", he would just get mad because he won't beleive in my sincerety.

Anyway, if he starts writing articles, and I see how I can help, I will be around. If he just goes around spitting, reverting and deleting, I can't do much about that, can I? Besides, I had enough of his attitude and I have no intention to talk to him, unless absolutely necessary because every time it provokes another set of outbursts. --Irpen 09:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ditto, about the Vlasovets and German. I must stress that being a Kuban Cossack, having a Volhynian wife and being Russo-centric bites hard. You see a minority of people in Ukraine (or in the Ukrainian diaspora) tend to think of Kuban as being an ethnic Ukrainian territory and its people being Russified and opressed. However my political view and historical account (and as is the rest of the Kuban for whom I can safetely speak) does not coincide with this "skazka" that he read somewhere. Of course he hates me just as well. Btw I should add that my wife's family back in Rivne are all going to vote for Vitrenko in the elections, which of course would conflict with another image of Volhynia being a nationalist haven, but then if you have events like these contributing , I doubt there would be any nationalists left within a few years (and having lived there I can see how these words are gaining truth). Which will of course annoy a person with Svidomyi mentality, but then truth hurts. Любо братцы любо...--Kuban Cossack 20:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Kuban kazak, will all due respect to your wife's family (I know nothing about them), that they would be voting for Vitrenko speaks much of their lack of political literacy. I mean if their church was shut down and given to the rivaling faction and UNA/UNSO paramilitants helped that happen, I could see why they overreact in such a way. But Vitrenko is a total nut-case not worthy even of discussion on what's wrong with her program. This is as if you tell me that you vote for Zhirik (and if you do, please don't tell me about that). Anyway, let's get back to editing. --Irpen 21:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There voting for her not because what other choice is there? PR? Maybe, but again Yanukovich has lost his momentum that I once respected him for (particulary at Severodonetsk congress). Now he is playing all of the strings at once. Definetely not NSNU or BYuT, they had enough adventures for their old age during the past 1.5 years. Everybody else will never make a majority to make a difference to the future of the country. Vitrenko on the other hand has a clear programme (which other parties clearely don't) yes it is ambitios and yes it is extreamely overslanted, but then desperate time do call for desperate discisions, at least so far she did keep her word to the public and I do respect her for that. (BTW all this logic is not mine but my wife's who is telling me all this for the whole past year). Me I only vote for KPRF, and boycott presidential elections, although I will support Lukashenko if he runs for Russian president, but you are right, back to editing. Have a look at some of my new works with the Azerbaijani and Armenian colleagues (despite the friction they exhibit towards each other). Baku Metro and Yerevan Metro. --Kuban Cossack 21:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW have you seen this? --Latinus 19:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Amusing, huh? --Irpen 19:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What amuses you?--AndriyK 19:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

We are all learning., which is good. With that tag on Russian Architecture, he did mention on the talk page that the consensus has not been reached. And that's what the situation is. His objections were discussed, but neither they were satisfied nor he withdrew them. The dispute is still there. Claiming that it's not only make it worse.

I brought the welcomimg issue only as an example. As you are saying, you considered it, which is good. The bigger issue that you are editing the same articles. You need to deal with each other.

If he sees you as a true evil, then it cannot get worse. It can only get better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.84.5.124 (talk • contribs)

Anonymous, you don't need to tell me how to be nice. Modesty aside, most people don't consider me ill-tempered, either in life or at Misplaced Pages. I will deal with AndriyK's edits based on their merit, not on what I think about him. So far, there were no edits. Just reverts and I explained what was wrong with the versions he was reverting to and he gave no answer. Once he makes a first new edit, I will deal with it totally based on that edit's own merit. --Irpen 21:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the reason to blame me for Rusophobia? Can you give examples of any my rusophobic edits, comparable to Ukrainophobic or Belarusophobic edits of yours and your friends?--AndriyK 08:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sure I can find specific edits of yours but your crusade by itself, pretty much outlined at your arbitration, speaks much already. I never made a single Ukrainophobic edit. Moreover, the curious and impossible combination of accusations I've heard towards myself (like Ukrainian nationalism, Ukrainophobia, Russian nationalism, Russophobia, etc.) just convince me that I am doing the right thing. That my view that Ukrainian nationalism is repugnant (like any other BTW) annoys Ukrainian nationalists is not surprising. You've been told by several compatriots of ours (including the anonymous editor here) that you are mistaken in calling me all those names. That you, nevertheless, remain unconvinced is telling.

I suggest you go to Talk:Russian architecture and outline your specific objections to justify your tag and not in a general rant-like form, but with a specific point by point list. Otherwise, please don't complain if it is removed as unexplained.

You were extremely rude in the past and such things, you know, stick to memory. In any case, as I wrote earlier, when I deal with any specific article disagreements with you I am putting this all aside. Please start writing. It's about time. --Irpen 08:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

most people don't consider me ill-tempered, either in life or at Misplaced Pages

This is because you so rancorous and revergeful that the people afraid to say you what they think.

Nobody would like to repeate my fate at Misplaced Pages and, I'm sure, there were similar examples in the real life.--AndriyK 08:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't prove anything to you regarding the real life. All I am saying is that's how that is. I have no revengeful passions against you whatever you think. If you can't take my word for it, I can't do much about it, can I. Now, please edit Misplaced Pages. --Irpen 09:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I never made a single Ukrainophobic edit.

You apparently have mamory problems. I have to remind you . Here is something from your Belarusophobic friend: " The so-called Belarusian".--AndriyK 09:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You are lying and anyone can check it. Sasha earlier presented you the analysis of this . To remind you, that text was not written by me. I simply restored it after your repeated blanking because we cannot afford blankings in Ukraine-related pages: there are too few contributors. In the end of the day, it was me who rewrote that phrase while you were just repeatedly blanking it running your traditional revert war. That reminds me to restore other stuff from that article you and your rv war proxy blanked. I will get to that ASAP. --Irpen 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, the curious and impossible combination of accusations I've heard towards myself (like Ukrainian nationalism, Ukrainophobia, Russian nationalism, Russophobia, etc.) just convince me that I am doing the right thing

No, this is because you hate both Ukrainians and Russians (as well as Poles, Romanians etc.). This is where you differ from Ghirla. He is in permanent conflict with nearly all East- and Central- Europeans, but he loves Russia and writes excelent articles about Russian History. You do nothing but provoking conflicts between wikipedians. My relations with some Russian wikipedians would be much better if you did not urge them "to go into the edit war" against me. This is the reson why I consider you much more evil then Ghirla, not because your Ukrainian background.

(Still, I liked your analogy between Nazism and Russian chauvinism and between yourself and Vlasovets ;))--AndriyK 09:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK, you just try to offend me in the worst possible way. It won't work. It worked in the beginning, but I developed the immunity to your offensive language. Don't waste your time making a fool of yourself again. Besides, it may get you in trouble some day. Your last arbitration was not prompted by your rudeness but by gross disruption of Misplaced Pages through the move fraud, followed by vote fraud and combined by relentless edit warring over anachronistic terminology substitution caused by your Russophobic desire to purge any Russian names from Ukraine related article even at cost of introducing anachronisms. However, while we were at it, the evidence of your rudeness only made the case convincing in the eyes of the arbitrators that, at Misplaced Pages, you are nothing but a troll with an agenda. Since your return, you resumed exactly what you were doing. I suggest you reconsider this.

Start writing articles and we will discuss them if I disagree with something in them. Bring up your objections civilly if you disagree with what I write in articles. Do not troll the talk pages with new outbursts. Finish writing about Vasyl Stus. Finish Polkovnyk. Write Povazhny kozak or write whatever you want. Put your agenda, whatever it is, aside and you will find a totally different attitude from everyone. That said, I will not be responding to any more of your offenses. Have a nice weekend. --Irpen 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I would started to do it months ago, if you would not follow every my edit and mess it up.

You see, there are a lot of clever, qualified and nice people at this wiki. They can correct my edits, if I make mistakes, or criticise/discuss my edits at the talk.

On the other hand, there are more than million articles, most of them could be improved. So you can find enough things to do. Why among million of the articles you chose those that I created or edited recently?

Please find another victim of your persistance, so that I could write articles instead of wasting time for pointless discussions.

Please, think about it.

Have a nice weekend too.--AndriyK 19:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK, I do not follow you. I have better things to do. I simply concentrate on Ukraine (my homeland) and its history at Misplaced Pages as you also seem to be. That's why I initiated the Ukraine portal and do the best I can to have Ukraine covered. Your edits happened to be falling on my watchlist and I reacted to them based purely on the edits, not on who it was. Now, lets return to editing. Again, I have no intention to have your past and present offences anywhere in a way to resolve any specific edit disputes. --Irpen

Are there no other Ukraine related articles you can work on?--AndriyK 19:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I choose the article that interest me most. I honestly don't care about chasing you or anyone else. If you think otherwise, file the RfC or an ArbCom because Wikistalking is considered a serious offense. File a case and see how it goes. Better yet, return to article's improvement. --Irpen 19:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there another way (except RfC or ArbCom) to get rid of your chase?--AndriyK 20:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I am not chasing you. I do not care about you. I care about articles that have reasons for me to care for. --Irpen 20:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Irpen: This was too far from article discussion.

Why you did not care for these articles during several years you are there, but you start care just I have edited/created them?--AndriyK 20:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of Ukraine-related articles are and were on my watchlist. Will you please stop pestering me with questions? --Irpen 21:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

AndriyK: It's a pointless discussion. He does care about articles, regardless who created or edited them. It's a public project.

Let's move forward. It looks like we don't have anything better to do. :(

Here we go again, speak for yourself. How many articles have you written wholly and originally (trolling like Russian Architecture or the attack on Ukrainian and Belarusian languages do not count)? How many stubs have you expanded into fully-respected articles. How many images have you uploaded? Where is the long awaited Drogobych Oblast and Moldavian ASSR ? Irpen actually writes articles as opposed to you trolling on them. --Kuban Cossack 17:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Kuban kazak, this discussion is pointless. Let's put a line here. --Irpen 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Kiev Expedition

Hi Irpen, I'm surprised that you reverted my move. You participated in the discussion on the board, and you didn't voice any objections to the name I proposed. What don't you like about the title? Appleseed (Talk) 00:48, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I am just writing a note at the article's talk. Give me 5 mins. Let's continue the discussion there. --Irpen 00:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, just wanted to let you know that a week has passed without any comments, so I have moved the article. Appleseed (Talk) 19:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

PLC refs

I really want to thank you for going over the article and pointing out where online citations are needed. On this subject, could you provide a link for your (I think) ref #7 (Britannica, Union of Lublin - middle of the 2nd lead para)? Btw, you've called my request for citation for Kiev Rus 'pestering' yet you have asked for same data in the PLC article. As I have provided that date for PLC article, can I assume you'll go back and add the relevant citation to the KR article? :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:31, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

There is an important difference. PLC is a FAC and Kievan Rus needs much more basic work than referencing of a well known info. While useful, it is not the most productive way to spend time. We live in a real world with real time contraints. More at Talk:Cossack#Alliance is a POV, Talk:Kievan Rus'#Common sense in tags demanding for refs. --Irpen 07:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you a serious editor?

Please read Misplaced Pages:Verifiability carefully. Now you have to options:

1. Act as a serious editor: replace the {{fact}} template by a reference confirming your statement about Stalinist style of the Verkhovna Rada building or remove the unsourced information;
2. Or you can proceed in your usual way: start a new edit war for removing the {{fact}} template and ask your pals to participate . Than you may blame your opponents for rusophobia, nationalism etc., as you usually do.

What will you choose this time?--AndriyK 19:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop pestering either at Verkhovna Rada or at Vasyl Stus or at other articles. Write article rather than troll around trying to drain those you view as "enemies" into the tiredom. Any article can be disrupted by continues pestering disguised as "calling for sources". Often reasonable, requests for sources should not be used as as tool to disrupt. Any number of fact tags may be thrown into any articles at any time. There is a difference between legitimate discussion and trolling presented as "requests to cite sources". Don't disrupt Misplaced Pages. There is such a thing as Common sense. While indeed hard to strictly define, it is useful to remember that such notion exists. Most reasonable people can agree on things and this creates a set of implied rules called ethics. While impossible to define and write as specifically as wikipololicies, Misplaced Pages will stop functioning if more users start behaving like yourself. Please reconsider. It is very disruptive and harmful for the project.

And don't resort to your usual "it's all your fault thingy". You really don't want to bring this up to the wider community to decide who is at fault here. I am not threatening you with another formal action. I don't want to fight with you or take any such steps because it is time-consuming, nerve-wrecking and, I think, your contributions may be potentially useful for the project. You've got answers at both talk pages, Now, please give a thought to my suggestions and do some new content editing instead of fighting all the time. At least you wrote an Vasyl Stus article now. That's already something. --Irpen 20:28, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Would not it better to give a single reference instead of writing two long paragraphs about ethics, Common sense and bla-bla-bla? Or you do not have any reference and the "Stalinist style" of the Verkhovna Rada building is just your own fantasy?--AndriyK 12:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"Any article can be disrupted by continues pestering disguised as "calling for sources""
"Any number of fact tags may be thrown into any articles at any time."
This is exactly what your friend does .--AndriyK 16:28, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Russia under the scepter of Romanovs 1613 - 1913

Thanks for the book. It was a long time since I had seen such amount of hatred for Poland combined with antipolish propaganda. I will add information from it to polonophobia article. Especially comic was the schocked statement that Poles didn't want to live under the benevolennt scepter of Russian emperor. I guess it was a Jesuit intrigue :D --Molobo 04:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo

I've just blocked Molobo and he isn't taking it well. Oddly enough. If you felt like having a word over at his talk page I'd be grateful, as you've been a moderating influence in the past, I think (I'm not very sure how the factions or whatever around this line up, so please forgive me if I'm embarassing myself here). If you have any comments on his block, I'll listen (reply here, SVP) William M. Connolley 22:22, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

William, thanks for your message. I will try my best to help sort all this mess out. I am out of time right now being busy at work, but I will be able to help I am sure. In the meanwhile, Molobo's block may help to cool off some passions as well as Molobo's head too. I think he hates me less than many of his other opponents, if at all, and I also want to end this mess. More soon, --Irpen 23:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I've moved the discussion to WP:ANI, btw William M. Connolley 09:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Res to talk:Soviet partisan

Please let me know which articles (and preferably which edits) do you want me to look over, and if the stuff was pasted, where from. I don't have time to stalk Molobo and check on his every edit. As for that pic, I know you had good intentions and in that particular case others overreacted way to strongly - and when Ghirla joined the outcome was a mess. Happens - and I think we have it fixed somewhat (although the photo issue will not be resolved until we have an article about London victory parade and why Polish forces in the West could not take part in it). As for tags, in that particular case I think 1 of them was not needed, but there were six facts that I really wanted to see referenced. Yes, tagging creates more work - but useful work. In other news, I can check the English spellings in Davies WERS book you requested, but plese let me know exactly what names (index? page nr?) you want me to look at, so when I go to the library I can do it as quickly as possible.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Life is beautiful

Thanks! Yes indeed. Even the orchestra is beautiful! -Irpen 07:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Warsaw

Irpen, can we please make that article as balanced as possible? Molobo did not contribute to ths article, and trying to justify bad practices by what he does is completely out of order. Furthermore, it borders on WP:Point.

BTW, please archive more of your talk. The page is so long that editing it is very slow, on my computer at least.Balcer 19:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hotel Ukrayina

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

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

Image:Rycina 1752 Palac Branickich.jpg

Please stop removing the source tag from the image Image:Rycina 1752 Palac Branickich.jpg and making remarks about "copyright paranoia". All images need to have a source, this one has no source and not even who the artist is. If a source is provided, then all is fine, until then this image will be tagged. Gryffindor 21:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please use some common sense. It is obvious that the image is old and no lawsuit is possible. As such, pls don't damage Misplaced Pages by tagging clearly OK images adding work to the editors who are busy enough in real life and want to use the time for content creation rather than fending off the self-appointed WP copyright police. I know that copyrights is a real issue. This image is not the case. --Irpen 21:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That is none of my concern. The image has no source, I do not see any proof that the image is old. If a source is found, the image may be uploaded again, but until then I am afraid the rules are quite clear. You are coming dangerously close to a three-revert edits violation, please stop. Gryffindor 21:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

If you can't figure it that the image's old, I can't help. 3RR rule applies to everyone, yourself included. WP:IAR is a very important reminder and it is written exactly for cases like this. Pls no wikilawyering and use some common sense. If you have time on your hands, please help add content to WP rather than remove it. Removal has to be justified by some real danger. This vintage image doesn't pose any of it. I suggest you leave it alone. See m:Copyright paranoia. --Irpen 21:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, count me in for 3RR matters involving commons sense and paintings. I tried looking for the soure of this painting and couldn't find it - but we can as well assume it was a photo made by Witkacy or something. It is old and pd-art obviously applies.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I double that comment. Stop copyright paranoia! You could also try {{Art}} or {{fairuse}} - I can't see how the current use of this image doesn't fall under fair use (provided that copyrights other than PD apply at all!). --Misza13 17:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

SuperDeng

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

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

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

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

Battle of Moscow

. And why not "the Germans failed to break through"? //Halibutt

Because they were trhown off and never returned. And you of course hint to your ill-fated Volodarka crusade. There is a difference. In Volodarka, Soviets failed to break Polish defences but:

• everything returned pretty much to pre-battle positions
• That Soviets failed the first time didn't prevent them to advance into the territory in about a week later.

By your logic, all defences consist of defenders victories (how many, I wonder. As many as there are hours, minutes, or seconds?) How many Russian victories was there at Siege of Smolensk (1609-11) that Poles eventually captured?

I explained that to you earlier. Please stop pestering and please use descriptive section titles. How meaningful is LOL in TOC? --Irpen 13:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Football AID 9 April - 15 April

FC St. Pauli has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Привет

Благодарю за приглашение. Мне померещилось или право русская община на Вики захилела(кажется англоязычных статей о России и СССР порядком больше чем русских)? Crocodilicus 10:22, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Quick note

As you already know, Molobo will be taking a break (Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Molobo_blocked_for_disruptive_edit_warring). Hopefully this will lower the temperature in Polish-Russian and Polish-German relations on Misplaced Pages, so to speak.

I hope that the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Warsaw controversy that we had such a long argument over is now resolved. Reading back over my comments towards you I see that I have used some words that might have hurt your feelings. I should also not have claimed you acted in bad faith. It is not my place to judge the motives of another editor. For all this, I apologize. Balcer 22:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, no problem at all. Your responses were very civil and I really value your contributions a lot. Would you please help to resolve the controversy over History of Poland (1939-1945). The article underwent drammatic POV pushing. The image of Soviet tanks liberating Lodz I found was blanked several times by multiple users, the info about Molotov's phonecall congratualting Nazis as well as the Brest parade doesn't belong to such a wide article, the whole section about "Treatment of Polish citizens by evil Soviets" doesn't belong to such a broad article as well, etc. Please turn your attention to this article. I will be trying to bring it to normalcy, but I expect a new wave of attacks by Halibutt :(. --Irpen 22:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I will try to find time to take a look at that article. The controversy over "Soviet liberation" is for me a little bit silly, as the perfect compromise exists. One can simply talk about the "Soviet liberation from the Nazis", which is factually accurate, and also does not suggest that the Red Army brought Liberty (note the big L), which certainly was not offered by the communist regime imposed next in Poland.

I must disagree with you the second point. It is undeniable that half of the territory of prewar Poland was under Soviet control in 1939-1941. The fate of those territories and the people inhabiting them definitely must be discussed in the article about the history of Poland in 1939-1945 years. The Soviet annexation of those territories was only slowly recognized by the international community as the war progressed, and was not really acknowledged until around the Yalta Conference in 1945. Even then, only the population transfers which followed thereafter finally removed those territories from being within the scope of Polish history. It is entirely natural to discuss the issue in its own section, though the title could be changed if it is not neutral. Balcer 23:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, please view my answer shortly at Piotrus' talk. Thanks! --Irpen 23:44, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, and, yes, I was proposing the exact same solution you just said regarding the ocntroversy of "Soviet liberation". I kept saying "liberation from Nazis", not just "liberation". Just check the article's talk! Piotrus was inclined to agree. Molobo of course not. Halibutt, who lately got inclreasingly radicalized, was also staunchly opposing to any word that might have given any credit to those evil Russkie and even made a mockery out of the image (see this.) --Irpen 02:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

State-mongers

Unfortunately we don't have the text of the original speech in Polish (I am guessing it was given in that langauge), so we really have no idea which word is the best here. I would go with "politicians", given that "state-monger" is a rather obscure word which is not listed in mainstream dictionaries (Webster does not have it in its main online edition) and sounds really awkward. It seems to be an archaic term and it is not even clear if it has a negative connotation in English.

Still, I see your point, and if you want to go back to state-monger, be my guest. I still think including the whole quote is problematic. Balcer 11:23, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on Balcer, Molobo is gone and someone simply has to continue his mission to insert lengthy citations from dubious sources anywhere they please. //Halibutt 11:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It's funny you said that, Halibutt :). But I am pleased you are watching my talk page. Please be my guest. Not only I don't mind, but I encourage you to stay around. Thanks! --Irpen 15:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Invasion

Before we start another revert war on List of invasions, please read carefully what our Invasion article says:

An invasion is a military action consisting of armed forces of one geopolitical entity entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of conquering territory or altering the established government. An invasion can be the cause of a war, it can be used as a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in and of itself.

Balcer 15:15, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You might also want to note that the 1945 invasion of Poland, Austria and Eastern Germany by the Soviet Union has long been listed on List of invasions, so your comment (by this token, there was '44-45 Soviet invasion of Germany. If someone invades and gets repelled, the second party is not invading) is out of place. Balcer 15:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Vorkuta

The Vorkuta article has been locked from editing. Discution continues at Talk:Vorkuta. -- Petri Krohn 15:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What the talk page is for

A friendly note: use Talk:Polish September Campaign page for discussion on Polish September Campaign. For discussions related to User:Halibutt use User talk:Halibutt. As simple as that. It keeps the talk pages clean from spam. //Halibutt 20:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! In which case what was this siblings thing? But anyway, I am happy that you think that way. --Irpen 04:47, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Polish September Campaign

Well, it's one of those neverending low intensity conflicts that have been going on for centuries in various parts of Europe. To quote Ogden Nash:

And so it goes for ages and eons 
Between these neighboring Europeans,
I hope that such perpetual motion 
Stays where it started, across the ocean.
:-)

Ahasuerus 20:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:85px-Adler.jpg

The version at Commons has no source information either. I came here from there. Jkelly 19:42, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why you blanked this. In any case, the source that you provided has no information on the licensing of that image; where they took it form, when and where it was first published, or who the photographer was. In short, it isn't helpful in establishing whether or not the image can remain on Commons. Jkelly 20:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I blanked the exchange that has no info and no value and I responded in the edit summary. I keep any criticism in my talk and in archives and you can check it. I don't need to keep the exchanges that are pointless. But since you are willing to make a ethics issue out of this, I will sure keep it from now on, don't worry.

The m:Copyright paranoia is very tiresome. This image is clearly an OK one. Old enough so that there is no threat of the infringement lawsuite against Wiki foundation. Too bad that some overzealous users turn themsleves into a self-appointed Copyright police and aggressively tag clearly harmless and non-threatening images endangering the WP content and adding work to people who would like to write some content during the time the real life leaves them for Misplaced Pages. Besides, this image is plastered all over internet and you can't really claim that every and each site it is posted owns its copyright. If you really have so much time on yout hands, please spend it on looking for sources of really problematic images. Not the images like this one. Or spend time yourself on finding a source of this image and a copyright excuse that would satisfy you. That would be much more productive for the community than your actions that cause a content removal and/or extra work for the others. --Irpen 19:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Please help

Hi Irpen,

Can you please help me out with Chisinau (talk · contribs)? (aka you-know-who) So far, he's reverted the following pages:

• Chişinău
• Romanians
• Eastern Romance languages
• User:Bonaparte/sockpuppetry
• User:Chisinau
• Republic of Moldova
• War of Transnistria
• Bukovina
• Moldavian SSR

Please contact other people if you feel that it's necessary, thank you. —Khoikhoi 19:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Will do. --Irpen 19:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Irpen. Yes we have met before. However, I do not understand why you say that "You are free to provide any valid and referenced criticism to census results and I said so earlier here". Who decides what I am free or what I am not free to do? I think I do. About what you said before about the "official data" and that "the reader is not supposed to see the interpretations of this and that wiki user", I think that in this case Wiki rules on official data "have to be used with care" as argued by the international observers to the census. In fact the sentence "have to be used with care" is taken verbatum from what those observers said. They ment it exclusively in cases like these when we try to provide a reader with info on Moldova. The CIA world factbook seems to have taken the advice. Why can't we?

I am going to re-restore those pages and hopefully, next time we can have a civilized discussion on the matter at hand. I also, just like you, do not want to turn this into a revert war and a means for sockpuppets to get the attention they want. Constantzeanu 00:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Дуже дякую

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

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

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

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

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

Tag

The "dubious" tag is exactly what is needed, thanks. As this quote is given pride of place in the article, we really ought to have certainty that it has been translated correctly. Furthermore, the very placement of the quote is highly unusual, and almost certainly violates Misplaced Pages's manual of style. But then again, that is to be expected in an article that is a monument to POV. Balcer 01:36, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, articles on such topics are always problematic (see e.g. Polonophobia). We should at least make sure they are precise on facts because we will never make them fully neutral in any reasonable future. I support your call for an exact source of the quote. OTOH, I don't find it unbelievable and I would expect the source will sun be given. --Irpen 01:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I can also believe that there might have been some people in the Polish military who would have considered an alliance with Germany against the USSR one answer to Poland's foreign policy dilemmas. It is their views which might be reflected in this quote. However, nothing came of this. Poland did not participate in any partition of Russia. The quote as currently presented does not make this clear, and thus could mislead the reader. Especially as it is followed by another similarly framed quote describing German views which were put into practice extensively, and were not hypothetical at all. Still, if the quote is genuine, and if it is accompanied by a proper explanation (which right now is utterly missing), I would not have any objection to including it.

But first we need to be sure that is has been correctly translated, and does not contain any POV laden terms inserted via multiple translations (Polish->Russian->English, if that is what took place). Balcer 02:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, please let me know how much time should be given for the concerns about the quote to be addressed? Will it just carry the disputed tag permanently? So far Ghirlandajo who put in the quote has had ample time to at least enter into the discussion about it, and so far he has not. If a quote is considered unreliable, and the editor who inserted it refuses to provide information to confirm its reliability, surely it must be removed at some point. At the very least it can be placed in the discussion until the necessary confirmation is supplied. Balcer 13:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, dubious info I tagged in Polish article is still there some after months and I haven't deleted it yet. Please give at least some reasonable time. Only info that not only unrefed but incredulous should be deleted. This is not the case. --Irpen 16:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Football AID 16 April - 22 April

Ukrainian Premier League has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

Re:Red Army

I should say that I find your revert back into Soviet propaganda version deeply disturbing. But moving onto less personal observations:

• my mistake with dupe para, I was confused by the Number 6 sockpuppet (?) edits (check that user contribs...)
• Brest parade existed in the article before my edits () and was expanded into a whole para by Number 6. And yes, I'd agree it should be moved into a separate article and doesn't deserve anything in RA article but a link (when subarticle exists, of course)
• your "theats" about the Rydz Kiev parada are getting boring. Write the article if you wish, stop bothering others with it otherwise. Complain to Number 6 if you wish, he can use a talk page :>

--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:03, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, what threats? I have no intention to write a separate article on Rydz' parade and it is not a threat in any case. It is encyclopedic, but I have more urgent tasks. My question is how large should be the breadth of the article that include such peculiar events. I only added Rydz' parade to the Kiev Offensive where it is no doubt relevant. My question is whether you think it is OK to add this info to the PSW and History of PL article. And if not, I request the info on Brest parade also out of broad articles.

Your revert of Number 6 was done as if in haste. When I followed on Molobo's article, I almost never reverted him wholesale but tried to merge whatever I could from his edits into the following version. If you join and article, spend an adequate time there, that's all.

I still hope you will help me with the mess of massacres article titles. --Irpen 05:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think you will notice that I did kept some of Number 6 information. Nonetheless he seem to be engaging in full scale trolling on that article, and he is reverting your version too. Although I consider him a rather obvious troll/sockpuppet, some assistance in dealing with his vandalism would be appreciated. As for Brest parade, to which articles the information about it should be moved? Currently PSC seems like the most relevant place.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, I think the parade belongs to a narrower Battle of Brześć Litewski article. Similarly, I didn't add the Rydz' Kiev parade and vandalizing Kiev to an entire PSW article, only to an article devoted to a narrower episode of it. --Irpen 03:23, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that the details of the parade should be in BoBL, but the parade itself can be of course mentioned and linked from other relevant articles. As for Rydz parade, is there any article more detailed then Kiev Offensive that it could go to? If not, then KO is the place for it (for now, at least). I don't consider writing about either of them 'vandalizing'.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Fantana Alba

It was a clear massacre by any definition: shooting of a crowd, just like Bloody Sunday `'mikka (t) 19:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, provided the facts are true, which I have no reason to doubt. It's just that such titles create bad precedents. All the info about the crime can be conveyed by the article under a less drammatic title. More here and here. --Irpen 19:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Chişinău

In response to this, I was just trying to work out a compromise so Constantzeanu wouldn't revert again. I did it based on mikka's edit here. —Khoikhoi 01:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the way towards compromise is to add referenced discussion of the census flaws to the article. However, the census doesn't have a combined figure for "Romanians/Moldovans". As such, the article can't say that it does. Whether those are indeed a single nation is a worthy topic and belongs to a separate article. The census treats them separately and the article giving census numbers should just give them as they are. --Irpen 02:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, cool. —Khoikhoi 02:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Khatyn

Since we are trying to neutralize controversial articles, I would like to point out the Khatyn massacre article, and in particular your recent edit. Why do you think it warranted to remove any mention of the fact that some people believe the close resemblance of Khatyn and Katyn names is not a coincidence, but that in fact Khatyn was chosen on purpose out of hundreds of massacred Belarusian villages, to score a propaganda point? You don't even want to allow that this was a possibility. Do you really think the resemblance is pure, innocent coincidence?

Anyway, even if you disagree with this, the whole idea of NPOV is that all valid points of view are discussed. So, could we at least work into the article the statements along the lines: "some people believe the choice of Khatyn as the main war memorial in Belarus had political motives, while others believe it was just a coincidence".

Incidentally, now that Ghirlandajo has moved Khatyn to Khatyn Massacre, I am assuming you will no longer complain about the use of the word massacre in article titles. Unless of course you don't support Ghirlandajo's move, in which case I invite you to move the article back. Balcer 04:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think both articles should be under the Khatyn and Katyn names respectively. I will raise this issue on occasion. Would you agree?

In the edit you pointed out I simply reverted the change by Rydel to a previous version. He imposed his change ignoring the ongoing talk page discussion. --Irpen 05:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, I think the word "massacre" can be used in article titles when warranted. There is no reason to make a rule to exclude it in all cases. I also have no problem with the title Khatyn massacre (and My Lai Massacre, Wounded Knee Massacre etc etc). I brought the issue up because I wanted to know what you think about it, in the context of this article. I am glad you are consistent in your views, as it makes discussions with you much easier.

Anyway, I am assuming then that you have no objection in principle against mentioning the possibility that Khatyn was selected for political reasons. One description of this viewpoint is contained here. Would you accept a section containing information along those lines? How do you feel about the issue personally? Balcer 05:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, my view is that Massacres and Genocides in titles should be used only when there are no good alternative titles. Here, since the places are mostly known by these events, the solution to use just placenames exists. The message on whether something was indeed a massacre or a genocide can be conveyed to the reader from the article itself. There is no need to send this message from a title. Besides, for almost every massacre and genocide there is a POV that this wasn't one. Such debate need to be presented in the article text and, the title should not prejudge such discussion.

I honestly never thought about the connection between the two. I view Khatyn as well as other similar actions by Nazis as a horrific crime. Debate on the Soviets picking this one may be mentioned provided it doesn't make half-an-article which would be difficult now, while the article is small. Similar debate about whether Holodomor was a genocide is presented in the Holodomor article along even with the lunatic view that Holodomor never happened or was caused by natural reasons. However, the Holodomor article is sufficiently detailed on the events to accord some space to such discussion and such discussion don't obscure the info about the Holodomor itslef. In Khatyn we may get the article about the massacre almost entirely devoted to the speculations about its role in the Soviet propaganda. --Irpen 05:47, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I happen to differ here. Regardless of the moral weight of certain words (and especially their usage in article titles), moving the article on Katyn massacre to Katyn is not a good option. Firstly, the article describes a much wider phenomenon, associated with the village of Katyn in general knowledge, but not limited to it. If we were to rename the article on Katyn massacre, or rather merge it with the article on the village, then it would have to be split onto the articles on Kharkov, NKVD, Kiev, Lvov, Piatikhatki, Kozelsk, Gnezdovo, Ostashkov, Brest-Litovsk, Minsk and perhaps a dozen other articles, as the name of the entire phenomenon was coined after a single village, but the phenomenon itself was not limited to it. On the other hand Khatyn was related to a single place in the world and I would not oppose merging the article on the village with the article on what happened there. However, I would also not oppose leaving it as it is - provided that the name of "Khatyn massacre" exists anywhere outside of Misplaced Pages. //Halibutt 16:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidate

My protege - Dnieper Hydroelectric Station, if we can't put it on the main, we can certainly put it on the portal where the Hero of Ukraine featured article is long in need of replacement. --Kuban Cossack 13:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding the article. We can certainly feature it at WP:DYK at the maimpage. At some point with can expand it to WP:Featured condition (well woth it IMO) and then place it to the Portal as a feauted article. There was some talk I remember that discourage the usage of the "Featured article" wording even at narrow context (like portals) in order to keep the prestige of the real WP:Featured mark. As such, if we replace the Hero of Ukraine by any other article, we will have to change the window name from the "Featured" to "Selected" article wording since H of UA is the only UA-related trully featured article we have. We might though apply for a WP:Good approval stamp and have a separate window to list such articles. Thanks again. Sorry, I've been busy lately and didn't do much of what I planned to. Regards, --Irpen 01:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverts at Uprising of Khotin

This is your Very Sterm Warning re WP:3RR at Uprising of Khotin. Please don't do it, no matter how correct you are. And I suppose a reminder about no-ownership-of-articles, too. But since I've protected the article you escape a block William M. Connolley 18:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I have to (partially) take that back. You have 3R, not 4. Apologies. Mikkalai has unprotected the page, so I'm going to leave it at that. William M. Connolley 20:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

William, I have not even 3 but only two reverts. I only reverted two times within 24 hours and even those where to remove the trollish unexplained tag. No matter how right I felt I would have never violated the 3RR. If dealing with good faith users, I try to avoid reverting at all as much as possible. Blocking a user or even leaving an warning message with an accusatory edit summary at someone's talk should not be taken lightly without studying the matter. I provided a detailed analysis here. I hope now, once we are clear about the facts, we can move on to creating content. Please be careful about strangely placed compliants with ommitted time stamps and placed clearly by someone's socks. --Irpen 00:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I still maintain that you have 3 reverts, so we're not quite clear on the facts. Bear that in mind when getting close to 3RR - people don't always agree, and you may get an unpleasant surprise William M. Connolley 08:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Like I did :( Better err on the side of caution, Irpen - that's my good hearted advice.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 15:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

No, you had 4. Read the rules :-( (especially the bit I added just recently :-) William M. Connolley 15:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

William, I had not 4 and not 3 but only 2 reverts according even to the strictest rules. I analyzed this in every detail here. The whole matter is now well behind and the issue is moot anyway, since 1) there was never 4 edits, let alone reverts, within 24 hours; 2) Even though 2 per day is better to avoid, I was clearly dealing with a bad faith editor who refused to talk; 3) My opponent was obviously a sock on a mission to provoke me into 3RR which he failed anyway. The bottomline is in the end of my message at the 3RR board. --Irpen 23:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Strasveti Irpen

FYI: Predictions of Soviet collapse.Travb 07:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Khreschatyk

Irpen, may I ask why you insist on your version of the article? I know, you started the article, and it was DYK, but the particular paragraph in question doesn't look like been initially written neutrally. Previously, there was an edit war about the paragraph; as a result a quite reasonable version by Michael gained support, the version written better than yours. Now, after a month since the conflict, you are bringing the issue again, providing not a single additional argument, nothing at the talk page, and yet insisting on your version of the paragraph. You don't like a shorter version of tne paragraph, you don't like a longer version of the paragraph (listing all the forces), it seems like you only want to see your version of the paragraph. Or, am I missing something? --Anonymous, 19:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Short version is too abstract, long version is too long and no need to explain them. Irpen's version is just right.--Kuban Cossack 20:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Irpen's version has minor problems like typos and duplicate links to the same page (Kiev offense), and one significant proplem as it's biased in describing differently Ukrainian forces vs. other forces. Michael's version, and the version with listing all forces are both describing all forces in pair. This is what makes these versions superior compare to Irpen's version.--Anonymous 20:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How is it biased? Different Ukrainian grupirovki and Bolshevik, German, and Polish forces. Do the Ukrainian grupirovki even deserve to be called "Ukrainian" considering that there is little to bite on when one says they represented the Ukrainian population. It is a fact that Ukrainians fought in ALL of the armies and militias listed above. So in that case the term several short lived Ukrainian states is fully justified in dealing with those times. --Kuban Cossack 21:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

134, compromise is a good thing but there must be some reason under each of the opposing version between which we seek a compromise. My version is explained at article's talk. AndriyK's version is not explained at talk despite my persistent calls to him. A while ago he said that "short-lived is scornful". To this I responded and others agreed that this is just BS. It's purely factual and not scornful. He came up with no other reasons. Michael, being a nice guy, offered a compromise just for the sake of accomodating AndriyK. I disagree with such motivation. Compromise should be made for accomodating between two reasonable versions, not two or more people. We've got no explanation whatsoverer from AndriyK on his persistence (exact same situation in Russian architecture). As such, there is nothing to compromise with so far.

Typos? Correct them by all means. Twice connected to Kiev Offensive? Because we are talking about two parts of it: victorious Polish part with the parade (linked to the K. O. section about Polish victories) and Poles defeated part (linked to another section). --Irpen 22:43, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, you see Michael's version as a compromise. And in fact it was some sort of compromise. But what you are completety ignoring is that Michael's version is better than yours. Why? I personally explained it at the article talk page , and I wrote it above. You are not listing the forces in pair. Bolshevik forces also acted under umbrella of different short-lived republics, like Donetsk-Krivorozh Socialist Republic, and similar. They took Kiev a few times, and were driven out a few times. You put it all under Bolshevik's name. Then what's wrong to put the Ukrainian forces similarly? I've never seen your answer to this simple question. Or, as Kuban Cossack says "short version is too abstract, long version is too long, ... Irpen's version is just right". This is a way better explanation compare to critisized by you "I like it", don't you think? :)

Kuban kazak, these short-lived Ukrainian republic forces were Ukrainian because they represented Ukrianian states, that is the states which named themselves as Ukrainian national states. Similarly, Bolsheviks named themselves Bolsheviks, and we call them so, dispite some of them (actually, not so many at that time) being by nationality Ukrainians. Do you want to change "Bolshevik forces" to "predominantly Russian Bolshevik forces"? I don't think it would be a good idea, as the forces were driven by the common idea, not common nationality, but if you insist on national clafirication it may be added. --Anonymous 00:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Although Bolshevik states did operate under a wide range of individual republics, they were nevertheless ultimatemately answering to the SNK, hence the Bolshevik Umbrella is suitable to be used in all articles. Ukrainian on the other hand is more abstract, not because of nationality wise, but because they all stood for different ideals of Ukrainian future. In that case we might want to put Pilsudski's puppet Petlyura under Polish forces? Irpen's version is correct and stable with no questions. --Kuban Cossack 00:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Independent Ukrainian state was the common driving idea of these Ukrainian states. Unfortunately, they did disagree on details. --Anonymous, 01:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately or unfortunately is a discussion for political forums not wiki. However even you refer to them as these states so what is wrong with the umbrella that Irpen has been using ever since the start. --Kuban Cossack 01:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

==Happy Easter==

Don't know if you celebrate Orthodox Easter, or not. If you do, Happy Easter, if you do not, Greetings to you, and Best Wishes anyway! Dr. Dan 21:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Dan! --Irpen 06:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Transnistria stub

Maybe of interest to you ... there is a discussion on Misplaced Pages:Stub_types_for_deletion (scroll down to April 20, Transnistria) about the Transnistria-stub and I am the only one who is participacing who has even the slightest knowledge of the region. You may want to chip in with your own view of the situation. So far, I am the only outsider who is replying to the "Stub Gods". - Mauco 12:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Oleg of Chernigov

I think AndriyK just got himself a sock . --Kuban Cossack 16:57, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcoming

Well, it just looks that I am so much more cruel than you are :)—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 17:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Our discussions

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

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

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

Football AID 30 April - 6 May

History of the FIFA World Cup has been selected as this week's collaboration. Please do help in working to improve it.

PD-UA-exempt

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prometheism

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

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

Insidious games at Soviet partisan

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

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