User talk:Irpen

• 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.
• I can speedily delete postings that appear to me as instances of m:copyright paranoia as I see fit.
• Please stop by at the Wikipedia's Ukraine portal and Russia portal.
• Thank you! --Irpen

Allow me 1

I, Ghirlandajo, hereby award you this Order of Bogdan Khmelnitsky for your great work on topics pertaining to Ukraine and especially for your exceeding patience and resilience in discussing controversial issues on talk pages. Keep it up!

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 Wikipedia. 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)

Allow me too 2

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

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

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

Apology

Irpen is awarded this barnstar for his particularly fine contributions to Wikipedia.

!מזל טוב

from Izehar

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)

amusing entry

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

Дуже дякую

conferred by Khoikhoi

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

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 Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. Some Romanian users feel ashamed by such compatriots and may help as well. Cheers, --Irpen 01:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, thanks again. --—Khoikhoi 02:13, 16 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)

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 Wikipedia practice and edit it, introducing changes which will make it less POV? This is the Wikipedia way, after all. Be bold. Sitting on the sidelines and telling others to fix articles is not going to accomplish anything. Balcer 03:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

Ukrainization

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

Davies WERS

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

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

"Quick jumping to blocks"

Irpen,

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

Yours,

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

Allow me 3

Bronze Editor Badge

Book of Knowledge

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

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

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

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

O Canada

Strange request time: can you make this article into a nice stub at uk:О, Канада? I ask you this since I found the Ukrainian lyrics at [1] and it should give you a head start. TIA. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Image:Kiev St Andrews night.jpg

Hi Irpen,

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

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

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

Political reform in Ukraine

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

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

Allow me...

For defending articles with valor and for being wounded in these defensive operations, this PH for you, Irpen :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Language tables

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

Ukrainian People's Republic

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

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

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

History of the Soviet Union (1953-1985)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

History of Solidarity

I'd still love to see you NPOV/improve the article. I may not agree with some of your comments, but I do believe you could help address many of the issues you pointed out if you tried yourself.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks you but I probably won't. As I have explained, this is not the topic of my main consern to spend time as any progress in my NPOVing those articles is achieved through an excessive waste of time. And even then, when I go elsewhere my work is often undone as recently happened in PSW and KO. I really have to assign my limited Wikitime to the topics of my most primary concerns and this is not one of them. I will come back to PSW and KO, though, when I feel like it.

I opposed the nomination because I see POVed articles with a FA labels as inappropriate but as long as the article will be off the main page, I will probably live with it as is. It is the mainpage exposure of the POVed version of PSW that prompted my involvement. --Irpen 04:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Transparency vs. Opacity

or, more explicitly,

"Open Meetings/Records" vs. "Behind Closed Doors"

Dear Irpen:

Thank you, many times thank you, for your recent comments on the need for transparency in admin decisions, as opposed to their being made secretly off-wiki with no record.

What I have seen over and over in real-world governance is the immediate tendency of secrecy to foster corruption. In part this might be the tendency of already existing corruption to seek secrecy as a growth medium; but I think secrecy has also weakened the resistance of the previously honorable with its continual tempting whisper of "no-one will know."

One of the alarming things about the recent WP:AN/I discussion was how open discussion was repeatedly subverted by admins who claimed their actions had support but declined to specify names, citations, or any other detail. (Perhaps "all the lurkers support them in email IRC.")

• An open consensus (no block) had been reached in the original main section, with all participants signing their statements on the open record...

• ... and then a block was enacted anyway, by someone who had said not a word in that discussion, but left an unsigned and undated statement elsewhere.

• That block was openly discussed and disputed in an appended subsection on AN/I...

• ... an admin engaged in the dispute (and made his own accusations) in the bottom entry...

• ... and then that same admin declared the discussion closed — while claiming review and upholding by (likewise unnamed) "uninvolved sysops" — after which no rebuttal or denial of his accusations was possible. (I had been under the impression admins were not supposed to protect pages on which they themselves were engaged in disputes.)

It is all too vivid a reminder of the block-plus-false-accusation-of-"threats" on Commons for which the blocking admin would not give even specifics, let alone cites (and said "other admins" had asked him for the block, though again he gave no names; where did this asking occur?)...

... and of the entire RfA talk page deleted because one person had asked an awkward question. (Interesting question, too. How, right after two previous failed RfAs, did a candidate manage to win unanimously, 25-0, a third RfA for which all previous opposition disappeared — or, as the asker noted, of which previous opponents had not heard? Why would anyone delete an entire page to keep that question from being seen, rather than either answering or ignoring it? It would have been easy enough to reply "You snooze, you lose.")

Open meetings and open records, allowing everyone to see what's really going on, let people learn to trust their administration — if the actions so revealed are worthy of trust.

A cloud of secrecy, from which emerge (even occasionally) lies and injustices, tends to have the opposite result.

Further, making an official habit of dishonesty (e.g. using false accusations to justify admin actions) cannot bode well for an encyclopedia project, which after all should be honest and verifiable.

The Wikipedia/Wikimedia community faces a serious problem, even if most of its members simply don't know it yet, even if many will remain blithely unaware. Your recent comments have shown the clearest awareness of this, made the clearest statement of it, that I have seen to date. Again, thank you. – SAJordan ^talk_contribs 08:55, 17 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Question on Kyiv spelling

Irpen, Kyiv spelling of the capital of Ukraine is the official spelling, according to the Ukrainian national system of transliteration. It's also one of the well established spellings of the city (Google test: more than 5mln hits). Thus, I would like to ask what is your view on the scope of usage of this spelling in Wikipedia? Should it be used, as a reflection that the spelling is a valid spelling, which has its usage? Or, should it be excluded from each and every page? --KPbIC 22:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well that can be said about the Kharkov and thousands of other Ukrainian cities that have Russian spellings. Considering that all (except western Ukrainian ones) in google give more hits by their Russian translit than Ukrainian one,, should they too be excluded from each and every page ? --Kuban Cossack 23:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Do you know the answer? As well as this one. --KPbIC 00:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

So I was right about reverting the Kharkiv Metro station moves, thanks, I'll keep that in mind. --Kuban Cossack 01:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

If you wanna talk about Google tests, "Kiev" gets about 34 million. So you should find better reasons than that. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually why not create a bot that will go and change this throughout wikipedia...ie. Kyiv to Kiev... and at the same time other cases like Odesa to Odessa? --Kuban Cossack 23:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Grafik, it's true that at this point, Kiev spelling is used more widely than Kyiv. The question is: Should Kyiv be excluded from each and every page of wikipedia? --KPbIC 00:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well based on naming conventions alone, in most cases, YES! Now there are exceptions, particulary those where Kiev actually reffers to a name not to the city. e.g. FC Dynamo Kyiv. In other cases, per name of the article, particulary historical articles.--Kuban Cossack 00:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Not only in the cases of Kyiv being a part of a name, but also as a name of the city. What you are failing to recognize is that Kyiv has its historical usage. This is the current official name of the city used by local authorities, it's the name used by some foreign and international entities, and it's the name used by many people, including some Wikipedia contributors. If someone within an article wrote Kyiv in today's context (for example, in the list of recently established Ukrainian postal codes), there is no need to substitute by what you believe the name should be. The name is what it is, what people actually call it. Please, read the example in WP:NCON. You are mistakenly following a prescriptive approach, changing Kyiv to Kiev, and saying that this is what should be. Wrong. Wikipedia follows the descriptive approach, in particular, don't "fix" links that aren't broken. --KPbIC 00:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Well in ENGLISH Kiev only has two historical terms, Kiev, Kijow and Kiev for the three different time periods. Now in today's context you have a 34 mln vs 5 mln google hits, and the postal codes actually do not use the term Kyiv, but Киïв as cyrillic, not latin is the alphabet. Now then like it or not, but guidelines are only guidelines, and the redirect passage mostly adresses points like Acidic or Acid. Kiev and Kyiv on the other hand are different points and are ultimately drawn from WP:NC which is a POLICY, not a guideline. And in a conflicting case, as here, the policy has an upper hand. --Kuban Cossack 01:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was pleased to log in and find out that my page became a field for a productive discussion. Since it was conducted at my page, I assume that all that took part are interested in my opinion. Here goes. First, the general statement. Based on the combination of the current Wikipedia policies and the modern prevailing English usage, Kiev should indeed be used throughout Wikipedia, except for the proper names where Kyiv is part of such name, such as football clubs, enterprises, organizations, etc. It should also be used in the discussion in the "Kiev or Kyiv" section of the Kiev article and, ideally, in the yet non-writted Name of Capital of Ukraine article, similarly to the existing Name of Ukraine.

That said, I do not make it my priority to hunt for Kyiv all over Wikipedia and change it for Kiev because I have other things to do. At the same time, users who do so, act in accordance with the policies and they should not be reverted for frivolous reasons. Personally, I usually only change Kyiv by Kiwv in two cases. One, when I edit the article for other reasons, like expanding it. Two, when someone Kyivizes the spelling that pre-exists. I am not bound to do it that way, as this is my volunteerly soft self-restriction. Kuban kazak may have a different view on how tolerant one should be to non-policy name and he is entitled to act as he sees fit because this is actually what policies prescribe. I do not see Kyiv within current policies.

A separate, and yet related question, is that the usage in articles does not have to coinside with the main article. True enough, the historic names, as found in historic literature written in English may be used. However, Kyiv does not prevail in English usage in any particular context. As such, historicity is not a valid reason for this particular city.

I view the argument Krys frequently brings about the desires of the city residents largely irrelevant. Curiously, I am not even sure that an opinion of the residents of the city is known. Truth is that the population of the city is both overwhelmingly Russophone and overwhelmingly supportive of the Ukrainian independence. How one is to derive the residents' view of the particular question is a mystery to me and however one does it, that's original research. I am not aware of a sociological survey where the city residents were asked the particular question. I must say that this would be extrely interesting to know. --Irpen 04:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, one of the facts is that Kyiv provides more than 5mln hits. This is, for example, more than about 2mln hits on Kuban, the home region of User:Kuban kazak. Then, why should the usage of Kyiv be ignored? If there is such usage of Kyiv, then the question is not "Is there any historical context for Kyiv?", but rather "What is the proper context for Kyiv?".

I thought, to find a clear answer, instead of relying "on the combination of the [unspecified] current Wikipedia policies and the modern prevailing English usage", it may be reasonable to submit RfC on the issue of clarifying the context for Kyiv usage. Kuban kazak was trying to prove that WP:NC(UE), which is a guidance, should take priority over WP:REDIRECT, which is another guidance. Weak argument, to say at least. It's possible that if there is a clear result out of RfC on this particular case, it could make our life easier. So, would you like to cosign RfC asking community on the context of Kyiv usage (if any) within Wikipedia? --KPbIC 23:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of google hits for Warszawa and Munchen as well. There is no usage of the term in Wikipedia. Similarly, Kyiv is not "ignored". It is not used in WP except few circumstances. There are only two contexts for the city name: modern and historical. Kyiv does not prevail in either of those.

If you you don't see a clear answer, you are free to spend your time pursuing it. I do see a clear answer and consider this a pure waste of time. Therefore, I do not see a need for RfC and will not help it happen. If it happens, I might comment on it at some point but I view initiation unfavorably not because I like the status quo but because I don't see any merit in your claim.

To summarize, I cannot prevent you from pursuing the issue anywhere you want but I do not want to facilitate another empty discussion which will bring nothing. --Irpen 23:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Warszawa is a name of the city in Polish language, first of all, and only then in German or in English. In addition to Warsaw, the name has been used in English Wikipedia as a name of the city ([1], [2], [3], etc, etc), without much of conflict from both sides (afaik).

Kyiv is the name of the city in English, not in Ukrainian. And contrary to other cases, Kyiv is a self-identifying English name. You continue to neglect the role of the government, hoping instead to get "independent surveys", which would show people as you want them to be. Government elections is the most valuable survey you can get. At least since 1990, Kiev was always inclining pro-Ukrainian way. Being yet mostly Russian-speaking city, Kievans not merely support independence, but among other things they do support the transition to the Ukrainian language. Contrary to parents being studied in Russian schools in Soviet time, they want their children to go to Ukrainian schools. Not each and everyone, but the people I know do just that, and they think it's right. The spelling of Kyiv, among other things, is a symbolic element of the transition.

I thought it would be a good case when two opponents bring an RfC together. Too bad, you see it as an empty discussion. The issue cannot disappear by itself, especially if one side is self convinced the truth can only be on their side. --KPbIC 00:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not for "independent" surveys as opposed to the government ones. I am against deriving the answers to a question A from the answers to a question B made by a Wikipedian on his own and then invoking the results of such original research to argue his points. The question to the city residents "How would you prefer your city to be called in English?" has never been asked and I would be very curious to see an answer to it no matter who conducts such survey. I see other baseless claims you made above, like "Kievans support" this or that. Not that this is very relevant to the Wikipedia naming, but I have no idea where you get this info from. I think the only way to know is to check how people answer questions asked to them. I did not see Kievans answering the questions like "Would you prefer your children to study in the schools with Russian or Ukrainian as the primary language of instructions, provided that both languages are studied comprehensively within the schools curriculum?" Neither I have seen specific Kiev-only answers to the question "Would you prefer Russian to be a second state language in Ukraine?" (I've seen the answers to this latter question asked Ukraine-wide and the answer of the majority of the population of the country is "yes").

This all is, however, beside the point. I commented on that simply because you like to invoke the will of the people baselessly purely on where you want the people's will to be or by deriving it from elsewhere without basis. Moreover, this has only an indirect and remote effect on the English usage as the latter is mainly affected by the English native speakers and those do not live in Ukraine.

"People I know" is not a valid statement as an argument in Wikipedia. Besides, I know many people who think otherwise. I am not invoking them because user:Irpen is not an authority to conduct surveys and argue their results. Neither is user:Krys. I can see that you personally want to see the English usage changed. I neither approve nor disapprove your interest in doing so. However, Wikipedia cannot be a vehicle to promote your personal preferences on what the English usage is better to advance your political goals. I have repeatedly supported the Ukrainian-based versions of the names within Wikipedia where such were warranted by the recent change of the English usage. I not only supported but also initiated the moves of Luhansk and Kharkiv. Unlike Kuban kazak, I consistently use LvIv and CherkaSy not only in main but also at talk pages (while you act more like Kazak by insisting on using Kyiv in talk space, but, hey, this is just talk space and you are both free to deflect from conventions dictated for mainspace to make your point). As soon as (also if) the prevailing English usage would change towards Kyiv, I will support the change of the article's name and will use the name in modern context in the articles I edit.

Re your point about Warsaw, see this. As you can see Polish editors rejected your claim.

You want to start an RfC about something that has been discussed to death and a new RfC will add nothing to it. If this is how you want to be spending your wikitime, go for it. I am not interested in the endless discussions about something where everything has been already said. --Irpen 02:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Few days ago I added to Kiev results of survey by Research & Branding Group. Reading yesterday, an interview with the director of R&B, I really regret mentioning the "sociological company" and their results. The guy is all in politics, and I doubt something is left for true sociology. And I doubt someone can be pleased with the quality of Ukrainian surveys, unless that someone is picking the results (surveys) he likes. That's why I rather put emphasis on elections, and on the actual people’s choice. Kievans do favor Ukrainian schools for thier children. The actual choice brings responsibility. There are no lines for Russian classes, no waiting lists, no oversized classes. They do have choice, and they make their choice. Contrary, surveys lack responsibility. Your answer to "What would you do if you had a million?" is likely to be different from the way you would actually spend the million, if you are in fact is given one. Then what's really relevant?

With respect to Kyiv, I don't have time to respond today, and it looks like your position is stone clear. I do see the benefits of using the same name in all articles, as in Britannica, and other authority encyclopedias, but I see no indication that you see the benefits of allowing Kyiv as well as Kiev, and Kharkov as well as Kharkiv in such open voluntary-based encyclopedias as wikipedia. --KPbIC 06:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am tired of discussing with you some irrepevant issues. Your assertions about knowing and being able to derive the wishes of the residents are flawed but I already explained why.

As for comparison of Kyiv with Kharkov, the difference has been explained to you. All the E.L. WW2 literature uses Kharkov. It also uses Rumania and, frequently, Tarnopol. Kyiv is not used by much of the English language books iun any historical context. That's what makes it different from Kharkov and Lwow. --Irpen 06:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Help

I was wondering if you can help me with organizing sources on the Battle of Konotop page. I listed them as links and sources, but believe they should be separate. I will list the sources that I use in the Source heading. Almost all of them are electronic books, articles and reference material. My problem is, I don't know how to organize it correctly. Could you have a look at it when it is done and comment on changes? Thanks in advance.--Hillock65 23:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I will gladly help you with that later today. --Irpen 23:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Ghirla

Irpen, I have considered the fact that you have didn't openly support Ghirla in his misguided RfC attempt a rather positive sign - one that I recall we talked about in person - i.e. that each side would try to restrain their problematic users. Although I have seen little restraining, on the public forums you have at least managed not to support them too much. Alas, if you have desided to change your tactic and join the camp of 'Ghirla great, Piotrus bad' - go right ahead, I will not stop you. Ghirla can certainly use a third person endorsing his statement... although I am afraid that you will have difficult job to change the tide, considering as about 30 or so other editors failed to be convinced by his so eloquent description of 'my anti-Ghirla campaign'. Seriously, I think you are reasonable enough to know who is more likely to go down if it comes to ArbCom - so it is in your best interest to moderate the issue, instead of inflame it; I ask for nothing more then for Ghirla to stop his attacks on others, and I am not asking for an apology or punishment. Yet.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Piotrus, point by point, the RfC is not misguided, it is largely on the mark. Second, I have no intention to endorse Ghirla's statement which I think is too broad. I would rather write my own one. Third, I am afraid you are mistaken in your prognosis of the arbitration, especially since new election relegated more content writing arbotrators. I take no position on your threat to resort to it as it's your own affiar. I simply predict it will go bust the same way the previous ones went. --Irpen 19:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

2007

Irpen, с наступающим (наступившим)! :) Страстности в жизни, бесстрастия в борьбе за идеалы Вики. --Brand спойт 15:03, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

З Різдвом Христовим і з Новим Роком!

DDima presents to you this wonderful Christmas tree of Kiev (Kyiv) and wishes you an upcoming Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

---

З Різдвом Христовим і з Новим Роком! —dima/s-ko/ 16:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

С наступающим!

I hope the season of good will, will provide a good issue to all of this mess. С Новым годом! С Рождеством! --Pan Gerwazy 17:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

... и с наступившим! :)

Here is to a happy, productive and rewarding New Year ~ to you and all yours. Cheers! - Introvert • ~ 22:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all, we'll all improve the Wikipedia in 2007

Dear all! Thanks for the warm wishes and all the emails that came in while I was at the New Year's vacation.

Now that I checked back for what has been going on in the last ten days while I was away the situation seems hopeful indeed. The bunch of scandalous action inspired by the secretive plottings are still being discusses and widely condemned and I see I see a strong momentum of the community of the Wikipedia editors to finally put a decisive end to the secretive activity at the closed channels followed by the drastically insulting onwiki actions. I am also hopeful that the new arbcom will act on the recent developments. --Irpen 05:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New 2007 to all!

File:1953 S Novym Godom.jpg

Happy New Year! (Ukrainian: З Новим Роком!, Russian: С Новым Годом!). I wish you in 2007 to be spared of the real life troubles so that you will continue to care about Wikipedia. We will all make it a better encyclopedia! I also wish things here run smoothly enough to have our invovlement in Wikipedia space at minimum, so that we can spend more time at Main. --Irpen 05:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the New Year's greeting. I do believe that I will make a huge impact on Wikipedia in 2007 (as you can tell on my talk page, I just started with that). Of course, stress with bother us all, but I believe that if we can control it, it will be better for Wikipedia, and for us. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Irpen and thank you for your greetings. - Vald 06:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

File:Bulle champagne.jpg

Happy New Year, all the best wishes and good luck in next 365 days ! --TAG 07:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your greetings, and of course Happy New Year and all the best to you as well :-) Errabee 08:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll be original and say thank you for your friendly greetings. :) Yury Tarasievich 10:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Irpen! Glad that we're working together to improve Wikipedia. I more time can be spent in 2007 writing articles and adding knowledge instead of spinning our wheels with self-appointed bureaucrats and sneaks. TheQuandry 15:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year to you too! Have some Swedish fish in recognition of your fine post here! Bishonen 16:16, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your warm wishes, Irpen! I trust your New Year celebrations were fun and joyful, and I hope that the year lying ahead will be more joyful yet!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Nice to see you back! Thanks for the greeting! I wish you Happy New Year! I believe, that Wikipedia is too far from being a pure academic encyclopedia, the distance between them is comparable to one from the Earth to nearest quasars :) But when a very valuable user, like you for instance, takes a long break, Wikipedia worsens. I wish us to have as less conflicts with vandals, trolls, insulting sockpuppets, annoying users, etc., as possible. And to have just fine Wikistress level in any case and all circumstances. Cmapm 19:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Response

Hi, I responded to a post you made on [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano/Workshop#Fourth_suggestion_2|]] with a question, just dropping a note here so it doesn't get lost. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 02:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Valentyna Shevchenko

Ok, thank you for your message !

As I can't use the note and reference codes, I let you do it !

Here is the link of the former page I used to refere :

http://web.archive.org/web/20040603002149/www.shevchenkovalentina.openua.net/bio.plhtml

Bogatyr 20:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Irpen,

may I wish you Happy New Year? Let your force of mind be with you! :-)

Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 23:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:A Voloshyn.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:A Voloshyn.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 15:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Thank you for the message. Happy New Year to you too. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 06:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Template help

Hey Irpen, I am attempting to create a cossack template that could be put on all the various cossack pages. I think I have a good start but am looking for some more links and an image to put on it. You can see it here. Feel free to add any improvements you might have. The only reason the Russian empire symbol is on there is because I can't come up with a better one. Let me know if you have any ideas. Thanks ~ Joe Jklin (T C) 08:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I'm sorry to see you have not edited for so long, and hope that one day soon you will return. I know how very upset you have been about the disgraceful slur on your block log, and hope one day the Arbcom will decide to wipe it clean, especialy as it was the result of behaviour by IRCadmins, a now thoroughly discredited force. I have decided to continue editing Wikipedia because I still beleive in te project, and hope you will to. Regarding those who have brought the project into disrepute - I'm planning to say little more on the subject unless I'm attacked again. I have proved my point about the IRC admin channel, and many people (whose opinion matters to me) now seem to believe all I have ben saying was true. The channel is now thoroughly discredited and will never be a source of power again, and used by anyone of Wikipedian value - it is now basically finished - no one will ever believe a word that emanates from it again, no doubt a few little firecrackers will continue to pop on admins notice boards and such places but I think people can now evaluate such comments for themselves and see them for what they are dying embers of a former power base. Once again thanks for your support in this. I have appreciated it. Giano 10:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad's RfA

Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning, as well as for your kind comments about me. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. And most important, I hope that you are ready to start writing again. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 21:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II

Can you please comment on my proposal here--Kuban Cossack 22:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Briangotts/Rus template

Your comments/ adjustments would be appreciated. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 06:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin says....

Now would be a great time to drop it. Please discontinue the argument at WP:RFI or I will drag the warring parties apart while adopting a policy of actively not caring who, if anyone, is right. Same goes for Piotrus. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, did you actually read what I was saying? Shutting it down was what I was actually calling for all along! --Irpen 21:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Dan's actions merited investigation and the firefight stopped that happening. Sorry to be heavy-handed, but really the meta-arguments were impeding genuine attempts to investigate (and no it certainly was not all your fault, or all anyone's fault) Guy (Help!) 22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• I can't disagree. Piotrus brings a lot of this on himself. Peter pointed out that the thing I was looking for was WP:NCR, which I think gets a lot closer to what I meant than what I actually said :o) Guy (Help!) 23:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

New day, new hope

Since you tried talking to me, let me repay the good intention, especially as I still think you are a decent person, and we are having a terrible misunderstanding. Plus if I can work things with Ghirla (in mediation), I am sure it should not be more difficult to patch our relations.

So. You think that I am responsible for Ghirla leaving the project, yes? I don't think so. We were doing well in mediation, I was mostly satisfied with his replies and I didn't see any sign he was unsatisfied with mine. So I don't think I was the reason he left our project. Further, as I wrote before, I would be happy to cosign a request to get him back. He is a valued contributor, and as we have been doing good progress dealing with the incivility issue I see no reason not to want him to come back and continue contributing to this project, avoiding our past problems with the civility parole he himself recognized as acceptable and useful.

Second. I am offended by your accusations that I try to get my opponents blocked. You should know well I spend a lot of time in discussions, and in my years here even you could find only several examples where I was forced to take this action. Blocking policy exists for a reason, and if an admin finds that a person who disagree with his POV seems also to be violating polices whose violation is blockable, what can that admin do? He cannot block that person himself, obviously - so isn't the only choice (assuming he has tried to talk to that person first but failed to reach a solution) to ask other admins to investigate that matter (again, assuming that that admin thinks the case is relativly simple and violates a policy whose violation is blockable)? Do note that investigation may result in a block but may also in recommendations for DR or just plain 'you are overreacting, let it go'. As I wrote before I don't believe any of my actions were over and beyong what is perfectly normal and to be expected behavior of any user.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, as I said before, I find editing articles with you quite possible. In fact much easier than with Halibutt, who I also hope will stay despite all the problems he gives to me and all his opponents. The fact stands, however, that I don't remember Halibutt submitting reports on his opponents all over the place.

Ghirla left because of overall stress of which his conflict with you was the major part. You were running a campaign against him in every space he was posting. Your invoking his RfC multiple times even at WP:DYK suggestion page goes beyond pale. Placing him on the civility parole would me most fiercely oppose by me. As I said at Halibutt RfC, civility is not a core problem of these conflicts. Halibutt has also been at times incivil. I would oppose any action against Halibutt as well. This is not a manners forum. This is the encyclopedia and we should concentrate on the content writing. Your tendentious edits (you may say Ghirla's or mine tendentious edits, if you think so) and overall editing disagreements is the core of these problems. The recent example is what happened with the Russian Enlightenment article and there are multitudes of similar cases. But in any case, such disagreements should be allowed to be resolved in due course without involvement of the admin powers, be it yours or those you call in.

I have by far less problems editing with you than with many of your friends. It is easier to reach a compromise with you than with, say, Halibutt and, unlike, say, Lysy, you did not make offensive remarks about me (except that single accusation in Polonophobia of which I am not making a big deal). Perhaps things have slipped from my mouth too when things were hot.

We will continue to work on the articles here. I hope Ghirla will rejoin. The only thing I must insist on, is that you drop resorting to the boards every time you are unhappy. Happy edits, --Irpen 19:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess we differ in our view on our little community. I believe that foul-mouthing and generally personal attacks are not only not helping, but they are damaging the content as they drive editors away. Thus I believe that editors who violate those policies must be forced to change their ways, and in extreme cases, blocked. Just like in real life, a few offensive words can be taken, but when somebody launches a large-scale, long campaign of slander, or does similar actions, he needs to be called to order. One can express all of his POV without being offensive. Those who cannot just have to learn it - sometimes, the hard way.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, I agree that civility is an asset. I agree that incivility is not helping. All I am saying is that policies should not be used as a weapon in edit or personal conflicts. I never reported Halibutt or Lysy for their abusive language. The price of your actions is a loss of an invaluable editor, while Halibutt is still around. Could be if I was harassing Hali over civility the same way as you were harassing Ghirla, Hali would not have been here as well. And I am not even mentioning the extreme offense about my ethnicity I took from Lysy. I will not sit idly if this practice continues while I will do my best to ensure the improved civility overall. --Irpen 20:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, if I may chime in, it is every editor's right to report others for repeated incivility. You may not wish to do so, but don't expect others to take abuse in silence. As for your promise to "ensure the improved civility overall", I can't say I have high hopes; I was very disappointed by your passionate defense of Ghirlandajo in two clear-cut cases of incivility against me. Appleseed (Talk) 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not defend his incivility, that's for one. Besides, he was constantly provoked by the campaign that some were running against him. I did talk to him about overal tone of his messages and about not taking the bait. Unfortunately, it had only some effect. If your goal was to eject him, you succeeded now. Happy edits, --Irpen 21:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

New day, new hope - 2

It's hard to respond to your accusations because they are so nebulous. What campaign? Who were these "some" who were waging it? Me? Considering my two unhappy encounters with Ghirlandajo were my only encounters with him, it must have been a very short campaign. What baiting and provocation are you referring to? If you consider this a provocation, or my discussion of two article titles, then I see why we're having trouble understanding each other. Appleseed (Talk) 21:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

By campaign I mean being followed everywhere with links to his a year old RfC, which even included WP:DYK pages, being faced with WP:TE attacks, like in Russian Enlightenment and other whatnots. I repeat that I agree that Ghirla has somewhat a short temper. So does Hali. Piotrus and myself have a thicker skin. I have the thickest one. The crux of the matter is that editors like Ghirla and Hali should not be harassed but protected for the benefit of us all thanks to the enormous amount of material they bring here. They should not be reported to all sorts of boards on every minor instance. --Irpen 21:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo's "somewhat short temper" is the understatement of the year. You're taking about someone who used an obscenity because I was discussing (not even proposing) a new article title. Everyone knows that he writes a lot of articles, but you're asking too much of your fellow editors if you expect them to give him carte blanche. How many editors does Ghirlandajo have to chase away with his incivility before it becomes clear that they could have accomplished much more than he alone, and in a pleasant atmosphere to boot? Appleseed (Talk) 22:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

He has not chased away a single editor. I can tell you more. My first interaction with him was a long and stubborn argument at the talk of the the Great Russian language article. After two days of arguing over the disagreement, he gave to me my first barnstar that you can see at the top of my page. He can be reasoned with if you do it properly. If, OTOH, one does it like Piotrus and Halibutt was doing, yes, he looses temper and responds inadequately. Still, I am aware of no more valuable contributor to this project and I am willing to tolerate occasional incivility from such editors, similar to how I tolerate Halibutt and oppose any harassment he has been taking lately. --Irpen 22:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

In the course of your discussion, did Ghirlandajo accuse you of somethingcentrism, curse, threaten to report you, or speak to you in a condescending fashion? How many edits such as this do I have to endure before Ghirlandajo gives me a barnstar? I'm afraid I that I'm not interested in learning the "proper" way to reason with Ghirlandajo--I'll stick to common decency, which WP makes explicit in WP:CIV. Appleseed (Talk) 22:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, he accused me in Russophobia. I just ignored it and moved on. Since then we became wikifriends and I did not chase him to demand an apology as I do not demand apologies from Piotrus for accusing me in Polonophobia or others here who called me worse. I am proud that Ghirla considers me his friend because, as I said, I know of no other contributor to this project of such quality (perhaps Giano would be the only exception). I am also pleased to see the respect from Piotrus whose contributions are also immense and I only regret that Halibutt does not think of me much. --Irpen 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Since my name was mentioned here I take the liberty to reply. Indeed I'm considering to return to the project, partially because Ghirla is away. I admire Piotrus' patience in dealing with him, I lost all hope in that Ghirla could become a civilized and civil editor a long time ago, around the time he's been chasing my every step, accusing me of a zillion of absurd things and violating almost every policy - usually with the aims of either driving me mad or discrediting me. Finally I got carried away once or twice, which was the reason I decided to leave. Ghirlandajo has been doing for years what I've done once or twice. That's why I believe your if I was harassing Hali over civility the same way as you were harassing Ghirla, Hali would not have been here as well remark is both misleading (intentionally, I'm afraid) and unfair. If you want to compare mine behaviour with that of Ghirlandajo, please be so kind as to compare specific diffs and their reception by the community. Check both RfCs if you like. Otherwise please don't use me as an example of "Ghirla-like, yet unpunished" since I'm not. There is a huge difference between us and it's not nationality I mean here.

Halibutt, I am not to spend time comparing who of you two is more incivil. Personally, you offended me much more and with stronger words than anyone except, perhaps one or two of my ultra-nationalist compatriots and one exceptionally insulting remark from Lysy. I just moved on. As I said, I consider civility secondary and content creation primary. --Irpen 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? When did I offend you? And how? //Halibutt

Well, you said things to me that I would rather not recite. --Irpen 01:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

See? It's always easier to accuse others of being incivil that finding a single piece of evidence. This way everyone will know that I'm a bad guy, regardless of whether I really did something wrong or not. That's the very same tactics Renata and others have adopted. //Halibutt 01:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, there is an anti-Halibutt conspiracy. Listen, I just hate to find exact diffs. The first time you offended me was at the time of the infamous Wolodarka dispute. Than you called me a liar. I will rather not elaborate. --Irpen 03:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It was not meant as an offence, it was a mere description of facts. I presented two sources, you tried to convince everyone that I presented only one. If you're offended by the word lie, how about you deliberately distorted the reality or you were untrue? //Halibutt 08:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Not again! I will not be go over the Volodarka nonsense with you for the N+first time. Sorry, my friend. --Irpen 17:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As to chasing away other editors, I was on the verge of being chased away by Ghirla and the like. Ghirla himself admitted a long time ago that he chased away Rydel from Wikipedia (the diff should be in Ghirla's RfC if you don't believe me). I don't know if there are more people directly involved, but the fact remains that Ghirla's inability to behave creates an overall bad atmosphere in Wikipedia, which is not what this great project deserves. Even if it does not drive anyone out of the project directly, it creates a bad precedent. One could say "look, Ghirlandajo told everyone to fuck off and called them idiots, and so can I" (check the RfC for diffs again). This already happens - and Ghirla had definitely his hand in it.

Sorry, but Rydel was just a troll. If I am responsible for the departure of AndriyK, which may or may not be the case, this is not something for me to loose my sleep over. Those fellows brought nothing here but edit wars. At the same time, several Lithuanian editors made it clear that they are living because they can't deal with you anymore. --Irpen 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

See? It's all a matter of perspective. For me Ghirlandajo is the same kind of fella. As to the "several Lithuanian editors", I bet you're referring to the outraging piece of slander by Renata, who was back to wikipedia in two weeks and whom I asked repeatedly to post a single piece of evidence for her absurd accusations. To no avail. //Halibutt

Well, that you call him "the same kind of fella" as Rydel and AndriyK speaks lengths. There is no more to disscuss. As for Lithuanian editors you chased away, Renata is only one of them. Lokyz and EED come to mind. --Irpen 01:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right, I indeed drove Lokyz away. For two days. I won't comment on EED, just like I wouldn't like to comment on Zivinbudas and other similarly-minded people. //Halibutt

Well, comparing EED to Zvin just does not fly. So, cut it. --Irpen 03:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Finally, so far I found only one way to deal with Ghirla's phobias: sources. In cases where a heathen debate starts it usually helps to expand the article with as many sources as possible - then Ghirlandajo suddenly disappears - and starts his usual mumbo-jumbo in another place (check the history of the articles on Warsaw Uprising (1794) or Katyn massacre for examples). However, I believe that the limit of offences one can commit is over for him and I can't say I'm not happy about that. If he learns how to control himself - great. If he doesn't - great as well. The latter would mean that we'll loose a valuable editor, but this would be a lesser evil - at least from my perspective.

Bullshit. Nothing can be a greater evil for the project than loosing editors who create most of its content. Grow a thicker skin and write articles. Same as I do. --Irpen 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Not bullshit. The same tactics was applied in a plethora of articles - and it always worked. //Halibutt

Oh, and I appreciate your declaration that you oppose the harassment I've been taking lately. It's very nice of you. Too bad you did not oppose it when it was Ghirlandajo to start it, but that's another story, isn't it. //Halibutt 22:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you are not the one to talk about niceness either, my friend. But you may go back to your own RfC and read my statement. I chastised your opponents for making a big deal about your manners and asked them to leave you alone. The problem I have with you is POV pushing and stubbornness, not the names you called me. If you come back fully, so the better. I will do my best to have Ghirla returned as well. --Irpen 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Irpen after reading New day, new hope, and New day, new hope - 2, and all of the comments and recriminations posted here, it looks bleak from my perspective. I would like to take a moment to tell you I intend to follow WP:Civil to the letter in the future, and will be expecting the same in return from everyone. By no means will I cease to question or challenge any kind of false information, propaganda, or POV. Hope you will return to the project in full, and can get Ghirla to consider all of the reasons his return is necessary. Dr. Dan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

A note and some support

Hello there. I'd like to thank you for filing the RFAR request you did, it's honestly about time that something official happened regarding that cesspool of a channel. I would just like to make a suggestion, however - it might be helpful to clearly state who you wish to recuse themself from the case. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. The thing is that if I name the individuals, it may be perceived as a lack of respect towards ArbCom and a personal attack. They would know who I am talking about. --Irpen 01:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you could email them? That way it wouldn't be very much of an attac, at least as long as you are respectful. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What for? They know who they are! If I see them non-recused, I might speak on that but hopefully, it won't be necessary. --Irpen 01:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I would hope not, too. Mackensen saying he'd recuse himself from the matter was encouraging at least. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 03:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ive been watching the case and now I see that two of the arbcom have rejected this. I can't say that I'm terribly surprised by this, but you have my support anyways. I don't know if I should make a statement or not, do you think it would be helpful? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I see one accept, one reject for now. Fred's rationale is interesting. He wants to reject because he thinks that this is not the arbitration but the policy issue. This very objection was brought up by Ghirla and myself in the original Giano case. It was accepted over such objections, including by Fred. I can't figure how our arbs think. --Irpen 04:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's very confusing and rather inconsistent. I know we can't expect the committee to be consistent from case to case where the arbs taking it are different, but you think that a single arbitrator would be more consistent.

Personally, I feel that the ArbCom kind of took it on itself when it asserted itself on the channel. Saying they're uninvolved when what seems like at least a quarter of the committee are the new ops there seems like bollocks to me. But ... we'll see if Fred's views are the view of the panel. I tend to think they'd be as fractured as the rest of wikipedia on it, but we'll see. Anyways, this was kind of the wrong place to rant about it, my apologies. Just wanted to let you know you're far from the only person that's calling the spades, spades, here. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think ArbCom took it upon itself when it accepted the original Giano case. It was not a behavioral dispute. There was some sort of the community uprising as Tony's random blocks was the last straw to trigger it. And in the middle of the discussion at WP:AN a strange account submitted this strange arbcom. If you note the decisions of that case, you may notice that there were none in fact. By original standards, that was a non-arbcomable case. But this one is clearly more arbcomable. We'll see. --Irpen 04:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - I've heard of that case, but I haven't really read it, so I can't comment on it. I should go read up on it. In either event I hope they look into it. I think that it might be right that there is some overreaction in this case - but I don't think it's on the "side" of the people that want action taken against the channel. It goes against the openness and transparency of Wikipedia for them to implement blocks only discussed on IRC. That's why I posted the note I did when I saw Beta blocked you, by the way - no discussion had taken place on wikipedia about it, and I felt that was wrong. If beta posted ot ANI or something it would have been less murky, but simply of IRC, in a channel where there is restricted membership where you couldn't've even defended yourself if you wanted to? That's not cool. I respect Beta, and I think he was probably the "messenger" in this case (I cant tell, I don't have access to the channel or logs) but either way, I thought he had more good sense. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 04:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What actually happened there

Beta's action was outright bizarre and appalling. To begin with, PAs are nowhere in the allowed reasons for the blocks in the WP:BLOCKing policy. Does not mean a user cannot be blocked for them ever, but they would really need to be very serious. Secondly, there were no PA's at all in this discussion. Further, none of the Irpen-bashing crowd that showed up in the middle of our discussion were ever at PAIN before. It means that the IRC league were actively following my edits looking for any possible conflict with my involvement to reign in with blocks. I know for a fact that discussion about "getting rid of Irpen" took place at that channel and I even know who took part in it.

Beta was not duped but he took part in this abuse actively. There is no excuse for that block. Finally, there can never be a justification for the hit and run. If I was not lazy, I would have written a Beta deadminning arbcom but I am too tired of this whole matter. Maybe I will change my mind, don't know. --Irpen 04:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think he got suckered by the IRC admins, but I don't know one way or another. In any event, whether or not PAs are blockable or not, the simple fact of the matter is, he should have talked about it on WP. That goes with the whole IRC cabal thing. Some ten or <insert arbitrary number her> admins getting together and just deciding to ignore the community and block users they disagree with is not good, and it's threatening the wiki. It needs dealt with, and I really hope ArbCom will. IRC in and off itself isn't the issue, but the is no need for some closed channel for admins. Especially a closed group where non-admins hold the keys as Ops. The whole matter disappoints me greatly.

I feel personally somewhat responsible for that block, as it was my actions in the PAIN report that sparked that conversation and the resultant block. For what little it may be worth, I deeply regret that you were blocked over it, and hope you can accept my apologies. Whatever merits my actions there may or may not have had, your complaints were legit, and some IRC group decided to block you over it was so utterly -wrong- I have no words for them, except for the fact that I am sorry. ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to apologize. It was not your fault. Take it easy. --Irpen 05:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I just felt very shortchanged (is that the proper expression? I'm not sure, but it makes sense to me..) by the whole pile on there. I don't at all blame you for thinking that there was some sort of coordinated communication there. There likely was. I just didn't have a part in it. I wish I had - I'd've spoken up for you. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 05:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain. I thought you were part of that communication only because I could not come up with any other explanation how you could have possibly found out about that block before even I knew it and without any blocking message posted anywhere onwiki. I did not know about the bot. Once you explained this to me, I am absolutely convinced that you had nothing to do with Beta's abuse. So, no worries. --Irpen 05:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Russian colonialism

You may be didn't know, but for over 2 years I've been fighting tons of bullshit in -phob- article. I was never successful in deletion of idiotic articles, kind of chiroptophobia, murophobia, etc.) The only thing worked was actually writing a reasonably sensible article myself (fear of bats, fear of mice, etc.), redirecting these pseudomedical neologisms there and keeping bullshit out of them. Applying to your case, you will never delete the title, because the term became fashionable, and you will never reach any reasonable agreement about how thin the term "colony" may be stretched. And you will never prove that the life in an oppressed "colony" of Malorossia was way better than, say, in Gzhel (btw, look into it; needs an eye) or in mines and plants of Demidov. So I would suggest to write a sensible article on the policies of tsarist government on the peripheries and painlessly kill this one. `'mikka 02:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

But that article would have nothing to do with this one. Neither it will have its name. I will prod it then. --Irpen 03:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Ivan Chernyshyov

Hello Irpen! A Count (or General) "Czernichev" is listed in Giles MacDonogh's Frederick the Great: A Life in Deeds and Letters as being the advisor to Catherine the Great that suggested to Prince Henry of Prussia that Frederick take Warmia, leading up to the First Partition.[2]

This book about the Seven Years' War mentions a "General Ivan Chernichev", while this book about Sweden mentions "Czernichev" visiting Finland. If you have time, could you investigate and confirm that this is the same individual as Ivan Chernyshyov (which lacks military info)? Cheers, Olessi 07:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II

Hi Irpen,

Though it was no longer relevant to my RfA I would like to respond to some of the the comments you added to the discussion (and then removed).

As to the first three edits of mine you listed as evidence of my POV pushing: all of those were taken from said paper by Yehuda Bauer. Let me just copy and paste what Bauer writes about Ukraine if that's what's necessary:

"It is true even in, say, the Ukraine, where the Germans were originally enthusiastically welcomed by most people, though even there there was an important though unquantifiable pro-Soviet minority as early as 1941. Ukrainians in large numbers participated in the murder of the Jews, volunteered for pro-German police, collaborated with the German administration – but soon deep disenchantment took over. The Germans did not permit any kind of Ukrainian autonomy, treated Ukrainians as lesser beings, and then deported hundreds of thousands of them as forced laborers. The mood changed rapidly. Also, the fact that large numbers of Ukrainians were serving in the Red Army made their relatives under German rule tend more and more towards the Soviets. When the choice was between rule by Germans or by Ukrainian communists, the majority of Ukrainians in the end chose the Soviets. The Red Army was welcomed as liberators, except in Volhynia and parts of Eastern Galicia, where the armed anti-Soviet OUN underground maintained a foothold until about 1950."

Concerning my edit related to German-Ukrainian sexual relations I would like to ask you if you even read my edit summary. I was simply reverting a removal of that questionable content which was reasoned with the claim that the quotations were a copyright violation. I was not the one who added the content, I just feel that removal of content like that should be discussed on the talk page and not done on grounds that are obviously wrong. I would also like to know when I was uncivil as you claim in the RfA. And my calls for you to calm were because you were snapping at somebody just because they were mentioning a fact that you seemingly just didn't want mentioned.

As I have mentioned dozens of times probably I agree that this article is a mess and that I'm not siding with any socks or trolls as you claim.--Carabinieri 16:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Carabinieri. before contributing controversial material, especially to the article like this one, one should always familiarize oneself with the subject a little more closely than read a single paper, particularly of the scholar whose main speciality is not the subject of the article. I cannot vouch for or against Bauer scholarly credentials overall but the claims he makes in the citations you provide contradict the basic facts one can find in widely published numbers on how many Ukrainians fought the Nazis in the Red Army, how many evacuated and contributing in the home front, how many were murdered under evacuation, how many villages were burned and how many were taken to slave labour and how many fought the Nazis in the Soviet partisan units. One can have a very clear picture of the extent of the collaboration by comparing these numbers with the numbers of people who volunteered for Polizei, division SS Galizia and even UPA (note too that the latter was not purely a collaborative force and had a history of both collaboration and military confrontation with the Nazis). I can add countless stories I've heard from witnesses and survivors of that horrific time, my relatives and not, but this is not the place for that. But to anyone familiar with the history in a least bit this quote you were pushing into the article that "most Ukrainians were enthusiastic about the Nazi's except for a small pro-Soviet minority" is an outright nonsense.

As for your returning of the disgusting pictures and even more disgusting claims added by a sock that the Ukrainian women were just eager to give Nazis the sexual pleasure, this goes beyond pale, I said all there is to it at the article's talk and I do not care what excuse you used to return that crap. Copyrighted or not, that stuff did not belong there and you knew it full well as well as that there was nothing more to be "discussed on the talk page" on this horrendous slander before removing it. You revert warred on the side of the confirmed socks who created the article purely to troll and grind an axe of ethnic hatred and this is all I was saying.

Finally, as to your behavior at AfD, your calls to "calm down" and "be civil" was clearly provoking and unwarranted. Nowhere I made a single uncivil remark and as such your calls were merely condescending and uncalled for. --Irpen 22:17, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response.

If the information I added to the article is truly wrong, then please excuse my lack of knowledge on this topic. When I first saw this article, I was shocked, it was terrible. I thought the best way to help would be to find one or two reliable sources on the internet (the paper by Bauer and this infoukes website, whose reliability was, however, soon questioned on the talk page, so I stopped using that one) and add information to them to the article, even if it's not much.

As far as my re-adding of the images goes: the reason for their removal was obviously phony, so I reverted that edit, there is not much more to be said about this.

My calls for you to calm down on that AfD discussion were not meant to be condescending at all. Again, if I misinterpreted your comments, I'm sorry, but they seemed pretty rude to me, but I guess that's one of the dangers of communicating over the internet, people can't see each other's facial expressions, hear their tone of voice, etc, so sometimes confusions like this arise.

Look Irpen, overall I'm pretty much tired of this discussion. Looking through some of your contributions I really respect the work you've done on Wikipedia, let's just get back to that.--Carabinieri 22:37, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I said it all about the image adding, no matter what was the reason for it. Here and here there is an entire set of my contributions to the AfD discussions. Please point a single entry that, as you claim, may seem "rude" with or without "seeing facial expression and hearing the tone of voice". Truth is there is none.

In any case, I am happy to accept the olive branch. My most frequent objection to anyone's adminning is lack of interest in the content creation. This clearly does not apply to you and whatever your particular position was in that article, I think you will make a fine admin. Happy edits. --Irpen 00:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Trouble with Piotrus

I noticed your comments on the talk page of the RfC for User:Piotrus. Just wanted to give you a heads-up on the harrassment he is attempting on my own talk page. A user contacted him after the fact of a situation that was handled, and not only did Piotrus attempt to re-warn me on my talk page, he also sent one of his minions after me. I tried to inform him several times, and he continues to persist on my talk page. His actions are so against any admin I have come across. Rarelibra 16:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Latvia evidence

Do you know when they will stop taking evidence in the Occupation of Latvia arbitration? Jd2718 02:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am not the one to ask but there are no fixed rules. You can post if you like. The only thing I am asking everyone is to read the entire talk page. Cheers, --Irpen 03:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I have. Whether the arbitrators agree or not, this is essentially a content dispute. Good sources have gone untapped. Jd2718 03:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is purely a content dispute. But it is centered not around the factual accuracy but the questionable scope and title. Tendentiously picked events arbitrary picked and put together under the improper title cannot make an encyclopedic article. --Irpen 03:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

They've extended 'occupation' to cover everything up to 1991, yes, I am aware. There's some conduct issues, but they are comparatively minor. Jd2718 04:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. The case was accepted, however, for the reasons which are too complicated to explain in a few words. --Irpen 04:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, one of the arbitrators has now written a /Proposed Decision in the case. Newyorkbrad 17:28, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I was too slow to provide evidence - but no harm. I was fearful that the ArbCom might rule on the content; it didn't happen. Jd2718 00:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:On reporting Piotrus

Hello Irpen! Nice to notice that you have time to write to me. You and Dr. Dan's speak truth, but the process of user:Piotrus 3RR is under way, and I am not imposition to stop it, and after reading his reply on 3RR board there he trying to escape responsibility once again accusing other contributors of vandalism and bad faith leaves me no space, only to bring this case to the end. But I promise that I will have your words for the future developments.

You are experienced contributor and in the light of this event I would like to hear your advice, despite that I am already made the decision about this. Probably you are aware that Piotrus and his ally Lysy trying to remove some information from one article.(the same which P.P. was reported) In the heat of edits, contributor Lysy came to help a bit to our dear Piotrus. And imagine situation, at first Lysy conducted small changes but suddenly out of nowhere appears so called annon vandal from USA, and blanks the page [3] and of course dedicated contributor Lysy "reverts" this so called vandal [4] (please see edit summary vandalism by anonymous editor). Every thing would be fine if not one and big but, after comparison of two version - before so called vandal and after so called restoration, vital information was lost (yes you right the information which is not pleasant to Polish eyes) - [5]. Huge parts of article simple disappear! It is impossible to lost info if you reverting to the previuos version of edit only, which had it, of course if you do not remove it during restoration of version, but Lysy's edit summary is silent about this. Later he tried to update one part of article during so called restoration process and to show that he is removing it publicly [6], you see this is only one part; other vital info was not restored in any attempt. This situation I see as clear sneaky approach to receive upper hand in content dispute. How do you see this situation? M.K. 11:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I will just note here that indeed, I'd appreciate your input on the attempts to portray the Ponary massacre as carried by Poles and Russians...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

On [7]: care to elaborate when did I violate any policy against you? Or is it just the usual piece of offence one gets when he doesn't agree with your unsupported beliefs, as was the case of Volodarka? And finally, should I adopt the very same tactics and start accusing you of things you never did just to discredit you and slander your name, the very same way you do? Just let me know, I'll be happy to follow your ways. //Halibutt 15:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Halibutt, you 3RRed and not once and I chose to never report you. This is just one example. --Irpen 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, and you called my mom a cucumber and told me you hate me because I'm a Jew. Yet, I never reported you either. So what? //Halibutt 01:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

??? --Irpen 01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you really call his mother a cucumber? Dr. Dan 21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That's the very same thing you do: invent things and then accuse me of them. But no, never in the face, that would be too easy to refute, right? You do it in discussions with other users so that I could not defend myself. And never, I say never post any diffs and links, just throw empty accusations. Perhaps I should start acting likewise? //Halibutt 10:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. As for the cucumber, I meant the cat of the mother of the wife of your third cousin. You just got it all confused. As for my alleged hatred of you because you are a Jew may I refer you to the conversation with Lysy right below. I never call you any names in secret, btw. Diffs are always there to see when and what I said. You want diffs and links of what? Of WP:POINT? of WP:3RR? Of driving editors out? I mean, i can put aside some time and find them if you seriously deny that it happened and you really think digging them out is worth my time. Other than that, what is that you want? Note that when you are being hit, like your RfC, I do not join the festivities, unlike you who just can't wait for a new ArbCom on Ghirla to write a new statement. I try to limit my interaction with such fierce opponents like yourself to the article's talk pages and this is why I do not go to your talk too often. If I invoke you as an example talking to, say, Piotrus, I do it openly and you can always find out what I said and when I said it. No secrecy whatsoever. --Irpen 07:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mitrofan Dovnar-Zapol'skiy

Thanks for the support :). You needn't worry about such petty behaviour, though. For my part, seeing such as those, I'm just smiling. Let him make a spectacle of himself. :)

On the more to-the-business note, would you keep an eye on the Talk:Polonization, too? I admit I expected somewhat better of Piotrus, as a presumably intellectually honest person, than to go into sophistics instead of just presenting some good specialist refutations either of the DZ view of the 19th cent. in Belarusian lands, or at least the view of the 19th cent. as detailed as DZ's and differing in the key aspect. If there actually is one, of course. Yury Tarasievich 10:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to add, now that I've found even F.K.Dmochowski (see Talk:Polonization), I don't see why anything directly relevant of my first entry should be twisted like it was. (Some of the text on Academy was redundant, that's true). What do you think? Yury Tarasievich 10:27, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Polonization

The section is still incomplete - we should expand (with modern reliable sources!) on how it did work, indeed. But it is very relevant to note that the process was counteracted by others, and that much of what supported Polonization in other eras (i.e. Polish state and its support for it) did not exist in that era.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Please may I suggest discussing changes you want to do to that article first on talk?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:52, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, I am half-way done. Sorry other things sometimes deflect me on and off. But when I hit that save instead of the preview button, nothing can prevent you from correcting me. In the meanwhile, you may want to study sources, I am suing. One is D-Z, the other two are the academic articles (you brought one of them yourself).[8] [9] While I am still editing, you may spend some time reading. Actually, they both support D-Z despite you presented one of them as countering him. Anyway, let me please finish integrating their material in the text. --Irpen 03:57, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article is more neutral and expanded now. You did a much better job then Yuri presenting the facts in a more neutral manner (with all due respect for Yuri, he doesn't have neither your experience nor nowledge of English, I am afraid - although I hope he will stick around and get experience). Please update your references per my comment. And please don't remove relevant information: you cannot talk about peace without mentioning war, heat without cold, etc. - and you cannot speak about polonization without mentioning the very significant 'depolonization' countertrends in the 19th and 20th centuries.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Tour book on Kiev from 1900!!!

I just discovered this book through google books (not sure if you've seen it already), but it's absolutely amazing!!! It's been out of copyright and the entire thing is available in PDF! Published in 1900 it goes over a really old history of Kiev, not to mention the then considered "current events" and places. The book is in old russian and contains some excellent sketches of places (which are all out of copyright as well). Old Kiev Tour Book. -asmadeus 14:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, just reminded me. From "attic", I've dug out the remains of "Illustrated history of Ukraine" (pub. c.1912-1913, pages after 480 are missing). Lots of interesting illustrations (hetmans, bishops, cossacks), which are of little value to me directly, as I'm more into Belarusian history. If there's a specific interest in some topics, let me know, as I can't just scan everything outright. Yury Tarasievich 07:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys! Asmadeus, I bookmarked the book. Will print all of it when I have time. Would not be easy to OCR, I guess.

Yuriy, I think you mean the Hrushevsky's book LCCN 62-0. This is indeed a rarity to have in home library. Some versions are available online. This is one of such web-sites. Is it this the book? Thanks a lot for your offer anyway. Even if this is not the one, I can't make you do all the work of scanning the whole book. Please stay in touch. --Irpen 09:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this book, only this is its Russian translation, which was published about 1 year later. The illustrations are all with descriptions, too. Like I said, my book looks like it endured some, so no titlepages to go with it, and it "ends" at p.480 (national Renessaince chapter, paragraph 117, portrait of Skovoroda). The quality of illustrations and print is quite outstanding, anyway. Most of the modern books look like ..., compared. Yury Tarasievich 10:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

If you have no use for it, and decide to put it up on eBay, I'll bid ;) -asmadeus 17:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Kiev Images

I am currently planning a trip to Kiev in May (I live in Chicago, USA). I have evolved much as a photographer in the recent years, and plan on making one of the main focuses of my trip photography of Kiev. I will be compiling a list of places that I want to photograph. Leave a note on my page, and let me know if you have any specific requests. (Example of my recent photography from Belize). -asmadeus 20:43, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Added a note to the top of my Kiev album for photos taken back in 2001 giving permission to be used on wikipedia under cc-by-sa tag as you suggested. Thank you for that!

Any reason why not all images are displayed in the Gallery (missing Image: tag) on National Art Museum of Ukraine? Are you just waiting to confirm them? For example - I'm positive that Image:Vasylkivsky_cossacks_in_steppe.jpg is in the museum - my tour book shows the same image for the museum. The rest I can't confirm (so far). -asmadeus

Yes, the syntax error. I fixed it. There are more images to upload and add to the gallery from the list of sources in the end of the article. I think we should remove those we can't confirm. Cheers, --Irpen 18:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Maps

I scanned two maps, one of them of superficial, all-USSR coverage, comprising 1941-1944 (prepared in 1974), second of partisan units organisation and activities in Belarus (in 1941 borders), by the year and by the size (author is Manayenkaw (bel. Манаенкаў), this is the updated (c.1990s) variant of the same map (first variant prepared by him, too, in 1974)). First map I managed to squeeze down to the 1200K in indexed-color PNG 1280x~1900 pix. Second map I didn't yet process, possibly I'll do this tonight.

The question is how do we proceed from here on. It is reasonable guess that nobody in the publishing house would raise any trouble over the propagating of these maps (with proper attribution, anyway), indeed, on the present polit. tide we'd go with their blessings. Just that currently I don't need any additional rain on my parade here, and am reluctant to upload these to commons by myself. What do you suggest? Yury Tarasievich 12:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Occupation of Latvia

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The parties identified in the decision as having acted poorly in the dispute regarding Occupation of Latvia 1940-1945 are admonished to avoid such behavior in the future. That article is placed on probation, and any editor may be banned from it, or from other reasonably related pages, by an uninvolved administrator for disruptive edits, including, but not limited to, edit warring, inciviilty, and original research. The Arbitration Committee reserves the right to appoint one or more mentors at any time, and the right to review the situation in one year, if appropriate. The parties are strongly encouraged to enter into a mediation arrangement regarding any article-content issues that may still be outstanding. If the article is not substantially improved by continued editing, the Arbitration Committee may impose editing restrictions on users whose editing is counterproductive or disruptive. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 23:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :). A small piece of trivia is that myself and Vecrumba, the parties that were actually arguing were not identified in the list of the users to be admonished and lightly sanctioned were the innocent onlookers who came in to help us. A sadder part is that those users were admonished for not so much out of the way remarks (and I feel this unfair). The discussion was somewhat robust but nowhere near the threshold and a few outbursts were nowhere near the level of general disruption, where NPA and CIV policies should kick in.

Also, disapointing, is that the whole case was merely a giant waste of time that did not solve anything, as I predicted in my statement. Hopefully, the article can be changed/split/rewritten/renamed now and if editors spent time on that rather than on the arbitration page, it could have been half-way done, by now. Hopefully this can happen now. Cheers, --Irpen 23:50, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

City template

Dear Irpen, as I known you are usually a voice of reason, can I ask you to take a look at the discussion on User_talk:TAG.Odessa#Re:_template and tell me if I'm being unreasonable? Regards, Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, thanks for lending your voice. About the Russian names ... am I wrong to see their absence from the template as a flaw? I ain't trying to support "Russian imperialism", but make wiki informative. Surely wiki can't ignore the fact that Russian is the indigenous language of eastern and most of the southern Ukraine, and is used to some extent by most Ukrainians. No? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Calgalus, let's just separate the issues here and discuss the narrow one at hand, which is the addition of the "English name" field to the infobox. It is the existence of the English name (or lack of it) is what we are discussing and not the prevailing name used by the local people. The latter is a valid point to note but name used by the town's residents is nowhere in our naming conventions. And the name used by locals may or may not affect the English name.

I agree that the russophone city in Ukraine would need the Russian name mentioned in the first line of the article but not because this is an "english name" which may or may not be the case. The English name which is a different issue.

Unlike Russian and Ukrainian languages which have regulating bodies, the respective branches of the Russian and Ukrainian academies of Science, respectively, there is no single body that determines the single English name of the city and we infer the latter from the current usage. Dictionaries and English encyclopedias do the same thing, btw. I know of no better way to determine the most wide-spread usage than the media analysis. I performed such analysis and described the results at the TAG.Odessa's talk page. I was pleased to see that the usage by Britannica (which also uses "English names" for the article's titles) matches that by the anglophone media. As such, the name of an important city in the eastern Ukraine is Харків (in Ukrainian) and Харьков (in Russian). As for the English name, there are two of them Kharkiv and Kharkov and both are valid and neither is less English than the other. Kharkiv is more common in the modern context but Kharkov is still common enough to be mentioned in the article as an alternative name but not as a "single most common English name" as the field "English_name" in infobox suggests. Also Kharkov is the prevailing name in the WW2 context. No one is trying to rename the Battle of Kharkov and all the WW2 literature will likely continue to use it indefinetely. --Irpen 02:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration re: Abu badali

Hi. I am writing you because you were one of the respondants on the RfC about Abu badali that was started back in November. There has been no substantive comment there for over a month and User:Abu badali has never bothered to respond to the RfC. The last comment on the talk page of the RfC was a suggestion to take it to arbitration, which is what I propose we do. Accordingly, I have created a shell/draft listing to add to the list of Arbitration Committee matters here. I've listed your new there, preliminarily, as a complaintant. If you are not interested in participating, please remove your name. If you are, please add your comments as we must prepare a 500 word summary of the case. Thanks for your attention - Jord 15:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Red Army Atrocities

Zdorovenki buly. Since you have already looked at this in the past (seeing your name appear on the talk page), perhaps you could have a look at this Red_Army_atrocities and particularly the last Treuenbrietzen addition? I do not know how good your German or Italian is, however. I know that we normally work on the basis of "two wrongs do not make a right" - but this is going a bit far, I think. Znovy dzhakuyu! --Pan Gerwazy 10:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that you are very busy, and since people keep adding new chapters there - let me ewplain that this request for comment was about the Treuenbrietzen problem. And nothing else. Though it is funny that one of the guys in German wiki pushing for the falsification on Ehrenburg (combinng a statement from 1942 with one from 1945 and leaving out "leave the women and children alone" to prove that someone advocates wholesale raping IS a falsification) to be included in the article is someone you and I probably know from other debates ([10]).

Actually, I think it is not a coincidence. These guys first push their POV in German wikipedia, and when being corrected there, they come to the English wiki, confident that people here will not be so at home with these sources. --Pan Gerwazy 15:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this article is such a mess and what it needs is a total cleanup and rewrite, not a correction or two. Luckily, most editors who are here for a while do not expect much from the articles whose title include strong terms like "invasion", "occupation", "massacre" and now "atrocities". While those are all valid topics and the articles on them could be written, Wikilife is such that most of them get created as ax grinding exercises to set the stage to air some political grievances of certain users. So, I mostly stay away from those articles except those where the topic is really something else and they need both the renaming and editing, like several invasion and occupation articles.

The point is that if the article is really about an encyclopedic event or a history period, I treat is as such (as if its title is neutral, like "History of...") and edit its content while, at the same time, trying also to convince my opponents to rename it. If, however, not only the title but the very subject of an article is likely to make it a magnet for POV-pushing, I usually do not edit it at all as this is a fruitless exercise. Sorry for not being of help. --Irpen 19:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

For making me spend so much time on Soviet invasion of Poland (1939). If it were not for your edits, I'd have never put enough effort into making this article GA/A class. Keep it up and I am sure we will see it on FAC in the near future :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, this is one step too far. You used to avoid needlessly inflaming matters which this post is nothing but. --Irpen 20:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why, Irpen? I trully find your actions motivate me to work harder on Wikipedia. I did not plan to spend any time today editing Soviet invasion, alas, you have made me change my plans, and the article is now even larger, with more refs and pictures. And it is you who motivated me to do so - so I am thanking you for that, even if that wasn't exactly your intention.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:23, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I will not feed you anymore. --Irpen 21:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, whenever you attempt to disrupt an article pushing your POV, you are feeding me. I look forward to the day you truly stop.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  21:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Disrupt? I would have said "Shame, Piotrus", but I have doubts you have any. Now please stop harassing me. The next harassment entry here will be just reverted. --Irpen 21:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Maps 2

First map down the hatch. I put the "don't know license on it". I commented out the first 3 images just to make way for it. Let's see how this goes down, then the second map could be processed.

I have some relevant info on partisan movement, with numbers, too. Much more relevant than the dilettante's political discourses the article filled with now. Will put in tonight, if all's well. Yury Tarasievich 08:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: the User:HanzoHattori amusing person's edits, seems it's up to you and other guys to deal with that, for now. I'm quite quite busy here. Yury Tarasievich 09:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Translation

I don't have time for that; there is nothing offensive in those posts and besides 1) they are private messages from Darwinek to me and 2) your knowledge of Polish should be sufficient to understand and translate them if you really think they are important.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I can understand only part of that and not fully. Not fully enough to use at the ArbCom page. I do find them relevant to the case. Too bad you don't want to cooperate. --Irpen 06:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I find nothing in there which would be relevant for the ArbCom. I don't have time to translate every single message Darwinek has posted in Polish for you to analyze; I am afraid you will have to find somebody else for that. Consider, however, that if nobody has felt offended by those messages before - and thus never complained - digging through the archives looking for some 'dirt' may be somewhat counter-productive. I am sure there are better things you can do with your time (edit articles, etc.).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  06:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, I do edit articles and to be accused of neglecting the mainspase is rather bemusing. I hate digging diffs. I mostly remember things anyway and when i tell what I remember it is you who always cry bring diffs precisely forcing me to waste my time that I could have spent on articles.

Now, from what I have seen and partially translated, the messages were offensive. Speculations about usefulness for the user to move to the West to experience some civilizing culture, speculations that progress can be achieved only after certain users leave Wikipedia, speculations of ABF on behalf of users to a degree that they would be committed to derail the nomination of any Polish article, be it even about Polish kitchen (btw, you repeated these accusations today) and continuing to post in Polish right below the request to cease are the things I am talking about. You think this is all harmless. Too bad. --Irpen 06:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Irpen. There were times I might have agreed with you. Alas, recently, after witnessing your defence of several very incivil editors, my standards might have lapsed. With limited time, I am afraid you have to pursue your presumed offences; I will concentrate on dealing with what I have to.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

True enough, the Wikipedia might have seen some more blunt talk than what I am pointing to here. But it is these entries being repeatedly posted offensively in the foreign language that adds an insult to an injury. Anyway, ArbCom will look at this. Too bad I will have to provide my highly unreliable translation based on my very poor understanding of Polish. ArbCom deserves better than that but there is nothing esle I can do since you refuse to give me any help. --Irpen 07:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered asking Darwinek for translation?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  07:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I did and he ignored my request and posted another entry in Polish right below my request to translate the bevious one: see [11]. --Irpen 18:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

About the "Żyrandol" nickname

Hi, I'm explaining it in your talk since the RFArb is probably not the right place. The nickname is stupid and childish, and should have no place in wikipedia, I fully agree. However there's nothing offensive in it. Probably calling someone a tomato would be more of an offence. --Lysy^talk 06:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a play on the "similarity" of Ghirlandajo and Zhyra'ndol (light fixture) in Polish, if I'm any judge. Not exactly offensive, but certainly somewhat pejorative (was used in context of "between us buddies", right?). Yury Tarasievich 09:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's my view as well. Kindergarten level nickname, but not an insult. Or maybe "Ghirlandajo" proved too difficult for some Poles to spell. --Lysy^talk 16:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I said all I have to say about this. Nicknaming other users is pejorative and Darwinek have continuously done so with an obvious intent just to bug another editor since Ghirla made it clear earlier that this deliberate distortion of his username annoys him. Darwinek has this habit of continuing to say or do things he was clearly asked not to, be it bashing others in Polish or play with others' names. The user seems to enjoy just to annoy others for the fun of it. --Irpen 19:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please provide diffs proving that he has used it 'continously'. Thank you,-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You are being inconsistent Pitorus. When I say things you know to be true you tell me to find diffs despite you perfectly remember the incidents thus only forcing me to waste time. When I do dig diffs, you accuse me in digging through dirty laundry. I already showed you some diffs lately and even asked you to translate which you refused. Need diffs for that? --Irpen 17:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You conveniently omit the fact that the diffs you occasionally dig are rarely relevant to your accusations...-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Another empty statement, Piotrus. Anyway, I said it all on the subject where I said it. I pointed the offensive statements to you and asked you to translate them. The ball is in your court. --Irpen 18:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

And I and others remarked to you there is nothing offensive in them. The ball of yours, Irpen, like usual, was full of hot air, I am afraid.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just translate "Myślę, że problemy rusko-polskie uda się załatwić tylko wtedy, kiedy ten użytkownik przestanie edytować." as I asked? --Irpen 19:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Because there is nothing offensive in this statement, and you should be able to translate it yourself - I may correct errors if they are important enough.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• 'Note: For those interested in an English translation it reads, I think that the problems between Russians and Poles (Russian-Polish problems) can be solved (resolved) only when that contributor ceases his editing. Dr. Dan 19:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 27 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ukrainian Autonomous Orthodox Church, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 12:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Infamous "Death Threat"

Regarding the Death threat that Ghirlandajo is purported to have made against one of the most prolific and bemedalled (sic) members of WP's contributors out of Poland. See talk Alytus. Do you have any knowledge of this accusation or where it stems from? The accuser himself is not going to provide this information, and although I'm virtually sure it is because it never happened, I'm trying to be fair and get to the bottom of this. Thanks. Dr. Dan 17:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, all I can say is that if these accusations against Ghirla were ever made, those are ridiculous and do not merit a response. --Irpen 17:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately the accusation was made (although no evidence has been provided to substantiate the claim). And this kind of thing cannot remain unchallenged or ignored. Sorry to bother you with it, but I hoped you might have an inkling of what it was all about. Maybe someone else might know. Thanks. Dr. Dan 17:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree such attack on editors is not acceptable. It should be investigated if such "threat" was ever made. M.K. 12:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian national Television

5 kanal is not a national TV channel in UKraine. It's on cable. That's why i did not put it in the template. Sakura-org 19:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainain TV Networks

I looked that there are no articles about most of the Ukrainian TV Networks in English Wikipedia. If you want, we can create them together. Sakura-org 19:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not exactly a subject of my expertise but I will try to help with what I can. --Irpen 19:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you know smbody how works on that? Sakura-org 19:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

For now just the two of us :), but you get the ball rolling, I will join and others will jump in. --Irpen 19:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I probably will start with STB Sakura-org 19:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Meta

Пардон, я ничего не понял в этой тарабарщине. Что там конретно угроза? MaxSem 08:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Иллюстрация к статье Russians

Прошу не загружать версию с А. С. Пушкиным по той причине, что поэт не является в полной мере этническим русским, следовательно, его портрет не следует использовать в соответствующей статье. Сам он неоднократно подмечал свою экзотическую внешность, а по поводу приведенного портрета заметил, будто тот ему изрядно льстит и скрывает его нежелательные черты.

Л. Н. Толстого убрал, так как подумал, что прерыдущая иллюстрация показалась вам слишком мелкой. Можно загрузить и предыдущую версию, где и А. П. Чехов, и Л. Н. Толстой. Чехова, впрочем, надо непременно оставить, так как у него классическая русская внешность, тогда как Толстого на приведенном портрете за бородой вообще практически не видно. Известны они примерно в одинаковой степени, так что не стоит обижаться.

Александра Невского добавил, чтобы отразить достаточно древнюю историю этноса и чтобы разнообразить стили (в духе портрета Елизаветы в статье про англичан, например). Humanophage 21:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Partisans et al.

Hey. I didn't forget my unfinished work on this and other articles (e.g., Polonisation, Russification), just currently my hands were (and still are) somewhat full with starting up of our WP AND (last, not least) with my actual real-life work. I'm now reading up and consolidating the knowledge. The subjects I'm encountering aren't easy to integrate neutrally, some substance will hit the fan.

And: Big Thanks for you help on the "day one". Thanks for all the help which came our (project) way, actually. Cheers! Yury Tarasievich 19:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

AN comment

It is a bit frustrating to see people deliberately breaking rules and causing disruption, but I do see how that could be offensive and will try to use a more moderate tone on that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your understanding. Regards, --Irpen 22:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian pics

As a typical Ukraine-hater and Polish pan I tend to be in the Ukraine at least twice a year, sometimes even more often - so it's not a problem. I go mostly to Lvov, Kiev and Odessa, but I plan to make some trip to Yalta this May and perhaps to the small towns of Galicia this summer. Just let me know what you need and I'll see if I have any pics already in my archives. //Halibutt 14:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Kiev Metro, the more photos the better! --Kuban Cossack 14:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, it's not referred to as The Ukraine in English. Just as we do not say, "I went to the Poland," or "I went on Lithuania (na Litwie)". These are probably the archaic remnants of the belief that these nations were, or are, provinces of something larger. In any case, it's improper. Dr. Dan 14:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a thought that many people say the Ukraine beacuse it sounds like the UK . It might be a stupid idea... Sakura-org 18:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

To Halibutt: "As a typical Ukraine-hater and Polish pan..." Did I ever call you that? My message to you was entirely non-confrontational. And I am glad that Ukraine now abolished the visa requirements for many countries, including the Polish pans thus opening itself to the world. Why such a response? Anyway, some of the requests are here but if you find any Ukraine-related pictureless articles, please add to it if you have anything.

As for the, some recent discussion on the matter is here in the archive. It's not "wrong", as long as it is used by respected sources. It's just that as less and less sources use them nowadays, it is a little bit obsolete. I do not use it but I see have no issue with those who do. --Irpen 19:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, my response was ironic, but was not aimed at anyone. My message was not confrontational either, it was merely a joke of myself. And no, you did not call me those names (though some Wikipedians did, check the list you-know-where). As to The Ukraine vs. Ukraine - one of my teachers was very, very old and I believe I inherited that version from her. I could stick with Ukraine if the former usage is offensive to some. Not a big deal.

As to the pics, the last time I went to Kiev I did not have my camera with me and had to borrow one from my colleague (a really lousy Nikon). The result is that most after-dark pics (as well as those made in the tube) are really, really bad. Anyway, I'll see what I can come up with. Just give me some time to browse through my archives. //Halibutt 20:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it took me some two hours to select the pics and tag them properly. In some half an hour all should be listed in my autouploader gallery. Just pick your poison, I hope some of them could be helpful. The weather wasn't really nice and the camera was lousy, but I guess some of the pics could do. I was able to dig up several pics of the Kiev Metro, but all of them are really lousy and definitely their informative value is close to none.

BTW, I wonder why isn't the Book Museum listed in the "Museums in Kiev" template. It's one of the most fascinating museums out there. Especially the Polish books published in Kraków in 19th century and labelled "Ukrainian books in foreign languages" by the museum staff :D Another nice addition could be the Museum of a Single Street, as far as I know the first privately-owned museum in (the) Ukraine. //Halibutt 23:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Parliamentary elections

Hey, can you help translate the article you're working on for the Ukrainian Wikipedia? — Alex^(T|C|E) 23:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I need time to have something semidecent here. But I can help when I am ready. I won't worry much. There are plenty of uk-wiki users who can write in Ukrainian and someone will likely write it there sooner than us. Just wait for the morning EET. --Irpen 23:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm one of the ukwiki users, but as of now, my translation skills suck. I'm not in a hurry though. BTW, do you think this article will qualify for "in the news"? — Alex^(T|C|E) 23:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It will be in the news. I will help translate it but I need some hours to have anything here first. Later, --Irpen 23:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Already in the news. — Alex^(T|C|E) 23:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not pushing you to write it or anything, just letting you know. :-) — Alex^(T|C|E) 23:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you're fast. How did you get the clip? I read the text of course but we can give a link to this in an article. Cheers, --Irpen 23:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, http://5tv.com.ua/, http://5tv.com.ua/newsline/266/. :-) — Alex^(T|C|E) 00:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The second link, вибір народу, is everything related to the 2007 elections. — Alex^(T|C|E) 00:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I know you're not up to writing the whole article, but can you at least help make it good enough to qualify for WP:ITN/C? I already added it to the list. — Alex^(T|C|E) 05:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

STB (channel)

I finished with the article about Ukrainian channel STB. YOu should read it and edit if it's needed (and I think it is needed:))) I finished with my User page too. You can also visit it.... Sakura-org 13:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ukraine-politician-stub

Greetings Irpen

I notice you've created a new category for this template. I'd expressly avoided creating the specific Category:Ukrainian politician stubs since we don't have enough Ukrainian material for any such category to live up to the minimum standards normally used by WP:WSS (we're still missing 6-7 stub articles to pass the threshold of 60 stub articles), so this template was intended to remain without a specific category until we broke this threshold. I'll do the paperwork on WP:WSS and I guess it'll hardly be worth the effort to delete the category again (in particular if more people decide to run for office in the new elections) but please don't edit the stub categories without consulting with WP:WSS first; it saves a lot of clean up time, e.g. in keeping the list of templates and categories up to date. Happy editing. Valentinian ^{T / C} 22:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject

Hey, you want to start a Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine? I'm in if you're in. — Alex^(T|C|E) 03:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not until we get at least 10 active users willing to sort out all the work. We now barely maintain the Portal:Ukraine and its sub-windows which would collapse without DDima. Also, the "New articles board" at the portal is already a substitute for a project as everyone follows it and announcements posted there get read. But I am glad that we got another user (you) who does some real work. Keep it up! --Irpen 03:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, three down seven to go. :-) I just need to sort a few things out so that nothing will hold me back from contributing to Wikipedia. — Alex^(T|C|E) 03:29, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Tak (!) Count me in. There is an already existing WikiProject Ukrainian subdivisions, which we could transform into the Ukraine WikiProject, what do you think? But we should first ask the founders of the project (Mzajac and AlexPU) if they agree to that. BTW, there was a proposal to do that on the WikiProjects's talk.. —dima/talk/ 20:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I would enthusiastically welcome Michael's return to active editing but he seems busy with other things at this time of his life. From my past interactions with AlexPU, I have doubts that he is in a condition to make any positive contribution to any project but I cannot exclude the possibility that he undergoes just one more transformation. He used to be a, though opinionated, but productive editor before his more recent turning into a highly unproductive aggressive mode.

But more precisely, is there anything we want to do through a project that we are not yet doing through a portal. They are bound to partially duplicate each other's function and we really don't want to spend our time on specifically keeping them consistent. Just putting meaningless "This page is being watched by the Ukraone wikiproject" all over article's talk pages is not exactly useful. Before we start the project, we should clearly define its scope, tasks and how it will interact with the Portal which I see as the most crucial window of Ukraine into Wikipedia. --Irpen 21:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

True, the WikiProject will likely duplicate the portal's functions... and putting WikiProject templates on talk wouldn't do much either, as there will only be a maximum of 3-6 editors.. Perhaps we should start recruiting Ukrainian users for Wikipedia :)) —dima/talk/ 04:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Map of Ukraine

Map of Ukraine

I just uploaded this. What do you think? — Alex^(T|C|E) 04:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, but why did you reduce the resolution? The original one has a higher resolution. --Irpen 04:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Your's is PNG, mine is SVG, you can blow it up to any resolution. :-) — Alex^(T|C|E) 04:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would not know the difference. I am not too geeky :). --Irpen 04:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Example: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/Map_of_Ukraine_en.svg/1024px-Map_of_Ukraine_en.svg.png — Alex^(T|C|E) 04:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Plus, I can modify it any way I want easily. I can now easily make a map of all railways or highways in Ukraine. Let me know if you want me to. — Alex^(T|C|E) 04:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way:

Modified versions of UNCS maps may be used provided that the UN name and reference number does not appear on any modified version and a link to the original map is provided.

Your map says "United Nations" at the bottom. :-) — Alex^(T|C|E) 04:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, then I guess the one I uploaded is redundant and useless. I will ask it deleted. --Irpen 04:50, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Want me to get started on a map of either railroads or highways? — Alex^(T|C|E) 04:52, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Such maps would be great but we do not have articles for those. We should write Transportation in Ukraine first. Or would you know where else to put it? --Irpen 04:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I was also thinking of developing those articles. By the way, for future reference, if I was to make a map of highways or railways, would you want the city names left on there? — Alex^(T|C|E) 04:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I would think the best is to have cities named the same way as the Wikipedia articles. The UN map has a mixed spelling. It anglicized Ukraine and Crimea but does not anglicize Dnieper. And of course K... You know what I mean :). But even the map with the imperfect choice of names is better than no map. I very much admire Halibutt's maps no matter how I disagree with him on POVs and terminology. --Irpen 04:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and raliroad/highway maps can go to transport in Ukraine even as it is now. --Irpen 05:01, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, looks like my map might need a font fix. Went to a sans-serif font for some reason. :-) Make a list of cities that need to be fixed, and I'll fix them. As for roads and railroads, give me an example of a map (another country) that you want the Ukrainian (rail)road map to look like. — Alex^(T|C|E) 05:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not a final say in the naming. Our naming conventions are. The rest is either bad faith attempts by some to ignore the conventions or good faith disagreements (by many more others) on their interpretations. IMO, the current names of the all Oblast center articles reflect the WP:NC correctly (see {{Tl:Ukraine}}) for the complete list. Also, the map would be better off with the main rivers anglicized and spelled as Dnieper, Dniester and Southern Buh. "Vdskh" should be replaced with "rsvr". But this is all less important than having some maps instead of none. --Irpen 05:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Request

Feel free to write how bad I and other Polish editors are on your talk page. Feel free to start a RfC or use other means of asking others for input. But don't spam my talk pages with your grudges after I have politely asked you to stop several times. By all means, feel free to reply / repost / do whatever you want on your talk pages.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not need to repost anything. My goal was to relay to you a certain message. Since you read it, I don't care whether you deleted or not. That you deleted it is not something that concerns me in any way. --Irpen 04:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI

I stopped reading your messages on my talk page some time ago; repeated PAs - as pointed out by others - are not something I want to spend my time reading.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

You can tell that you do not read all you want. But saying that you do not even listen when other editors attempt to talk to you does not make you look constructive. Especially in view of the obvious fact that you do read of course. --Irpen 05:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

If it makes you feel any better, you are the first person on Wikipedia I have decided I should stop paying attention to.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  05:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, right, while you even read my responses to you at my own talk... Anyway, as long as you keep your baseless accusation of myself to our talk pages, I care little since I am used to those. It is your spreading them elsewhere is when they become my concern. --Irpen 05:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ten chlopak z Katowic nie ma szans? :-).Vlad fedorov 10:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Was ist das? --Irpen 20:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Das ist jezyk polski (Polnischen). Piotrus says that he's leaving, but he can't actually, so I asked if this fella from Katowice has any chance? :-) I always enjoyed talking with Polish nationalists while being in Poland. Vlad fedorov 03:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

ukwiki

Wow, you sure are a lot more active on ukwiki now. :-) — Alex^(T|C|E) 06:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just want to help a bit with bringing images into some orderly condition. As long as no one is pouncing at me, I am willing to help a little. --Irpen 06:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I'm not sure where to leave you messages now, there or here. — Alex^(T|C|E) 06:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Here. --Irpen 06:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A UK Wiki? What's that? --Thus Spake Anittas 10:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian Wikipedia, http://uk.wikipedia.org :-) — Alex^(T|C|E) 10:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Воистину Воскресе!

Пасибо! --Kuban Cossack 20:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

File:Eastereggs.jpg

Hmmm, we sometimes paint the eggs in the same style as you do. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Воистину Воскресе! — Alex^(T|C|E) 00:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Эхей!!! А я опоздал уже :(. Давайте яйцами стукнемся?Vlad fedorov 03:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Спасибо!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Diakuyu! Faustian 20:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Воистину Воскресе! Avade er iz ufgeshtanen! He is risen indeed!--Pan Gerwazy 22:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Спасибо! Errabee 22:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Soviet invasion of Poland

I am pleased with the way this article is progressing. I've spent enough time on it now that eventually I would like to see it at FAC. However, I'm only too aware of criticisms re POV from you, Mosin, and Grafikm, and though I have done quite a lot, I think, to increase the information in the article about the Soviet view of things, I would be pleased if you could check it over again. I would rather directly address criticisms from you now than at FAC; and I hope you will have time to edit the article yourself.

Those elements, like the title, which are well-sourced, cannot be removed (though I have added that the Soviets called it the "liberation campaign" and have made the Soviet view as clear as I can), but there is, of course, room for parallel interpretations of events, if sourced. At the moment I am looking at figures and will be making some edits clarifying the differences between old and newer figures for the deaths and deportations (at the moment the figures are something of an inchoate smattering). Anything you can do to help the article will be appreciated. As you probably know, arguments between Polish and Russian-speaking editors don't interest me: I have a high regard for yourself and Ghirlandajo, as well as for Piotrus and Halibutt, and I would love it if this article could pool all your brains together instead of pulling them apart. qp10qp 21:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Ukraine

Hey, glad to see that you joined! As for Portal:Ukraine, the only thing that might be moved over to the WikiProject is the new article announcements, everything else about the portal will remain the same. — Alex^(T|C|E) 22:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's not move it without discussion. --Irpen 23:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't going to, I was just saying what might change. — Alex^(T|C|E) 23:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Vlad

Thanks for putting in a word. I appreciate the effort -- I have a hunch he's more likely to listen to you than anything I could say. ;) – Luna Santin (talk) 06:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right in this. This is exactly why I am trying to convince this user to cool it a little even though I understand his frustration. --Irpen 06:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for advice

Thanks Irpen. I know they work in groups in order to win revert wars and stuff. Anyway, that's so irrelevant.

Could you advise me how to push through my mediation case on Boris Stomakhin. Biophys has eliminated all the sources and has article blocked. Only one mediator approache my case. I need a second one.Vlad fedorov 09:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Organised persecution of ethnic Poles

Could you please change the template to the normal WP:AfD way? You'd have my conditional support on that one, but the way you did it I'd have to remove the template myself as it's definitely not used the way it was meant to be. {{AfD}} is the way to go here, but not the sneaky way. //Halibutt 20:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

If the PROD tl is removed, AFD will be the way, yes. I don't see your point. If you want to substitute one PROD reason for another, just do so. --Irpen 20:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, since the template was removed by the user, I AfDed the article. I am looking forward for your vote of the conditional support in the AfD debate. --Irpen 20:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

ICTV

I was gonna fill in ICTV, but did not have time. Thank you for puttind some basic info. I will fill it in soon. Per the template -- Let me make a template for only commercial national broadcast and cable tv stations so the National television in Ukraine template will have only UT1, UT2 and UT3. Sakura-org 23:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Mediation!

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to Example. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you, [signature]

A gift

In between our usual fights, here's something you may enjoy.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  04:02, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I fully share the message of this box (see the top of my talk page) but I am no fan of userboxing the userspace since most userboxes are campaigning of some kind and I disagree with using the userspace for it. You won't find any boxes in my space even in favor of things I support unequivocally, like FC Dynamo Kyiv or Democracy in Ukraine. --Irpen

Advise

Irpen, is it possible in Wikipedia to give different punishments just because user has a story of blocks in Wikipedia.

Yes.

Do admin have to consider the situation over which a block was given?

Yes but many don't.

Are blocks used in Wikipedia as slave marks?

Yes.

if so I would consider making other account.Vlad fedorov 04:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

No comment. Abandoning an account and starting to use a different one is allowed. What is not allowed is to edit from several accounts, especially if all accounts edit one or related articles. Also, banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit and returning under the new username is considered a block evasion. It is impossible to strictly enforce and if the past problem user returns as a new account but no problematic behavior reccures, there is no way to connect the dots, which may actually be a good thing. However, since problem users usually reflect a problematic personality, I don't think we have many permabanned users now editing now happily under new identities. --Irpen 04:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Ukraine portal

Hey, I see you voted as "other" about the page move. I just came to reassure you not to worry, that I won't let that portal to be absorbed by the WikiProject. :-) — Alex^(T|C|E) 04:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

RFA

I inform you that I added your name at "involved parts" at the RFA between me and Mauco, as I consider you as an involved part. As you know I supported your proposal to allow Mauco to defend himself, however I should state that the apologies he offered to you don't impress me. He never appologied to ME, and I am the main person to whom he should ask forgiveness. I've sent him an e-mail after he was caught, asking if he plead guilty or not guilty and he never replied.--MariusM 08:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Need assistance

Hi, thanks for welcoming me here. Since you are a senior member here and know how things get done, in addition I believe you have the best relationship with local stalinists that will no doubt oppose me in this respect, I need your assistance in reverting or deleting this map which insults Ukrainian history and subsequently people. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4d/Premongol.png it dates 1200 and has "Russian Principalities" written over what was Ukrainian territories. It would be most historically correct to write Pre-Ukrainian or Old Ukrainian territories, but I think we can compromise to Kyivska Rus' or Kyivan Rus', or Kievan Rus' - which I will agree to. Заранее благодарен.--Sylius 03:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC) я там оставил сообщение в статье где карта используется.

To answer your question, the name "Russian principalities" was likely put there not due the Russian chauvinism of the map's creator (who is not even Russian) but due to the fact that Medieval Russia and Medieval Rus’ happen to be usable in English historiography interchangeably. This source is the best proof, the Janet Martin's classical study called "Medieval Russia, 980-1584", Cambridge University, 1995, ISBN 0521368324. This usage does not create any confusion among the specialists since they unmistakably realize that in the medieval and the modern context the two words do not mean

the same thing and are rather treated as homonyms.

Of course there are people (that include some Wikipedia users and RL politicians) who claim that Rus' and Russia (in modern sense) are just one and the same but such claims are unrelated to the historic science and not considered seriously among historians. I am saddened to see you making similar claims except you propose to replace Russia by Ukraine in the Rus' context. Such exclusivity claims are equally non-scholarly, although you can easily find the writings of nationalist Ukrainian and Russian historians who make such respective exclusivity claim.

But this question goes by far beyond the trivial dispute of the map you raise. I would support you if you say that in the particular map the "Russian principalities" should be replaced with the "Principalities of Rus’" as this removes the ambiguity that a non-specialist may see there and would help the world peace at the same time.

It would be wrong, however, to call Rus' as Kievan (or Kyivan) in this particular context as the addition of "Kievan" is a later one and made by historians. The contemporary usage that would have been Rus' or Rus('s)kaya zemlya did not include Kiev in any form. So, the term Kievan Rus is OK to use in a specific context but not left and right. I will contact the author of the map with the request to accommodate your concern. Regards, --Irpen 04:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Do not call other users "Stalinists". This is a serious offense and the breach of the wikirules which call to avoid discussing the contributors and concentrate on content. --Irpen

I didn't know about that rule, I thought the user wouldn't be offended since he has a picture of this "political figure" in his profile. I also think that it should be prohibited to have pictures of stalin or hitler in profiles, but what can one do. Anyway, that's irrelevent. Thanks for your help. About the use of Russia to mean Ukraine, I understand how some may use it based on other sources, but those initial sources had chauvinistic pretext. Besides, most users of Wikipedia are not historians, and when reading "Priciapility of Russia" will assume that it is .. principality of Russia. I will draw attention to these cases, as a citizen of my country Ukraine, and as a Russian national dedicated to keeping peace between our nations. About Kievan Rus being a term developed later, that's only partially correct. By the way, the word Ukraine was first mentioned in chronicles of 12th century, so it isn't totally incorrect to refer to Rus' as Ukraine, the only problem with this is that it's unclear to what exactly both terms refer to. Again, thanks for your assistance. --Sylius 01:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:The Wehrmacht War Crimes Bureau, 1939-1945

Xx236 12:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Map-related

Could you please make a small change to a map you once made by replacing the Russian principalities with Principalities of Rus’. Your version is not "wrong" but slight modification will not compromise the correctness but would appease some of my nationally conscious compatriots. See [12]. TIA, --Irpen 04:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

For you, tovarisch, anything. ;-)

It's done. I'm amazed at what gets some people riled up though. In any case I'll eventually get around to replacing the map altogether with a better, less pixel-obvious version. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sure it sounds "amazing" to a non-involved party, unfortunately historical inaccuracies are often used for political provocations in modern world. It's my firm belief that they should not be allowed. --Sylius 01:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree that the original phrasing was inaccurate. In common academic usage the principalities of the 13th century were "Russian". Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And this usage is inaccurate, because nobody outside historic circles knows that Russian back in the 13th century didn't mean the same nation as modern Russia. Which is exactly how it is being used for political purposes.--Sylius 02:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Russian sentiment

It is under attack, I need your help ASAP. --Kuban Cossack 22:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And also keep and eye out on GUAM. --Kuban Cossack 21:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And now this [13]. --Kuban Cossack 00:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Also something completely on a side note, but Care to comment? --Kuban Cossack 22:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hello. Could I prevail upon you to express agreement or disagreement on going forward with mediation? Thank you. Biruitorul 05:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom/Piotrus

Case has been started, probably you will be interested: [14] M.K. 10:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 22:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey

What do you think of this? Khoikhoi 06:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Irpen, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0.
Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!

ArbCom case: Betacommand

Paul August expanded the finding of fact related to your unwarned, unwarranted block (in response to your talk page comments). Also, I'd like to point out that obligations for admins to communicate have been made more explicit. I do not think they will take on off-Wiki conduct, but the communications requirements make the ability to plot off-wiki less valuable. Jd2718 07:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Image:Eastereggs.jpg

Greetings, Irpen. I noticed that you uploaded the excellent image Image:Eastereggs.jpg for Easter. The source currently provided is not really adequate. Could you provide a URL for a page which the image is located in and a URL directly to the image? Thanks, Iamunknown 20:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It was at the site's front page at the Easter day, that's where I got it but now it is obviously not there. Never makes sense to give and URL to the dynamic page. --Irpen 02:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom/Soviet occupation of Romania [15]

Filed. Please confirm awareness. -- Biruitorul 16:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)