User talk:Irpen

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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. Halibu tt 11:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

it is easy to figure percentage of speakers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

amusing entry

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

Дуже дякую

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

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

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

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

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

Carpatho-Rusyn

OK, I added the Carpatho -Rusyn Society article to the "Ukrainian diaspora" category. Expect some comments from Pittsburgh. Many people there had ancestors who tried to form a Rusyn autonomus province within Czechoslovakia, and they might not want to be considered as Ukrainians at all. It depends on your definition of "Ukrainian". Pustelnik (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I meant photographs! I could not care less about logos.--Kuban Cossack

19:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

19:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

Allow me 3

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

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

Allow me...

Image:Purple_heart.jpg 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)]][reply]

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

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

Update. --Irpen 21:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 <small>(Help!) 23:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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. //Halibu tt 01:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? //Halibu tt 08:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. //Halibu tt

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)[reply]

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. //Halibu tt

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

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)[reply]

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

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. //Halibu tt 22:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[1]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [2] and of course dedicated contributor Lysy "reverts" this so called vandal [3] (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) - [4]. 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 [5], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

On [6]: 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. //Halibu tt 15:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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? //Halibu tt 01:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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? //Halibu tt 10:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I did and he ignored my request and posted another entry in Polish right below my request to translate the bevious one: see [7]. --Irpen 18:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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 ohttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Irpen&action=edit Editing User talk:Irpen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaf 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ArbCom/Piotrus

Case has been started, probably you will be interested: [8] M.K. 10:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Whatever this was, the Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board is not the place to post it. Try the talk pages of the people you think are involved. Balcer 02:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Balcer, but I posted it exactly where I intended. And, no, I did not say you are involved in any way. No do I think so. --Irpen 02:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You accuse a person active on the noticeboard of wrongdoing, without giving any indication of who this might be. Since I participate on that noticeboard, that accusation is also aimed at me. I consider this a personal attack, and a gross misuse of a Wikipedia notice board. Incidentally, the accusation is so cryptic, I have no idea what it is about. Balcer 02:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I am not going to persist in this silly revert war. It stays in history and will likely be read enough, to be sure. I do not care whether it beautifies the page (and its archives) forever. I hope you will fiercely remove the calls to get a hand in an edit war frequently posted at that board from now on. --Irpen 02:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is back in now, and I am not going to revert an admin. I invite you to remove your own message. If you don't, it stays in your "history", so to speak. Please think about it. Maybe the best approach here is to change your perspective: how would you feel if this message appeared on the Ukrainian and Russian noticeboard, accusing everyone there of (possibly) being indecent, without any explanation or proof. In essence, this message is saying: Someone on this board is an indecent bastard, but I am not going to tell you who, and I am not going to tell you why. Balcer 02:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Balcer, "I am not going to tell you who" only because I don't have a 100% proof of who, but I do have a very strong circumstantial evidence on "what" (a duck test.) As for the Russian or Ukrainian boards, I am aware of the announcements in support of someone or something (like even the one in question) and, sadly, even calls to oppose something. But I am not aware of any similar campaigns run among the Russian or Ukrainian users behind the scenes. If this happened, I would not hesitate to use the board to find what truly was behind such incident in the Russian or Ukrainian community. --Irpen 02:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not sure, then don't make the accusation. If you have a hunch about specific people involved, take it up on their talk page. If you think that "Polish users" are responsible, that includes me, and everyone on that board. Clearly you must realize how counterproductive and harmful such accusations are.

Enough of this. Sorry to say this, but today you have taken another step towards taking Wikipedia to the toilet. Over and out.Balcer 02:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read what I said at the board. What happened is indeed disgusting but my exposing it is aimed at making the repetitions less likely. --Irpen 06:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meltyukhov

Irpen, do you consider Meltyukhov's book a reliable source ? The more I read him the more suspicious I am. --Lysy^talk 09:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason not too. He is a respected scholar from what I know. --Irpen 09:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he is the one using the "concentration camps" term, this is pretty strong for a respected scholar. Aren't you concerned about this ? You know what I mean, there are different authors, and one can often find some extremal ones, even among the academics. The sources should be carefully selected. I'm usually trying to avoid citing authors who exhibit clear POV pushing in their works (like e.g. not citing Professor Edward Prus about Polish-Ukrainian conflicts, as I know he is biased). --Lysy^talk 09:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Meltyukhov is notable. As for his reliability, however, the article only claims he is an employee of Russian Institute of Documents and Historical Records Research, a red-linked institute that we don't know nothing about. What is important in estabilishing a person's reliability is primarily: what institution creditentials is he backed up with, what venue publishes his works (the one's we cite, particulary) and how are they received (reviewed) by the academic community. Currently we lack all of those crucial pieces of information, the best we can say is that he is a Russian historian with a PhD publishing books/articles/ebooks but with no info on reliablity of publishers (for all we know he can be self-publishing them). As such, he is definetly having problems with WP:RS.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, Piotrus, that you dare speak about RS wrt to an academic work after insisting that crackpot theories published in Polish press are acceptable and even trying to change the policy to accommodate your views. This fresh example of using double standards in POV-pushing will be added to your arbcom. --Irpen 20:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, I apologize for bugging your userpage, but I addressed you and not Piotrus. I'm puzzled as to why he responded in your talk page instead of you, and you did not. Do you understand and agree with the point that I was trying to make above ? --Lysy^talk 20:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lysy, I responded to Piotrus' entry because it seemed asking for response. You don't have to apologize, since I never minded being asked at my talk. Now, I responded to your earlier inquiry and all I can add is to repeat that MM is as good a source as any other academic, a professional historian, researcher (not sensationalist journalist, ask Piotrus about those) and whose work appears in scholarly publications such as books and peer-reviewed journals. His "Stalin lost chance" was received with raving reviews and I don't see the reason to dismiss him except "not liking" what he says, which is not a valid reason anyway. --Irpen 20:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Lysy^talk 14:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification

Irpen, I am perfectly aware that you a most voiceful opponent of Holocaust Denial, and hence I thought that you would probably be aware of the nature of the Institute for Historical Review, probably the most infamous and repellent revisionist organisation of them all. This is precisely why I was so shocked by this edit, and wanted an explanation from you as to what point you are making. I am glad you have now (rather late) explained what happened. Prompt answers to legitimate questions will help to avoid similar misunderstandings in the future.

I still stand by my suggestion that your comment with the link to IHR be stroked out, but the decision is of course yours. Balcer 20:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was not aware of the IHR at all. Never even heard of them. I have recently explained that after being made aware of them having such reputation I want their opinions to be completely discarded. I take the claim that they are indeed an HD institution at face value. I am not interested even at doing any fact checking here. You say it is HD, this is good enough for me. I made several talk page entries in connection with that matter:[9], [10], [11]. I don't understand how else I can be more clear. --Irpen 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the correction I was suggesting. I am glad you made it, and now this matter is closed as far as I am concerned. Balcer 20:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

History of Russia FAR

History of Russia has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbed

Where have you disappeared? Please come back as soon as possible. Wikipedia is a bleak place without you. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto the sentiment. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And third that feeling.--Pan Gerwazy 09:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

О, мой сынок, мой дорогой, Из дому ты уйдёшь.

Where are you when we need your knowledge of Ukrainian? --Pan Gerwazy 12:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, friend, for not being available when needed. You can figure out the reasons below. I was heartened by your concerns. Cheers, --Irpen 04:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gone missing?

Where are you, Irps? Bishonen | talk 23:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hmm... Hopefully everything's okay. But then it's summer. — Alex^(U|C|E) 00:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where's Irpen? --Mcginnly | Natter 09:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all, dear friends for your concerns. I am OK. Great, actually. You can find why I stopped editing from my today's entries. Sometimes, the climate here makes it just impossible to edit. Hopefully, the situation will improve. All the best to you all as well! --Irpen 04:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're back!!! — Alex^(U|C|E) 04:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time will show, but thanks a lot. All of you! --Irpen 04:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An apology

Irpen, it was never my intent to cause you distress and I am sorry about that - alas, the case is stressful to us all, and I myself have recently been seriously considering a wikiholiday, because every time I check my watchlist I dread "what other attacks on my person I will have to read now". After you declared that you are compiling your own evidence against me, can you blame me for drafting a reply? If you are distressed that it was semi-public, would you prefer I compiled it secretly in a *.doc or similar file as is commonly done - and presumably, in the form your not-yet-public evidence is drafted? If so, you could have just asked me to remove it from the web, and I'd have done so. Further, if this draft of an evidence was so distressing, please consider how do others - like myself - feel when they face similar accusations - coming from your person, too - near constantly, from article's talk pages, through user talk, public fora and DR cases.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 13:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, your so called "apology" upsets me because it includes more than one obvious not-so-truths. I would rather not continue this here but have this discussion at the workshop. Thanks for understanding. --Irpen 04:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Few thoughts

Hey Irpen. Welcome back. I have read your newest posts on Arbcom. They are quite impassioned and a lot of thought clearly went into them. I am not going to respond in full here, as that would require quite a bit of reflection on my part, and I should let Piotrus speak first. Balcer

Balcer, allow me to interject your statement with my responses. I am looking forward towards your thoughts when you ae ready to post them. In the meanwhile, here are some answers. First of all, however it pleases me that so many people expressed their concern about my non-editing and several more welcomed me back (you among others), it is premature to say that I am back. Now, to your thoughts. --Irpen

Still, here are a few thoughts of mine, for your consideration.

1. You expressed your opposition to off-wiki communication. Please reconsider. One of the best parts about being a Wikipedian is developing friendships with interesting people, friendships which necessarily need to go off official Wikipedia channels for communication. If I want to discuss with Piotrus any non-Wikipedia topic of interest to us, obviously we are not going to use Wikipedia talk pages. Therefore, I resent your implication that Piotrus' request to me for IM communication was in any way illegitimate or suspicious. Balcer

I am a least bit concerned about your off-wiki discussions with Piotrus on the topics that are unrelated to WP. If you are discussing, politics, cars, stocks, girls, science, money or even Irpen, this is none of my business or interest. Also, I thought I never accused you in being a part of Piotrus' organized team. Of all editors concerned, I have a high opinion of your honesty overall and I even thought of you being a part of that workgroup that would help solving this conflicts. This is all despite our many editing disagreement of which many were not so sweet. I truly seek a solution that would help rather than to have my POV prevail in the articles as the ultimate goal.

OTOH, I disagree with your opinion that developing friendships is one of the goals we should seek from Wikipedia experiences. While I made some friends, yes, it was never my goal of coming here. I would rather say to the contrary. I think the "friendster" is one of the gravest dangers of Wikipedia. A whole bunch of people now, and most of them are admins, developed a whole IRC-centered friendster network which helps anything but making the WP a better place, more comfortable for editors and more interesting to the readers.

But in any case, your friendships is none of my business. I see off-wiki communication plain wrong, when it is used to quickly request an extra revert, mobilize voters, organize a block, etc. It is pretty obvious that this was being done and I don't think that you were among those manipulated that way. So, there is no contradiction in my statement that off-wiki communcation harmed the climate here and your opinion that it can be used for harmless purposes. We are actually not arguing here. -Irpen

2. Your outrage at the "list of offenses" that Piotrus was compiling seems boundless, but please make an effort to see things from his point of view. In the last months of last year, Piotrus went through a quite involved Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Piotrus, where plenty of evidence was presented against him by his opponents on Wikipedia. Obviously, presenting counterarguments on his part must have taken quite a lot of effort. Knowing that since the RfC did not result in any resolution, and that a similar effort was likely to be launched against him again (as indeed it was in the Arbcom), it seems perfectly reasonable for him to build up his side of the case beforehand.

I suppose that he regrets now posting this material on a page which he thought was private, but which of course in this day and age where Google is combing all Wikispace day and night, obviously is not. Balcer

Well, although I agree with your supposition that he regrets that his underground effort was discovered, this is acually not what Piotrus is saying now. He is now trying to to say that his posting of this stuff was done purposefully with the aim of a greater transparency. I don't even need to comment on the incredulity of this nonsense. You don't need to either.

As for this being a "defence" in advance being reasonable, sorry, I disagree. There is a whole bunch of pretty vicious people who view me their enemy. I assure you that there is no file on my hard-drive or anywhere where I collect the diffs on that folk to have it handy when needed. I think it is repugnant. Yes, I remember many events but if I need a diff, I need to go dig it.

One example, Piotrus called me Polonophobic at one time. I later reminded him of that and when he denied and challenged me for the diff, it took me a while to find it. Another example, Lysy, called me worse invoking ethnic sensitivities. I remember that episode vividly but there is no diff anywhere ready (while I would probably be able to find it. I just wouldn't want to, as this would make me read again his horrific slur which I am not looking forward to.) True enough, there is so plenty of evidence on some others, that I would not need to look too much. The bottomline is that I see no excuse for such a sneaky behavior as secretly collecting stuff to use when necessary to destroy your contributors. I find this shadowing your colleagues for kompromat disgusting and I can't see any way to justify it.

You say that Piotrus might have been expecting an Arbcom. I was not expecting this one, truly. Moreover, when it was started, I asked MK to stop this as I saw no solution of this via arbcom. I said so again in my statement posted for arbitrators to the Arbcom page before the case was accepted.

But back to the subject, you may remember that I never co-signed that Piotrus' RfC which I thought was too broad and ill-concieved. Under similar circumstances, I even supported Halibutt, when he was a subject of a difficult RfC (who I also supported even for Adminship although he still molests me from time to time). Yes, I wanted to post a narrower complaint to Piotrus' RfC but I never got to it.

Now, if Piotrus was compiling a statement and drafting it outside of the ArbCom case (publicly or privately), that would have been OK. I tried to start writing evidence too but never got beyond 2 or 3 sentences simply because this is such an unpleasant business. But fine, Piotrus wants to present some evidence that his opponents are nothing but troublemakers, he goes for it. No problem. What is a problem is that the page pre-dates the draft of the anti-Irpen evidence statement. It predates the arbcom itself as a whole. It was maintaned for months, way before this ArbCom was started and he was collecting diffs that he thought could be used against me (and others) in case he needs them for whatever purpose.

Also, an interesting twist, there were others posting there with diffs. I recognize one author adding a diff from the Warsaw IP (as well as the diff). The author did not get any onwiki invitations to post. This is the type of IM coordination I meant. How many more users took part in it? I really don't want to know and don't care. And please, lets be serious. If Piotrus wanted to do it openly, he would have done it in his enwiki sandbox and would not have kept it in the  in pl-wiki.

Also, an outright hypocrisy is his statement's being designed as if "spontaneous", if you read the overture, while in fact it was so meticulously prepared. But well, let Piotrus now live with his consciousness as well as with what others think of this once it came to light. --Irpen

3. If you really think Piotrus did something really reprehensible, while at the same time you admit that in many respects he is a great contributor to Wikipedia and a decent human being, try to put yourself in his shoes for a moment and try to figure out what induced him to do what he did. Could it be that there is something in what you, Ghirlandajo and others are doing that is in some part responsible for this situation? What part of your behavior could be changed? Balcer

A small note here. Piotrus as a human being is not a subject of this discussion. Let's stick to the editing issues. I will say it again that he is a very valuable contributor. But at least no less a great contributor is his main opponent who Piotrus was hunting for years with partial success. Your trying to do any finger-pointing at his opponents here is not helping. The problem here is not people but an inadequate system of the conflict resolution that allows to game policies, like WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:RS, etc., in order to POV-push. The system that makes block shopping, off-line coordinated rv warring and vote stacking, meatpuppeting, all this being parts of the content disputes' resolution is responsible for this mess. People won't change. They can be replaced but the new ones will be no different. There has already been a sufficient amount of fingerpointing at the ArbCom. I would rather let Arbitrators decide and pass the respecvtife FoF's.

Also, I am certain, Piotrus' continual attempts to present this as civility issues is not only wrong but insincere. For one, unlike the editor he chases most vigorously I am not an incivil editor (occasional slips might have happened but no more than with all of us), he still added me to his hit-list. Secondly, the incivil Polish nationalists were used as pet-trolls rather than called to order. As for the editing (mis)behavior which is a true reason of this drama, Piotrus and his friends are as guilty of the double-standard POV-pushing as the other side.

But even before your advise above I was trying to think of a solution that would have made the situation for better. BTW, for better in general or to Piotrus' liking? Forcing his opponents out is one option. Ghirla has been forced out for a very long wikibreak. I did not see any improvement in behavior of Ghirla-bashers in his absence, neither in Piotrus. Same shameless POV-pushing, double-standards with sources, taking turns in revert wars coordinated by IM, snowballing the votes, etc. Not one single side is guilty of this and neither people nor their behavior is going to change. What needs to change is the way this is handled. If an efficient way of conflict resoltuion is designed that would make block-shopping not an option in the content DR, that would make attacking/pushing the sources based on their POV rather than reliability impossible, then we may achieve some progress.

4. I join you in my dismay at the rather limited (or even nonexistent) positive role that Arbcom is taking in this situation. They contributed very little, and the rulings under consideration are rather meaningless general pronouncements which display no understanding of what is really going on here (I think we all agree on this at this point). It almost makes me wonder whether this whole issue could not just be resolved among the editors involved. Since Arbcom seems incompetent here, maybe that is the only hope left. Balcer 09:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See my original statement I made before the case was even accepted. --Irpen 04:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Proposing a novel solution that may actually work"

Hi Irpen. Welcome back. I am very glad to see you participating again. I have read with interest your remarks here, and have responded with some questions here. I'd be interested in your response. Anything idea that might help ameliorate the situation should be vigorously pursued. Regards, Paul August ☎ 19:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Paul. I will post a response without delay. Thanks again, --Irpen 19:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Irpen's Day!

Irpen has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Irpen's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Irpen!

Love,
Phaedriel
00:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

Ehm. Thanks, but why? And have we met? I hope I did do something well to get your attention. Best regards and lots of Wikilove from me as well. --Irpen 03:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we need a reason to tell a great editor, and an wonderful person how greatly appreciated his work is, or how much we look up to him? I certainly don't, dear Irpen - and that's why, my humble gift is my way of telling you, you are all those things - even tho we haven't met directly until now. For this, you deserve the modest token of my admiration, and I hope you enjoyed your well deserved day. Have a wonderful day, dear Irpen! :) Love, Phaedriel - 23:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sharon. I am afraid I am not the best model to "look up to", at least I would recommend others to look elsewhere for the model behavior. But I appreciate your award and will try to live up to it. Best regards, --Irpen 00:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversy" of having trade relations with Nazis

Whatever hypocritical and deplorable the practice to trade with non-human regimes is, in the cynical business of international politics everyone was (and still is) doing this. As every single major country continued to trade with Nazis supplying them with fossil fuels, ore and high-tech (IBM controversy comes to mind), there is nothing notable in Soviet doing what the rest did to single them out. Let's stick to facts that say:

Soviets did trade with Nazis
Soviets support of anti-fascist movement in Spain was their state policy
Soviets were the only major power to oppose the disgraceful Munich deal and offered to intervene militarily.

These are facts. Whether this constitutes the "controversy", should be left to the reader. As for finding some ref whose author says something and including it into the Encyclopedia, we can go far with such approach. As far as interpretations, not facts go, many personal opinions may be "referenced". Please, let's stick to facts. --Irpen 20:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Soviets signed alliance with the Nazis (Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact). Yes, for most 1930s Soviets were notable opponent of the Nazi regime, but then for nearly 3 years they were their best allies. Those are the facts. There is also the Soviet-German cooperation article. Of course, you are right that many countries traded with the Nazis - but in the period 39-41, Soviet trade was an important lifeline of the Nazi regime.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please distinguish trade and aid. Any trade was an important lifeline of the Nazi regime. So, there is nothing specific about the Soviet trade. Besides, check the dictionary for the difference between trade (exchange of goods) and "aid". Your following my edits into this article which have not received any of your attention for a year and a half is amusing. Now I wonder how dared you accuse others of stalking you. But do as you please. There is nothing new in that. --Irpen 21:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the threads above. I am expecting an apology.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 22:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen - WP:Civil - I'm not saying you're wrong or right - I'm just saying that comments like this - "But do as you please. There is nothing new in that." - aren't necessary and do nothing to help your cause.--daniel folsom 03:04, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danielsfom, I am more interested in your opinion in the content dispute than in the policy quotes. I am familiar with policies. Piotrus sudden appearance among the article's editors after a 1.5 year break but immediately following my edit is not illegitimate even if he followed my contributions. However, he frequently invokes accusations of stalking and in view of that, this is a rather weird development. Anyway, here is the question. Following the 1939 MR-pact, the Soviets did have the diplomatic and trade relations with Nazi DE while the UK and France were at the state of war with Nazis, initially a phony war but still. But trading is not the same as giving an economic aid. I hope you realize the difference. SU was not alone in trading with Nazis. Many European countries continued the economic relations and so did the US. Does not qualify to call this "aid". Let's make this article piece sensible. --Irpen 04:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in the content dispute - I'm not involved enough in the article to comment on that - what I am interested in is assuring that policies are followed on talk pages. --daniel folsom 04:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you are not interested in content of this article. If all you take interest is that Wikipedia policies are followed, please consider that citing them to experienced editors does not help in encouraging the civility climate. But lets carry the policy discussions at the appropriate pages and discuss the article here. Coming back to the article, can anyone explain how come the trade of goods for money or other goods qualifies to be called "aid" in this particular article? --Irpen 04:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(for the record - I did cite it - WP:CIVIL)--daniel folsom 11:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not helping. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the article and take other issues elsewhere. Thanks, --Irpen 16:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to discuss content when one side is being uncivil, Irpen. It's as simple as that.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 16:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will not feed this thread anymore per WP:TLW. Please continue it elsewhere. Now, back to the topic and for the umpteenth time, can anyone point out how the trade relations (not uncommon even with the most despotic regime in the cynical business of international politics) turned into the "economic aid" in this article? Is there any evidence that the Soviets gave the goodies to the Nazis for free. Neither they were alone in trading with Nazis. Please stay on topic, ladies and gentlemen. --Irpen 17:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen - I'm trying to explain to you that regardless of who I think it's right, comments like "But do as you please. There is nothing new in that." create a hostile atmosphere. I am merely reminding you to remain WP:Civil, and frankly your response (which should have been either defending that statement or admitting wrongdoing) of "I don't want to talk about this" doesn't work. You're the only one creating an uncivil atmosphere - and your doing it on this page, so regardless of what you would like, if you repeate then I'll continue to remind you. Now I think you're a fine editor, and god knows I've made many uncivil mistakes, but let's just try and keep it clean for now - and if either of you have to be told to be civil, don't start freaking out.--daniel folsom 19:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your complements. However, please understand that your continued lecturing editors about policies at the article's talk pages contributes to the hostile atmosphere a great deal. I am not here to tell you what to do. I am here to develop articles. If you want to tell me what to do, do it elsewhere or better yet, reconsider. I would appreciate if the further discussion will concentrate on the article's content. In the last few hours Piotrus and myself made several edits that improved it and we are better off spending time continuing this work. I would welcome your joining us in this quest to make this article compliant with new more rigorous FA standards. I hope you will reconsider you stated lack of interest to its content. Moreover, I suggest to remove this discussion of policies and behavior from this page as it adds nothing to article's improvement. Unless Piotrus or yourself object, I will remove it. There are several pages already where Piotrus and myself hammer out our global disagreements. This isn't one of them and, frankly, one more isn't needed. But if you think it is important to preserve this important discussion, feel free to move it to my talk. Now, pretty please, help develop the article. If you need references, I would be happy to recommend you some. --Irpen 20:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be lecturing you - and frankly you're the first one I told to be civil in a while - usually I do contribute to talk pages and mainspace articles, I'm just saying that (especially since there's a Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Piotrus arbitration case going on with you guys - you just need to remember to keep cool heads. Irpen - all I'm saying is that you made an uncivil comment - again I think your a great editor, it's just everyone lapses now and then. It was just a reminder, as I expect given that said case tensions are already high between you and Piotrus. It was not meant to be derogatory, and I'm sorry you understood it to be that, but simply put, I saw a comment that was uncivil, and I said try to not make these comments -there's really nothing more to it. I hope this incident has no bearing on any future interactions between us, and who knows, maybe if you're on an article I'm more active in we'll be able to work together.--daniel folsom 20:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way - if you want to say I haven't added references- why don't you look at my contributions - when spotlight started on this article there were 3 citations, we added 130 - myself adding at least 20 of those - so try to avoid making assumptions. And yeah, I'm fine removing this, however the comment still stands to both of you - especially after that comment - remain civil--daniel folsom 20:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, first of all the whole point was to remind you and Piotrus (both) to remain civil - and Piotrus was also getting upset by some of your comments (as proved by an email he sent me which gave me the link to the arb case). I don't mean it to be derogatory, I just meant it as a reminder - however you took that reminder and stated that experienced editors shouldn't be told when they're not being civil, and then saying that I only edit to make sure people follow policies on talk pages - both of which are completely untrue and the latter of which is completely out of line.--daniel folsom 20:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel, I want to minimize the number of pages where Piotrus and myself develop our WikiLove relationship. But since you persist, I will respond to you. First, I am upset to see from your response that my opponent keeps using the untraceable channels to get others involved in this all. That he prefers to talk behind other people backs where they cannot respond adds the hostile atmosphere a great deal. I hoped that after recent exposures at the Workshop he was going to curtail such behavior. I am only saddened to see that I was mistaken. I would have preferred, actually, to not know even that this practice goes on. I would have been more comfortable living under the illusion that some things have changed for greater transparency and candor.

Now, if you insist that I "either defend my statement or admit wrongdoing" I can elaborate on what prompted this new development. Since Piotrus continues off-line communications, chances are that I will have to explain anyway. I have no way to know who and what he is writing next. That he maintained for months an off-wiki dump to collect diffs to present against me at the opportune moment has convinced me that his off-line activity can take many unexpected routes.

So, let's split the subjects. If you insist that I "defend or admit" I can elaborate on that. If you disagree that your involvement contributed to deepening the rift rather than healing it, I can elaborate on that. If you think it is all right to work off-line on the issues where no privacy is needed (or even hurts the climate of trust even further), I can elaborate on that either. Finally, please note that in the middle of this all conflict Piotrus and myself expanded the article and whoever of us made a first mistake in this recent incident (his purported stalking or not/my purported incivility or warranted tone/purportedly unwarranted (or warranted) lecturing editors at the article's talk), the article got developed and this is a good thing.

Piotrus is a valuable contributor, I never said otherwise, and the article is getting developed in recent hours by both of us despite your good-faith and well-meaning intervention that, unfortunately, was not helpful. I also have no beef with you and whatever you choose, I will try to be as helpful as possible in addressing your concerns. If you choose to let this stop here, fine with me either way. --Irpen 21:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English translation of the Valuyev Circular

Hiya. I stumbled through translating the Valuyev Circular into English, at s:Valuyev Circular. If you have a bit of time, please proof-read it and improve the translation. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2007-08-10 14:20 Z

Will do. --Irpen 19:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Image:Russian Empire Map 1912.jpg

Found a nice map. I linked it to a few places, but you might think of more uses for it. It is quite detailed (11 MB). Balcer

Thanks. Useful indeed. It can be also cropped for regions article. A wonderful map. --Irpen 07:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus

The above case is closed. A general amnesty for editors involved in Eastern Europe-related articles is extended, with the expectation that further editing will adhere to Wikipedia's policies. Future behavior problems may be addressed by the Arbitration Committee on the motion of any Arbitrator or upon acceptance of a request for inquiry by any user who edits in this area. For the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 19:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ArbComBot 00:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dino award time

**Tightrope Trophy** for well-balanced editor **Irpen**.

Bishzilla award little Irpen prestigious Tightrope Trophy created by puny 'shonen for SlimVirgin. Image represent amazing Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across Niagara Falls. bishzilla _ROARR!! 23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hryhoriy Chorny

Since you are interested in that period, could you stub this red link? Thank you.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 17:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Do you think you can also do Timofiy Orendarenko? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 14:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kiev dnipro.jpg

I don't think there is a need to keep that local copy; it's a free licence picture - it will never be deleted from Commons.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 02:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for such an attention to my edits. It always amuses and puzzles me what's so interesting you find in my person that whenever I go, no matter how little this is related to Poland, I find you commenting on that. Was it a Chorny article that I left unannounced for the day (but still found you there on the next day) or this image request which has nothing to do with Poland whatsoever. But since you are interested, I will respond to this as well.

Commons is a separate project from en-wiki. I neither mind nor have any means to prevent commons from getting copies of the en-wiki's images it wants for itself. Mine or others' images are free to redistribute. However, I am not convinced in Commons' safety and, further, I do not want to have anything to do with it. Images that interest me or the ones that I made or uploaded are not "mine". They belong to anyone who uses them in compliance with a free license that includes copying them to commons. All I ask is that for their safety the local copies iarekept. We cannot be sure what quirks will come next in commons. The ANI discussion ended with the conclusion that there is never a need to require the deletion of the local copy in Wikipedias. --Irpen 03:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Among the principles passed was At wit's end which states that necessary measures must be adopted by the Arbitration Committee in cases where repeated attempts to stop disruptive disputes have failed. As a result of the case, both Digwuren and Petri Krohn are banned for one year. There has also been a general restriction to all editors working on topis related to Eastern Europe and a warning to all those who may, in the future, attempt to use Wikipedia as a battleground that they may be banned when the matter is reported to the Committee. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		For Irreproachable Services - 3rd degree
		You are hereby awarded this Ukrainian National Award "For Irreproachable Services - 3rd" for extensive coverage of the Ukrainian parliamentary election, 2007, for Taras Fedorovych, and for writing a "fair use" rational when one is needed.--Riurik^(discuss) 04:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truly, thanks for all your work.--Riurik^(discuss) 04:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ukraine irreproachable sevice thirdc ribbon.png is your image you wanted. I notice a spelling error, but I cannot fix it now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

S.H. sources

Maybe this [12], [13],[14],[15] would be any of use to you in future if you decide to work on this article seriously. Personally I find this article FUBARed beyond belief. Also this could serve as good start for an artile about great historian [16]. Good luck. Cheers. M0RD00R 21:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

83 IP

Please show me evidence that that anon is a banned user, and I will apologize to MK and ban the IP myself. Otherwise I tend to WP:AGF and the anon seems to have a perfectly reasonable point to make.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 20:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anon was harassing MK. MK's response was clear when he removed anon's message.[17] Anon restored it [18] thus demonstrating that aggravating MK was indeed his goal. I removed that repeated post as it was obviously harassment. [19] Your intrusion could only aggravate the situation as it did per MK's own message at your talk. Your assistance to the anon harassing MK was unhelpful. --Irpen 20:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The uses and limitations of private information

Durova's answer to your question leaves me puzzled a bit.

Why does one "specialize" in difficult disputes, when one hasn't the real ability to do anything about it (i.e. not on ArbCom)? If one is specializing in mediating disputed areas, then that's all very well, but, if that's so, then keeping all things private renders some of that judgment moot.
If one is receiving multiple private confidences, one is tremendously limited in acting upon such confidence. Since all things on site require on-site rationalization, and all on-site judgments require transparency, gathering up many elements from private sources would only, in a way, hamper or paralyze one's ability to effectively mediate or judge, and it bodes ill for the future on ArbCom.

You know that I dislike back channel and off-site communications, at least where such things will not be or cannot be ported directly onto Wikipedia. I e-mail, of course, and I use chat, but I know that none of that is meaningful in regard to Wikipedia without every last bit being rationalized or repeated here. Then again, I avoid personality-based disputes as much as is possible. Geogre 19:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George, thanks for sharing my concerns. I am also somewhat puzzled by an answer but I did not press for more at the Q&A page as this might have been interpreted as hostile questioning while I have no hostility toward Durova at all even though I disagreed with her on several issues. But your questions are best answered by Durova, not by me. I will ask her to comment if she wishes. --Irpen 21:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Cossacks

I came to ask another question, but I saw this discussion. Discouraging when it's clearly not just a one-off. Earlier today I ran into Jewish Cossacks which in fact is not an article about Jewish Cossacks, but a monograph arguing that they existed. There is zero content. And even the argument is mostly just a copright vio... And what got me started? This edit, which linked to what I will charitably call an 'extreme' site. Should I just delete or nominate fD the bad stuff? It's not long-term behavioral? Jd2718 03:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't question the JCossacks article. First- arguing for existence of the entity is necessary because it was hushed for many years by the culture that made a point to paint Jews as cowardly, effeminate etc. I minimized the solicitous tone the best I could. Secondly- we have well documented scholarly sources that are simply inaccessible now and partially lost (Borovoy diss.), but any serious scholar of Ukrainian and Jewish affairs pre 1700 knows this material. The content is not zero, however small it seems. We could embellish it more, but that would be OR, simply because Borovoj is not available on JStore or the like..Galassi 01:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Novorossiya

In English the established name for the southern regions of Ukraine is Novorossia/Novorossiya, not New Russia. Similarly, Novomoskovsk, not New Moscow, or Novosibirsk, not New Siberia. Greggerr (talk) 02:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long time, no see. All right. Let's use this fabulous source. It has many more pretty tables. See you at the article's talk. --Irpen 03:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lviv 1939 Soviet Cavalry.jpg listed for deletion

(I'm forwarding the notice to you as the original uploader.)

An image or media file that you originally uploaded to en.wp, Image:Lviv 1939 Soviet Cavalry.jpg, subsequently moved to Commons, commons:Image:Lviv 1939 Soviet Cavalry.jpg, (with a modified no watermark version, commons:Image:Lviv 1939 Soviet Cavalry - no watermark.jpg,) has been listed at commons:Commons:Deletion requests. Please see the discussion to see why this is, if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. KTC (talk) 00:39, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, KTC. I recognize the style of the nominator. It is not my intention to have anything in common with Commons. The image is PD and if it is deleted there, I will reapload it here and will provide the license and rationale. Sorry to sound like a dick, but I really have reasons to mistrust the reliability of the commons solution to the Wikipedia imaging. --Irpen 00:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, I don't see the photo to be appropriate for Ukraine article. It needs to be understood that there are different views on the Red Army intervention to Lviv in 1939. According to Lviv people, Polish rule was changed to Soviet dictatorship. One tyranny instead of the other. Do you think it's acceptable to put into Ukraine article a photo of German parade in Kiev? Greggerr (talk) 08:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with a photo being appropriate for an article, the right way to resolve it is to discuss the propriety of the photo for the particular article rather than look for a way to eliminate the photo completely from Wikipedia. If you were so sure that the picture is inappropriate, you would have expected other editors to agree with you and would not need to act through a workaround. I have seen similar tricks earlier. Either way, if you want to discuss whether the picture belong to the article, use the article's talk for that. --Irpen 08:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the license were incorrect, it would automatically resolve the issue. Most people find that arguing is not fun, and you reverted it once so it was going that way. Greggerr (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my revert in the summary. You did not respond but instead nominated the PD image for deletion. Good luck with it. --Irpen 09:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 14 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ukrainian wreath, 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 (talk) 12:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher 00:43, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bezhin Meadow

Hi Irpen! I started building this article on Bezhin Meadow out, and want to get it to FA status. I was wondering, as I don't speak a bit of Russian beyond saying da or nyet (probably wrong, at that) if you would mind doing a Russian translation of the title for the lead? If you're game as well, and know of any good Russian sources I could track down and possibly use for this, I would appreciate it. If not, no problem!. I started a stockpile of sources to go through here, but have a long ways to go yet. Thanks! Lawrence Cohen 17:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Releasing IP addresses of registered users: the Video Professor incident

You commented on this issue at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 31#Wikipedia surrendering users' info without a fight. It was stated there that it was not an appropriate discussion forum for the topic of how hard the Foundation should and did fight to prevent revealing the IP addresses of registered users to parties who had been criticized in a Wikipedia article and who subpoenaed the user information. I have started a discussion at the Village Pump policy page at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)# Releasing IP addresses of registered users: the Video Professor incident. Your comments are welcome. Thanks. Edison (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/IRC

This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you were missed

Your editing was greatly missed while you were gone. Ostap 04:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ostap. I am also pleased to see you again. Together, we will continue to make WP a better source of knowledge. Cheers, --Irpen 04:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Brest last days smirnov.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Brest last days smirnov.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your #admins query

I asked FT2 to follow up with you about your concerns. He has access to the logs and played a large role in establishing the new guidelines for the channel. I'll follow up with both of you to see if your concerns are addressed. Take care, FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

template for deletion

I've sent {{irrel}} to tfd at this location. Best regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		I, Miyokan, hereby award you this Barnstar of Diligence for your extraordinary scrutiny, precision and community service in maintaining strict standards of quality and accuracy in wikipedia articles. Please keep up your very important work Miyokan (talk) 08:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus/TigerShark/ZScout incident on AN

I only noticed this by chance. If something like this happens again will you let me know? (This is regardless of who was actually right or wrong, of course.) Meantime having a look into it, and catching up. Whatever went on, whoever did what, it's worth it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. link. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		Ukrainian National Award ‘The Order of Bohdan Khmelnytsky - 3rd degree’
		I hereby awarded you the Ukrainian National Award ‘The Order of Bohdan Khmelnytsky - 3rd degree’ for your enthusiasm and dedication to Ukrainian topics and helping others Wikipidians! - Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks! You beat me as I was about to give you an award later today, which will now have to wait :). Wow, I now amazingly have two orders of B. Kh. from different states. This reminds me to update my userpage. Thanks again, Mariah-Yulia! --Irpen 23:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome, remind me not to give this award to Taras Shevchenko :). BTW isn't there a Taras Shevchenko-award? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There exists a Taras Shevchenko State Award which is usually awarded for the achievements in the field of arts. There were several controversies about the choice of laureates [20] [21] but that is not unusual. Even Hero of Ukraine awarding were controversial, both under the previous and the current president. --Irpen 23:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trans. request

Sorry to bug thee Irpen. If you have any time, could you translate this interview, and maybe put it in thy userpace? It might be useful for non-Russian speakers on wiki to be able to read that sort of thing. It's especially interesting as it's by a renowned Ukrainian medievalist, and will prolly be useful again and again. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I posted a brief response to the article's talk and will let you know when I am done translating. It is a good article indeed by a renowned scientist in the field. --Irpen 05:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have to end like that?

Irpen, I still remember the days we co-edited peacefully.

Please, consider: I do not follow your edits; I do not criticize articles you have written for bias based on your ethnicity or such; I do not come out of blue to start threads about you on public forums even if you blip on my watchlist here and there; I do not criticize you on public forums for things you have done now or years ago; I do not demand a review of your behavior; I do not not criticize past ArbCom or other rulings that failed to fulfill all my expectations with regard to your person. And so on. Yet increasingly you are doing all of those things to me.

Please, Irpen, stop this. I find no pleasure in our disputes, and I don't want to spend a single second collecting diffs with regards to them. Cannot we just agree not to talk about one another? Cannot you just refrain from voicing your opinion on "what Piotrus does"? If you wish, we could try a mediation, perhaps with User:Durova (I found her attempt to mediate between me and Ghirla a year ago rather helpful).

I hope we will be able to bury this proverbial hatchet and stop confronting one another in that way before we end up in ArbCom (again - do we need to go through this ordeal again?). I hope we are wise enough to avoid it.

Please, pretty please, consider my words. I have not commented under your latest analysis in AE, even through I could've pointed out the ArbCom rulings and such we all know too well. I have no desire to criticize you and blacken your name, please do not do so to me. Please consider this a gesture of my good will, and if so, please consider removing your post there (the issue does not concern you at all, after all) and please, consider not commenting on me in the future (and I will do my best to not comment on you, and to fulfill any other reasonable requests you may have in the future).

Please think back to 2 or 3 years ago when we were on more peaceful terms and whether we cannot act like the bad blood between us from was never there. Thanks, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, this is a serious message and deserve nothing but a very serious response from me. I divided it into paragraphs (I hope you don't mind) and will give you a detailed reply within two days. --Irpen 09:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irpen, I understand how you feel. After I complained about his co-editing with Molobo (talk · contribs), he (Piotrus (talk · contribs)) accused me of devoting my activities to "whitewashing nazi crimes"[22], pretty much the closest you can come to calling someone a nazi without actually saying so out loud. Naturally he provided nothing to back up his slander with. I replied to this attempt at character assasination[23], not that it is of much use.--Stor stark7 ^Talk 14:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

#admins channel

Hi :-) After reading your comment about #admins, yesterday I started a discussion in #admin-chan-ops about some of the issues you raised. Though no specific action was made in response to the discussion, the exchange of information was good and I now think that there is better awareness of some of your concerns. I plan to do it again some time next week. Take care, FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holodomor genocide question deletion?

Should said article be listed for deletion? It's a POV fork and the article is just one massive violation of WP:SYNTH, a POV pushing article created by a notorious user under the blatant POV pushing title of “Holodomor genocide denial”. The Holodomor article already discusses the genocide question so what little legitimacy this article has is covered there.--Miyokan (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Histography

Edits such as this have made me take an interest in the subject of the reliability of Polish communist era historians, and those later historians who rely on their works. I'm more and more leaning towards the stance that only English language sources should be allowed in English wiki, both for the sake of verifiability and for slightly more hope of neutrality. I stumbled upon this, a Polish overview of Recent Polish Historiography on Polish-Ukrainian Relations during World War II and its Aftermath. I would naturally have preferred a review from a neutral source, but perhaps it is better than nothing? cheers --Stor stark7 ^Talk 19:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stor stark7, you have the problems with Polish communist era historians, while I have to deal with this as reliable source (!). M.K. (talk) 10:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 18:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove legitimate warnings

There was nothing wrong with the warning Coren gave to Giano. Please stop the disruptive removal of other people's comments. There is nothing in policy that allows for that and continuing to do will be will seen as even more disruptive. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings such this and yours are unhelpful and, as experienced shown, achieve exactly the opposite result. They are removed for a very good reason. Disruptive was their placement wrapped up in their tone. --Irpen 22:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cossacks

Remember our old consensus here here well it seems some people have no respect for it, drop a thought at the talk page if you are up to it. --Kuban Cossack 23:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solving problems

Irpen, I see you referenced my note on Giano's talk page asking him to explain his further incivility. The ANI thread was on previous incivility, the problematic block that resulted, and the problematic unblock that followed. My comment was on a different topic, namely comments that Giano made in that thread. The IRC may be a mess but that doesn't give any user the right to make personal attacks on Wikipedia. I endorse any measure that can cleanup the IRC, and I also support efforts to keep Wikipedia a civil and collegial place to write an encyclopedia. Giano made no attempt to defend his comments, and he's right that there is no defense. (Just as there's no defense for some of the things that get said on IRC.) The fact that Giano is already on probation for previous incivility makes it a special problem and he should make special efforts to avoid future incivility. I hope that everyone here will help him in that effort rather than encouraging further incivility. (I posted this in reponse to your thread "A very plausible explanation that I can't escape" on Giano's page - which I then noticed had already been archived, so I'm posting it here instead.) ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed comment

Hello, since I know you will ask me... I have removed your comment because it was a personal attack. The user replied discussing whether or not Google or Britannica is a reliable indication on more popular phrase. You, on the other hand, attacked the character of the user based on one word that he used in his reply. You did not provide any constructive criticisms or intelligent facts that could be worked on or discussed. Please do not assume bad faith or accuse others of posting misleading comments. Thanks and I hope you understand. Renata (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done the same thing for the comment below from Vecrumba. Renata (talk)

If interested, I have responded to yours (Irpen's) on mine. —PētersV (talk) 14:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor note

I saw that you referred to #admins in Wisdon98's RfA. I assume you already know this, but the actual name is #wikipedia-en-admins and using the shorthand may confuse non-IRC users. I'm not sure how well known it is that #admins=#wikipedia-en-admins. John Reaves 02:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure the candidate knows exactly what I mean as well as any user who has any awareness of the context. --Irpen 02:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point, your asking if he knows of the context in which you are using the shortcut. Not a big deal though as it's easy enough to figure out. John Reaves 02:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions

Hey Irpen, thanks for your comment at my RfA. I have answered your questions. I appreciate you expressing your opinion in a detailed and very nuanced manner. I like that, it shows genuine interest. If you have any other questions, or if you wish for me to expand on those that I have already answered, feel free to drop me line. Cheers mate. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Sure, glad to help. Will keep an eye on Ghirla's talk. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Apologies

I've responded on the page, but really no hard feelings and no apologies necessary. Just as your post was not aimed at individuals but came across that way, mine did as well. I completely empathize with your side of the fence regarding the behavior on the admin channel. Both sides end up indicting each other instead of seeing that there are a few select parties on both sides responsible for the drama. Keep up your good work. Keegan^talk 06:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN thread

I would be interested in your thoughts here: WP:AN#Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. --El on ka 10:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your comment that Kwsn has in fact returned. I greatly appreciate hearing it.

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being sarcastic a little? I know you and I disagree hugely on this. I simply don't have that kind of time to post what I long since plan to but I will at some point and asap. But I would appreciate if you heed to so many requests and try to see how your posts at your page on Giano look from aside. You don't mean them offensive but they are and hugely. This can drive a person nuts much more than "incivility" or a "personal attack". Blank this stuff for two hours, think about it and, if you feel like restoring, do so after that. Just an advise. More later (as I always promise :( ). --Irpen 22:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c - I came back to add, "I've replied here to prevent AE getting more words added though.")

No, I don't really do sarcasm. Life's too short, as they say. I meant it for real. Reading your comment, as/when AE closes and I'm next around, I'm fine considering it closed too, and either blanking or replacing with a plain link to a section in an archive, if it helps. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B&E maps

Hi! I think it's not a good idea to upload a map of such a quality that it is impossible to discern most of what is written there. I've just uploaded much better version. Alæxis_¿question? 10:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PD-RusEmpire

Irpen, please see {{PD-RusEmpire}} which I just copied over here from the Commons...hopefully this helps with tagging of older Russian images. I also modified {{PD-Russia}} to include this as an alternative. Kelly ^hi! 17:54, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coren's BAG membership request

Note that I did support Coren's RfBAG, so I may have a slight bias on this issue.

If you haven't already seen the comments to your oppose on Wikipedia:Requests for BAG membership/Coren, you might wish to take a quick look. You mentioned Coren's edit of a protected policy page; it may be worth noting that it appears as if the protection happened during Coren's edit ([24]). It looks like his edit was submitted about 45 seconds after the page was protected, making it likely that this was the case. When an administrator is in the process of editing a page, and the page is protected, they're not warned that the page has since been protected, and thus Coren likely wouldn't have known about the protection when he made his edit. Ral315 (talk) 16:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be so. However, he did not self-revert once he found out, did he?

On a separate account, this outright bating of Giano bothers me from that person, especially in view that he is an aspiring arbcom clerk. That may have little to do with BAGging but giving so many fiasco's coming from several of our botadmins I am uncomfortable already. Why should people wear so many hats? Why not write pages instead? I did not bring up the second argument to the voting page for the reason above and I would not have voted based in that alone. But I don't like his attitude and whatever "position" one attains in Wikipedia, displaying of such attitude may hurt. --Irpen 17:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template

What do you think about adding this to articles? If this template can be used, can you add or take out things as necessary? Thanks, Ostap 06:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds line a good idea. First thought. What is Hetmanate doing there? Also, several fork articles listed. We really need to sort that out but for now, I guess they should all me there. --Irpen 06:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christ is Risen!

Ah, that one moment of the year when Russians and Romanians, Ukrainians and "Moldovans", Greeks and "Macedonians", Serbs and Bulgarians lay aside their petty squabbles, awed by Christ's victory over death! All the best in this glorious season of Pascha, and may its warm light enrich your days. Biruitorul (talk) 02:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter to you and yours, Irpen. Risker (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Da, ura. Христосъ Воскресе!--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eastereggs.jpg

Thank you all!!! --Irpen 02:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image sourcing and PD images

Started this thread, which may be of interest, as it involves image sourcing and PD images. Wasn't Easter several weeks ago? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 02:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to make me blaspheme here :)(and let me know if you need a serious answer.)

Thanks for the thread. This "sources" stuff is a ticking bomb. Sites go down every day. By this logic, Betabot should scan the WWW every day and place deletion tags on Leonardo's paintings and such. What a joke! --Irpen 03:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banach origins controversy

Banach was born and spent his childhood in the area populated by Rusyns and Ukrainians. In fact, his last name and the last name of his mother is a very common name among both Rusyns and Ukrainians who lived in this area for millennia.

Banach survived the Nazi occupation of Poland during the Second World war, as well as the cruel interwar regime of the dictator-ruled Poland. Under Pilsudski dictatorship, civilian freedoms were curtailed and minorities of Poland (Ukrainians, Rusyns, Germans and Jews) were oppressed and discriminated against. Many colleagues of Banach, being Jewish, suffered from anti-Semitic discrimination and were denied any chance of gainful employment in Poland ruled by the dictator Pilsudski and his cronies. Other members of minority groups, like Banach, were forced to downplay their ethnic origins and "look Polish".

The modern day resurgence of nationalism and anti-Semitism in Poland led to a controversy surrounding the coverage of the ethnic origins of Banach and other Rusyn and Ukrainian mathematicians in the literature. Decades ago, even Encyclopedia Britannica use to describe Banach as a "Soviet mathematician". Modern-day Polish chauvinists continue the Soviet and Nazi traditions of shameless lies, trying to claim Banach as a "Polish mathematician". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.14.5 (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

I have ported over the first section of the WG "Dealing with disputes" page, here to the EN wiki, at Wikipedia:New admin school/Dispute resolution. If you have a chance, could you please take a look before I make it more public? Thanks, --El on ka 16:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring

See this ANI thread about the edit warring at User:Videmus Omnia. Please stop edit warring and discuss there. I've sent this notice to everyone editing that page. Carcharoth (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiev Governorate

Thanks; I'm not going to usurp it for long, though (I'm almost done, as a matter of fact). As for the pre-reform spelling, I'll add it to the modern one. Not sure how to handle this properly, so feel free to play around with order/formatting, etc. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! Go, usurp it by all means. It needs so much work! But I will try my best to make it as complete as possible. As for the pre-reform spelling, I have neither an opinion nor a view on its usage. --Irpen 19:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've added what I could; for now anyway. By the way, I left you a comment in the body of the text, because I was not able to track where the statement about "four districts" came from. All yours now! :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what Fundukley says, verbatim (in modern spelling): "Второю эпохою в образовании Киевской Губернии было учреждение трёх Малороссийских Губерний или Наместничеств, по Указу Екатерины II, 1784 г. Сентября 16. В исполнение этого Указа, 1782 года 9 Января открыто Киевское Наместничество, составленное из 11 уездов: Киевского, и по ту сторону Днепра — Остёрского, Козелецкого, Переяславского, Пирятинского, Лубенского, Миргородского, Хорольского, Голтвянского, Городиского или Городищенского и Золотоношского. Тогда в этом краю введены были новый порядок и новые формы управления, по учреждению о губерниях, начертанному Императрицею в 1775 году."

Judging that this description is not overly specific, I could imagine the sources you used may be correct as well, although I was hesitant to leave them in the text due to the fact they did not come from particularly reliable sources and could easily be mis-interpretations of the original source (which we are yet to identify). Fundukley at least specifically names eleven uyezds. In any case, I'll keep looking and will let you know if I find anything more definite. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Aleena's RfA

Irpen...Thank you for participating in my nomination for adminship. Your comments have shown me those areas in which I need improve my understanding. I hope that my future endevors on Wikipedia will lead to an even greater understanding of it. If you wish to further discuss the nomination, please use its talk page. Stop by my talk page anytime, even if it is just to say hello. Have a wonderful day! - LA @ 04:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 30 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kiev Governorate, 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.

--Gatoclass (talk) 11:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for the picture

Looking for something to give you back, I found this: [25] This is so "Utomlënnoe Solntse" (the film) that it reminded me immediately of Pyotr Leshchenko (the music). It is not among the pictures shown at Konstantin Korovin, but I did not dare upload it, because of the copyright concerns. "Luckily", he died in 1939, so pretty soon the copyright situation on this one will no longer be ambiguous. All the best. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some name changed

Nusche? This is a German rendering of a town somewhere in the Brody area.

What was the Soviet time name for Horokhiv?

What is the current name for Druzhkopil (Zhuravnyky)? What was it in 1944?

Can you help?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mrg, pls give me a day or two to figure this all out. --Irpen 00:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here are some answers.

Druzhkopil's modern name seems to be Zhuravnyky.[26][27] In English WW2 books (as well as at times of the Ru-Empire), it was referred to as Druzhkopol' (see Glantz[28]), the name that you can find even in Brochkaus.[29]
- Zhuravnyky is now in Horohivsky Raion (see uk:Горохівський район) but some sources mention it may have been in the now non-existing raion of Berestechko. Either it is a mistake or Berestechko used to be a raion center before. Would need to check, if this is important.
Horokhiv, or, if transliterated from Russian Gorohov does not seem to ever have changed names. Glantz uses "Gorokhuv"[30] Obviously Horokhiv and Gorokhov are not different names but one and the same name of the same place transliterated from different languages. The choice for Wikipedia should be defined by context. B&E also have an article on it: [31]
Still no idea about Nusche. Tried various spelling and came up with nothing. --Irpen 00:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for that. I just wanted to verify with you. I will also keep looking. It concerns the articles that have to do with combat in that area during 1941 (Brody) and in 1944. I was now able to find Berestechko thank you

More information on Nusche, which seems to be Нуще!

Сразу был отдан приказ по радио генералам Е. Е. Белову и А. И. Акимову выдвигать корпуса на север, к новому участку ввода в прорыв — к населенным пунктам Колтов, Нуще и увязывать взаимодействие с 15-м стрелковым корпусом П. В. Тертышного и в первую очередь с 322-й стрелковой дивизией генерала П. Н. Лащенко, 60-й армией и с 3-й гвардейской танковой армией, уже начавшей выдвижение в прорыв. http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/lelyushenko_dd/06.html

And finally, it seems to be a village from

С большим трудом примерно в 2 час. ночи 17 июля удалось найти КП сначала 3-й гвардейской танковой, а затем и 60-й армий. Они расположились очень близко один к другому — в лесочке близ с. Нуще. http://militera.lib.ru/memo/russian/lelyushenko_dd/06.html

Многое теперь зависело от летчиков-штурмовиков. Командир штурмового корпуса выдвинул свой командный пункт в самое узкое место «колтувского коридора» у деревни Нуще.http://www.peoples.ru/military/hero/nikolaj_stoliarov/

This is why it was important in those battles (need to find a topo map)

From this I was able to find it from here

АВДЕЕВ Юлий Федорович. род. 1924, г. Москва. Призван в 1942. Сержант, Погиб , апрель 1944. Похоронен: дер. Нуще Зборовского района Тернопольской области. Украина.http://history.tver.ru/book/book.php?r=17&ch=1

So it seems to be on the Zborov - to Lvov road?

I'll try to find it on a satellite image or a topo map somewhere, cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Biglvov2.jpg

Hi, Irpen...I'm not pushing for the above image to be deleted, I'm just asking for some clue or shred of evidence to support the claim that the image is in the public domain. Could you please provide that, or, if that's not possible, write up some kind of justification for using the image under fair use policy? Kelly ^hi! 00:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done before seeing this message. You could have done it and save time to yourself and everyone else. See, this takes us back to the speed, purpose, individual motivation and other issues of inadequate image patrolling. --Irpen 00:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that, but it would have been better if the uploader had been persuaded to add a proper source. I suppose I could have added a rationale but I'm not really an expert on the article subject...my primary contributions are in adding free images to the Wikimedia Commons and in offering my (limited) copyright expertise. I really wish you wouldn't take copyright questions so personally - I'm not seeking deletion of content, I just want to keep our project free. So far as your speed and purpose complaint goes, what exactly was your concern? Kelly ^hi! 01:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I elaborated on that earlier at your talk as well as AN (it is now in the latest AN archive.) I really have nothing to add. Whatever is that you "seek" by tagging salvageable images the way you do, instead of trying a reasonable effort to fix them, you endanger the valid and valuable wp content since the image backlog is often dealt with at the same as yours (or even greater) speed Betacommand-style. --Irpen 01:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? I did not mark this image for deletion, only that it needed sourcing information per WP policy. Why don't you argue for a change in policy if you don't feel that PD claims need any justification? Trust me, I add more content than I ever recommend for deletion. I really think you need to read Wikipedia:Public domain, just my opinion. Kelly ^hi! 01:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did not mark PD images for deletion? enough fantastic statements I've heard. I know enough of image policies to upload thousands of images and request permissions from photographers and my images stay for years. You should know it all better than me since you make it your business to check other people qualifications by patrolling their work. That would be fine if you were not careless and resorted to silly rules lawyering. I've seen image patrollers, both good and bad, and I can tell them when I see them. --Irpen 01:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Cossacks

Irpen,

I've been trying to tag this for notability and original research (it amounts to one big, strange piece of synthesis), and started talk page discussion, but the tags are getting tag-team removed by Galassi, Bandurist, and Lute (along with some incivil remarks by Galassi, which I addressed on his talk page [32]).

Question: should I bother trying to get the tags back up? Or should I just send the mess to AfD? What would you advise? Jd2718 (talk) 18:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is rather obscure to not insist in the tag's being immediately restored. Ans-mo is IMO a good guy who can listen and the article's talk is a good place to discuss. With time, I would restore the tag. The problem with AfD's is that they are usually hijacked by ethnic cliques and even inter-ethnic blocks formed along the same lines. So, it should be the last resort. For now, I would try to make points at the talk and ask Galassi and Ans-mo to be more forgiving to editors who don't share their POV. --Irpen 18:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment

Is there anything you'd like to ask me? In text over the Internet it's easy for messages come across the wrong way, especially secondhand.[33] Durova^Charge! 19:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, I think we had enough exchanges in the past to know each other's view on many matters. If I'd like to ask you anything, I will do so in public. The "text over internet"-mode in wiki-matters that are outside checkuser, children's privacy and few other issues is an exact wrong that plagues Wikipedia, something you still fail to realize (and I said that earlier too.) It was your misconception, not the judgment error, that is ultimately responsible for the eviction of the superb content writer and the fallout it caused, while, to be fair, you are not alone in propagating this secrecy.

When we communicate (and I have no problem with that), it has always been the exact same way, through posts on-wiki with diffs clearly available to see who said what and at what time. The post-!! development of Alex Bakharev's being duped into believing of anonymous harassment of female editors fairy tale just enforced my firm belief in an advantage of onwiki conversations.

The post you refer to is a narrow comment to your post at Bishonen's page which I find an outright attack on her character, besides an outrageous attack. In addition to the message being improper and in particular that it came from you of all others I find that anyone invoking 9/11 on behalf of anyone else to be nothing but unbecoming attempts to use the national tragedy to get an advantage in whatever matter which is disrespectful of the human victims whose memory needs to be kept sacrosanct and not invoked for the stuff of convenience, either in politics or in wiki-conflicts.

But that's not all. If you read my message to the end, you will see:

It is also clear that Durova did not learn any lessons and remains all involved in sooperseekret activity still failing to realize what was really wrong with her last debacle. And what was wrong was not a mere judgment error.

I find it exceptionally ironic in view of above that your post is again about the "text over the Internet messages". Text on-wiki, Durova.

Text on-wiki

--Irpen 20:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Тот день

Victory!

File:Nrd037.jpg

Happy Victory Day! Hope this isn't inappropriate, but if I understand right this day is also to celibrate (the wikipedia page Victory Day (Eastern Europe) is vague about this). Mariah-Yulia (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A sergeant of the Red Eagles with a captured banner in Italy, May 1945. (I came to leave a message about something else, saw what you'd done, so thought I'd help.) --Relata refero (disp.) 09:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rfb participation thanks

Hello, Irpen.

I wanted to personally thank you for taking part in the project-wide discussions regarding my candidacy for bureaucratship. After bureaucratic discussion, the bureaucrats decided that there was sufficient significant and varied opposition to my candidacy, and thus no consensus to promote. Although personally disappointed, I both understand and respect their decision, especially in light of historical conservatism the project has had when selecting its bureaucrats. As you felt the need to oppose my candidacy, I would appreciate any particular thoughts or advice you may have as to what flaws in my candidacy you perceived and how you feel they may be addressed. Once again, thank you for your participation. -- Avi (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Battle of Kharkov RM

Would be interested in your input into the WP:RM on Talk:Second Battle of Kharkov.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Atrocities

Do you remember two months ago you told me "Speaking of wide-scale atrocities of Soviets in 1920s is simply anachronistic."? I think you should read this: [34]. Specifically:

"A considerable number of crimes committed by Chekists mostly in Ukrainian cities during the Red Army's advance or withdrawal in 1918-1920 are documented. One of the most horrific mass executions took place in Kyiv in 1919, when the Chekists executed no fewer than 12,000 people. It is estimated that in all the VCheKa executed more than 50,000 people. In carrying out its repressive-punitive actions, the VCheKa actively resorted to the use of hostages, a modus operandi introduced by an order issued by People's Commissar of Internal Affairs RSFSR Hryhorii Petrovsky in March 1918. There also existed a system of “respondents,” whereby individuals selected from the general population were obliged to inform the Bolshevik organs about links between the local population and those who opposed the Communists and about preparations of any kind of opposition to the regime. If the “respondents” failed to report, they were subjected to the same repressions that were meted out to hostages. In fact, terrorist actions directed against peasants and Ukrainian insurgents constituted the principal actions of the Chekists in 1920-1922 in Ukraine. "

Of course, these pictures are also quite interesting: [35].

“We shall cite a description of the feats of the commandant of the Kharkiv Cheka [Stepan] Saienko, who attained particular renown during the occupation and evacuation of Kharkiv by the Bolshe-viks in 1919. Hundreds of people were handed over to that sadist and mani-ac…Saienko's favorite method: he would stick a dagger one centimeter into the body of a person being interrogated and then turn it inside the wound… Next, the same eyewitness recounts the execution of several prisoners by Sa-ienko that same evening. Drunk or dru-gged on cocaine, Saienko appeared in the cell at 9:00 p.m. accompanied by…Staff-Captain Klochkovsky, 'he ordered Psheni-chny, Ovcharenko, and Belousov to go into the courtyard, where he stripped them naked and with his friend Klochkovsky began to cut and stab them with daggers, at first striking blows at the lower part of the body and gradually rising higher and higher. After finishing the execution, Sa-ienko returned to the cell all bloodied, with the words: “You see this blood? Everyone who goes against me and the Workers-Peasant Party will get the same thing.” (S. P. Melgunov, Krasnyi terror v Rossii, 1918-1923 [Red Terror in Russia, 1918-1923], Moscow, 1990, pp.122-123).

Sure some of this takes place in 1919, but the article currently states that "The Bolsheviks introduced universal health care, education and social-security benefits, as well as the right to work and housing. Women's rights were greatly increased through new laws aimed to wipe away centuries-old inequalities" I think it is clear that is not all they introduced. Ostap 05:55, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

I left you a comment there, but I'll copy it over to here. "Irpen, my GAR comment to you was (apart from the incident that led up to it) the most stupid I have ever made onwiki. I don't want you to change your stance here; you've made some good points that I'm going to learn from, pass or fail, but I do want to very publicy apologise profoundly for what I said. It was completely unacceptable."

Thanks for your words. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Btw. I replied to your questions there. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 05:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainians of Brazil

If you have time, could you please explain on the Ukrainians of Brazil article (or this section of the talk page [36]) that not everybody born in Ukraine is Ukrainian? Particularly not Jewish victims of pogroms committed by forces nominally under the control of Petliura (the guy himself was of course not antisemitic)? Thanks...Faustian (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do as soon as I am done going over Holodomor edits made lately. --Irpen 03:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And thanks for removing my comments from the Holodomor talk section - I meant to place them on a talk page.Faustian (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

H2O's Rfa

Just so you know, your oppose was one of the two things that really put pressure on me to re-evaluate my noming him. When I read your oppose, it caused me to reconsider my actions.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I don't think you are any of those bad things. The problem here is taking the Wikipedia as anything other than the encyclopedia. Power-games, social games, just games, etc. And all this off-wiki activity. But at the same time, we sould not forget that editors are human beings and be mindful of that. Your action was simply poorly thought of. And that was on top of this being part of a larger problem (not of you but of Wikipedia). My advise to you is to take a break from the Wikipedia space, disconnect IRC and IM networks and do some content writing. It is a very satisfying experience. I would have offered help, but I am very much time-constrained now. Perhaps another time. --Irpen 04:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't do any IRC/IM, and the email I shared was the only email I sent... I tend to do 99.99% of my communications on wikipedia. But I do thank you for the tone above. I have every intention of redeeming myself. But I had to come clean with my concerns. Ultimately, I do think H2O should be an admin---and like I said in my comments, I would have supported him if somebody else did the nom. The problem is that by my standards, I shouldn't have nomed him because he didn't meet THOSE standards. I had said previously that I wouldn't nom somebody unless I truly felt that they were A) qualified B) ready and C) could pass the RfA. I didn't live to *MY* standards---which shouldn't be a knock on H2O. But again, it was your oppose and a comment on SandyGeorgia's page that got me to reassess my position.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 05:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Let's put this behind as, ultimately, this is all of little importance. What is more important now, is the balance between the project's and the candidate's well-being. I think, optimal balance is him remaining a committed but non-adminned wikipedian, not stressed out by this RfA (I don't believe he can reassess his fervent desire to get a bit.) I think his candidacy created as much drama as if he were, for example, that ex-admin running for resysopping. This is harsh for him and unfair. I also think he is going to pass. This is less than optimal for the project. But there is little we can do about it other than avoiding the unnecessary escalation of whatever drama is already there. Putting him on record on important issues is a "necessary escalation", if I may say so. So, this is why I asked questions. --Irpen 06:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

I've been an administrator for quite some time but I don't quite get what you mean by "because UE image uploaded by SPA" at Image:Littlejohndenbigh.jpg :) Please explain! You might want to use the standard WP:CSD codes to help us delete the images you tag. Thanks. enochlau (talk) 16:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a totally unencyclopedic (UE) image of some regular dude, perhaps known in RL to the account holder. It is now unusued but its only past usage was the red-linked account adding it as a main image to a penis article. I want this deleted and the apparence of its unencyclopedic intention and even a BLP concern is obvious enough to skip the discussion and vote. But I truly don't care that much. Act as you wish. --Irpen 17:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't doubting your intentions; I just wanted to know what UE and SPA mean. enochlau (talk) 18:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antares (band)

Hi Irpen and thank you for your message on my talk page ! However, I'm sorry, but I can't help you for the article on Antares :( ... I know almost nothing about this topic (although I liked two of their songs), I simply added the discography from the French article. I hope you'll find sources in order to expand this article. Good luck and sorry again ! PS: Sorry for my bad English, it's not my native language ! :) Regards, Europe22 (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate your comment

Here, thank you--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best but I am not exactly an expert. --Irpen 05:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Irpen. I wasn't looking for an expert, just an objective, impartial assessment. I have seen your record of edits and other participation, notably on the sources Advisory Board being proposed. Cheers--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding comments

Hi Irpen, I want to start out by saying that I detest "mill" admin candidates. I've removed myself from admin coaching because I feel that the only editors that go there are editors hellbent on being admins instead of editors. I'm on your side with this. I have made it my goal, as an admin, and as a "non-content" editor (I suck at it, trust me you don't want me adding articles), to find good candidates for adminship. My goal is to find candidates that are article builders, consensus driven, and that only have the best ideas in mind, and the right attitude about, adminship. With this in mind, I have offered to Enigmaman my nomination (something I'll just as easily decline or abstain from as I don't take nominations lightly). You've complete mislabeled this editor. In this instance, the email contained nothing personal (I saw it before Scarian deleted it, and actually, I called him on it as not really needing deletion). There has been no "off wiki" coaching. No coaching at all in fact. Enigmaman is a good editor. He contributes to Wikipedia. He has done article work, vand. work, Xfd work, etc, with poise, maturity, and clue. I also oppose "mill" candidates. Enigmaman is not one of them, and has somehow, to my great surprise, been labeled incorrectly as such. It is a huge disappointment to me, as I'm sure it is to E-man, who refused nominations for months before finally accepting one. Just my rants here. Sorry to intrude on your talkpage with this. I'm simply seeing an editor being beaten up for no good reason. (and not just by you). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:50, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeper, I appreciate your post but I guess we have to disagree here. E-man is a useful editor, but judging from the oppose section of his RfA, there are important concerns why he should just stay an editor he is, doing useful work for the project, as any position that would grant him power over editors is not advisable. I went in a greater detail at the RfA (and its talk.) People refuse nominations for various reasons, like being uninterested, busy (RfA takes a huge chunk of an entire week), having a recent controversy, waiting for a "right time", etc. I only saw little of this editor and what I saw was disconcerting enough. Lack of content writing is usually a good rule of thumb even though, I admit, exceptions are possible as there are some very good non-writing admins. The key reason why the content writing is important isn't that lack of it indicates the bad (or wrong) attitude (although it might.) More importantly, non-writing admins more often than writing ones make bad decisions in addressing the issues that fall from the content disputes, the decision that affects greatly the article writers. When I said a while ago, that the main goal of admins is to create the comfortable editing environment for the editors, you won't believe the amount of ridicule this received from... non-writing admins.

That aside, two other things that concern me is lack of humility, lack of ability to admit to a mistake and the sheer amount of off-wiki activity. I elaborated on these things elsewhere and there is no need to repeat that all. If you have any further concerns, please consider bringing them up at the RfA or its talk. I don't mind talking, but my page is too much out of the view for those who may be interested in this discussion. --Irpen 03:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your civil and candid response. I will drop the issue, as you say, to agree to disagree. You make valid points and have reasoned them out and have come to a different conclusion. Happens all the time, no big deal. As an aside, (as a "non-writing" admin), I completely agree with your sentiment that creating a comfortable editing environment for "the writers" should be the main goal. It's what I try to do anyway. Sorry I missed whatever forum that was posted in. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 14:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I inquired for help as to the location of that discussion and Lar recalled it and found a link. You can find it in the bottom thread at Lar's talk. Regards, --Irpen 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that was a fascinating read. Thanks for going the extra step! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Shipbuilding

Thank you for the honorary title of "Accomplished Shipbuilder"! :-) I am very, very interested and enjoy writing about the shipbuilding in the region. So, you will see more articles created and others being expanded by me over the next few weeks. In the mean time, I appreciate your quality checking my work and especially spelling, transliteration, Cyrllic, etc. Could you check out Leninska Kuznya Shipyard which needs cyrllic :-) Perhaps a nice info table listing all Ukrainian shipbuilding yards/plants would be cool in the future.

Thanks again! chiefhuggybear (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will do what I can. DDima would be the right person to ask to create a navigational template. :I will ask him. Cheers, --Irpen 02:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! chiefhuggybear (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle on the river Nemiga

I just created this, but had trouble finding one of the personalities. Can you help?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 02:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ragneda

You changed wife to concubine in the recent Battle on the river Nemiga I created, and I'm just curious about that because the Russian had converted to Christianity by then, so what would he do with a concubine? The one source I looked at said wife--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if sources call her "wife", we've got to change it back. However, in general, concubines were taken in pos-Christianization time. See for instance Kiev Expedition (1018). This is one of the most difficult to edit articles for the reasons similar to the Home Army. You can find out why from its talk page. --Irpen 16:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent design RfC

At this RfAR, you've expressed some interest in behaviour of editors at articles related to intelligent design. As an outcome, User:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC provides a Workspace, with discussion at User talk:Gnixon/Intelligent design RfC which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. which I've started off with ideas for a basis to formulate the RfC. We also must try to resolve the dispute and as a first step my suggestion is developing guidelines or procedures aimed improving behaviour from now on, so that the desired outcomes can be achieved amicably. Your assistance and comments will be much appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 14:32, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Lviv 1939 Soviet Cavalry.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Lviv 1939 Soviet Cavalry.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. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Lupo 09:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Award

		Hero of Ukraine - Order of the State
		Pursuant to the 23 August 1998, Edict #944/98, I hereby award you the title of the Hero of Ukraine with the Order of the State (Орден Держави) for achievements in labor. These include over 10,000 article edits, over 200 uploaded images, and over 30,000 total edits. Congratulations!--Riurik^(discuss) 04:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me 1

Wołodarka

it is easy to figure percentage of speakers

Allow me too 2

Apology

amusing entry

Дуже дякую

Carpatho-Rusyn

Our discussions

PD-UA-exempt

Prometheism

Ukrainization

Davies WERS

"Quick jumping to blocks"

Allow me 3

Political reform in Ukraine

Allow me...

Language tables

History of the Soviet Union (1953-1985)

Transparency vs. Opacity

Question on Kyiv spelling

Possibly unfree Image:A Voloshyn.jpg

An uninvolved admin says....

New day, new hope

New day, new hope - 2

Ivan Chernyshyov

Trouble with Piotrus

Re:On reporting Piotrus

Translation

About the "Żyrandol" nickname

Request

Soviet invasion of Poland

ArbCom/Piotrus

Your comment

Meltyukhov

Clarification

History of Russia FAR

Disturbed

О, мой сынок, мой дорогой, Из дому ты уйдёшь.

Gone missing?

An apology

Few thoughts

Re: "Proposing a novel solution that may actually work"

Happy Irpen's Day!

Talk:History of Ru-related

"Controversy" of having trade relations with Nazis

English translation of the Valuyev Circular

Map

Dino award time

Award

S.H. sources

83 IP

The uses and limitations of private information

Jewish Cossacks

Novorossiya

Image:Lviv 1939 Soviet Cavalry.jpg listed for deletion

DYK

Bezhin Meadow

Releasing IP addresses of registered users: the Video Professor incident

you were missed

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Brest last days smirnov.jpg)

Your #admins query

template for deletion

Allow me

Piotrus/TigerShark/ZScout incident on AN

Award

Trans. request

Does it have to end like that?

#admins channel

Holodomor genocide question deletion?

Histography

RFA thanks

Please do not remove legitimate warnings

Solving problems

Removed comment

Minor note

Your questions

Images

RE:Apologies

AN thread