User talk:Irpen

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

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

Russian tsarinas

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

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

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

Alexandras

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

PBW talks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kostomarov

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kiev Offensive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allow me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wołodarka

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

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

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

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

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

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

it is easy to figure percentage of speakers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why are you lying?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia_talk:Survey_guidelines#Fixing_giant_loopholes

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

Page moves

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

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

The Chernihiv issue

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

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

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

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

Piłsudski's nationalism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PMW

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naming rules

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

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

Map names

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

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

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

Please pay attention: lies is against WP policy

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Civility#Examples.

As I pointed you out many times, the city name Chernihiv is applied by creadible English-language sources to all periods of history: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5] [6], [7].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why don't comment on the Columbia Encyclopedia?

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

The new reference I added is a publication by historians.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oleg of Chernihiv

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

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

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

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

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

It is not only nice, it is necessary.

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

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

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

Holodomor

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

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

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

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

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

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

holodomor comments

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

Polish invasion of Russia

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

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

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

Mediation process, maybe?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Józef Piłsudski's forces plundering of the Western Ukraine

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

Українська Повстанська Армія

I downloaded it from somewhere maybe two years ago. All I remember is that it was not copyrighted. Sorry. But I have some more in my collection, give me your e-mail and I'll send it over. Kasmicheskiy Pyeshyekhod aka Space Cadet 01:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I just sent some pictures your way. Let me know if you got them fine. Space Cadet 02:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Translation from Rusyn

"If you know Rusyn, could you please translate for me the caption to the picture there that says: "Перед кунківском церквю капітан ПВ одберат мельдунок"."

I do not speak Rusyn, but since I speak Serbian, I can understand part of the sentence. Translation would be like this: "In front of the Kunkivska(?) church, the captain PV (одберат мельдунок)(?)". I do not understand last two words. PANONIAN (talk) 18:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

My Ukrainian is good enough to understand what you translated :). That's "одберат мельдунок" is what I have a problem with. If you know any Rusyn speakers at Wiki, please ask them. I know you take an interest in the topic, so you might know some people. Thanks! --Irpen 18:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It might be "receives/heres a report", but I am not sure.--AndriyK 18:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Maybe "confiscates property"? Template:Lang-ua. Any Rusyns speakers please? --Irpen 18:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure why I think so, but (based on the vague associations in my head) it seems to me that "мельдунок" is a blank or form of some sort.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 18:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! See, how we all have trouble with the modern Rusyn text despite being fluent in Russian and Ukrainian! This link suggests that it it property. From this one I infer that it is some kind of asylum. Olha Kobylianska (uk:Кобилянська Ольга Юліанівна) uses the word in her "Zemlya" novel and it looks like something different too. And some claim that Rusyn language is just a dialect of Ukrainian, of course. --Irpen 18:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is what User:Yakudza wrote on my talk page about this:

See http://www.lemko.org/lemko/slovnyk.html

• мельдувати - доповідати

Мельдунок - доповідь (in Ukrainian), доклад (in russian) - Report(?)

одберат мельдунок - give a report (This only my version source from dictionary) (User:Yakudza)

PANONIAN (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I saw that. There is still no clarity, see above. --Irpen 18:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Here not "Rusyn speakers", but "German speakers" are needed - Meldung - German word [8] --Yakudza 00:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! And одберат pbbly means "receives" indeed. Thanks again, --Irpen 00:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to add one more language to the Slav talk. In Polish "odbierać" means exactly "receive", and "meldunek" has two meanings. One is "report" in military terminology and the other is the registered place of living or stay. E.g. your home address. Like during communism everyone had to have the address registered and written in ID. So "odbierać meldunek" might have two meanings either receive report (or even listen to a report), or receive an appartement/flat/house (the place gov chose to register you at). However, I think you are right and he probably receives report.--SylwiaS | talk 01:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! Since we do not have any photos of the events themselves, and possibly there were none taken due to their nature, I think a screenshot from the film is suitable to add to the artice. I hope, others would find it acceptable, when I add it. Cheers, --Irpen 01:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I can only guess what you're talking about, but I'm sure it's fine. BTW "odbierać mienie" would indeed mean "to confiscate property", and "meldunek" is often in a written form. Everyone was right :)--SylwiaS | talk 02:24, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I was talking about this article. The phrase in question is the caption to the third image from top. --Irpen 02:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting! Sure it’s right to add it. The village where the church is, is called Kunkowa, and PV stands for Wojsko Polskie. It’s a pity that he didn’t finish the film. You may also want to check pictures on Polish Wiki and here [9] (Ukrainian version for you). Check the boards 23 and following. You may also find there our infamous general Jaruzelski getting his early experience as an officer. I was thinking about dividing the article similarly to how IPN did it, and add information plus pictures. I’m sure someone can cut them out of there.--SylwiaS | talk 05:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Misleading vote summary

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

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

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

Operation Wisła and Holodomor articles

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

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

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

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

Thanks Irpen

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

Allow me too

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

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

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

Brutality of Poles 1918

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

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

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

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

Happy New Year to you too

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Koniuchy massacre at WP:RM

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

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

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

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

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

Have you seen these edits: [10], [11], [12] ? Wonder why he did not care to post a similar message in the Polish message board ? Sigh. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 22:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Orden

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

Apology

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

!מזל טוב

from Izehar

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

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

Likewise

Same goes here. I know that if you are Ukrainian, this must be a touchy issue for you as well. It is good to see that you can keep your calm despite the fact that others are challanging what you honestly believe is right. It's funny how nationality, borders, territory is all based on such myths. I am sure that in Ukraine, schoolchildren must learn how Kiyevan Rus' owned the land before the Principality of Moldova did. The same is done in our schools and we learn how the Dacians( our other ancestors besides the Romans) owned it before everyone else. Don't you find it also funny how we (as human beings) hold on to the things that we have no power over. We did not choose to be born in a certain race, continent, nationality, religion. yet these things that we did not choose are what define us and what most of us would fight for the most. Constantzeanu 06:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Holodomor

Thanks for the link to the Himka article! The link is especially helpful following the constructive suggestion by Dietwald on Talk:Holodomor: "What SHOULD be done is to expand the discussion on politization. The issue is unduly politicised, which in itself deserver a considerable discussion." [13] I'm also expecting to gather support for writing a much-needed entry on the Soviet famine of 1932-1934. Perhaps such an entry would be a strong candidate for Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week?

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

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

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

Standartization of Kievan Rus' names

Прошу обратить внимание сюда, на мой взгляд проект достойный.

• Standartization of Kievan Rus' names

Kazak 07:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Unwarranted warnings

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

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

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

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

UA/RO topics

Irpen, after talking to Ghirla, I feel like I am talking to a diplomat with you and I honestly do not want to fight with you over every single issue about cernauti or bukovina. If you want Chernivtsi Oblast to stand alone without a Romanian name, then so be it(provided herta, cernauti city and bucovina will keep their romanian name too). Currently I have no major issues over either article. I propose we stop the revert war and leave them as they are (save for additions in other fields like economics, etc. etc.).Constantzeanu 02:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I repeatedly said that I support Romanian names for historic places. It is just that Chernivtsi Oblast isn't a historic term as I explained. As for other articles, I don't think they are ready to be left alone. In the last couple of days, they were somewhat POVed and they need to be balanced again. I also hate edit wars and hope they will stop. I also hope you will help me with that. --Irpen 03:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

DYK

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

Kiev Metro Lines Map

Hi Irpen,

Can you please look over the history of development and add your comments/suggestions to the Talk:Kiev_Metro#Line_map?

Thanks, mno 10:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Polonization and Russophobia

I see you have reinserted Polonization as an example of Russophobia. How these are relevant ? --_Lysy^talk 21:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This was already discussed at Talk:Russophobia#Religious. If you still have objections, let's continue this at the article's talk. --Irpen 21:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I know this was "discussed" but never explained. I hoped you'd be willing to explain that but I see you'd rather prefer driving towards another revert war with Ghirla :-( All right. --_Lysy^talk 21:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you avoid accusing other editors unnecessarily. I see you restated the question at talk. OK, I will give it another shot there. --Irpen 23:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems I was right, unfortunately. This is hopeless. --_Lysy^talk 17:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed in Cieszyn

You add {{fact}} in that article, I realy don't know why, because it's so obvious for Cieszynioks (inhabitants of Cieszyn Silesia) :) that here really was the invasion. See Talk:Cieszyn. Regards, D T G 19:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Long time

It has been a while since I talked with you. I was wonder if an article exist on the Russian TV station ΡΤΡ (Russia Television)? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 02:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. There is a Category:Russian television networks. I hope you will get back on board on Russian and Ukrainian topics. --Irpen 02:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was working on the BRSM, but I worked on Mexican related topics to score brownie points with my Mexican girlfriend. I still think Hero of Russia could be an FA, so we could try that. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire) Fair use policy} 04:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the Info

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

Romanianization

I'm waiting for a reply from you... Are we having a discussion or not? Thanks. Dmaftei 16:43, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks fot your note. As your your msg also at the article's talk, Just haven't got a chance to respond yet. I understand that it is my turn, I just was in the middle of other article's discussion and it consumed all the time I had for WP. I will respond at the article's talk shortly. Thanks again, --Irpen 21:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, haven't gotten to it. I think you now have a right to remove this again until I get to it. Sorry again and thanks. You've been more than considerate. --Irpen 07:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll do that. I'll be more than happy to restart the discussion when you have time to return to the topic. Regards. Dmaftei 15:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

amusing entry

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

UPA

proszę nie wywolywać agresji na forum, jeśli dodajesz cytaty w języku polskim to chyba wiesz co tam pisze ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.22.212.170 (talk • contribs) 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Совет - ответь по-Русски, как в анекдоте про Латвийскую кампанию написавашие письмо в Казахстан по-Латышски получили ответ по-Казахски...--Kuban Cossack 13:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Alex, thanks for removing the inapropriate entry. Anon: Прошу писати менi однiєю з мов, вказаних на моєї сторiнцi користувача. --Irpen 06:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for support

Hi Irpen,

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

Best, mno 20:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

user chisinau

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chisinau. mikka (t) 20:52, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

talk:Polish September Campaign

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

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

Bonny

He logged in again. His first action was to snatch a couple of userboxes from my user page (as he had done before). Check his other contributions, they are pretty obvious. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Your accusations

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

Thanks for your support in my RfA

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

Line Map

What do you think?

• original
  original
• my improved version
  my improved version
• ENGLISH VERSION (TEMP)
  ENGLISH VERSION (TEMP)

--Kuban Cossack 02:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that we should preferrably have a map in English. If we can't, we should use a Ukrainian map rather than the Russian one for the metro in Kiev. Other than that, adding an island is a good idea. If you want to see the shape of the Dnieper river and its distributary, you can check out Google Maps image.[14] And here is the Hidropark platform with the 5-car train that happens to be at it :) --Irpen 02:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I designed for ru:wiki and decided to upload it here beforehand. I will commence on an English map tommorow/two days time and should have it compleated. WRT to river, it is going to be impossible adding its precise contour, and this is a good approximation, the island will be larger. For the meanwhile I replaced Mno's original map with this one (before I can get an English one sorted). I have Google Earth anyway. --Kuban Cossack 02:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you then. It would be helpful to add a commented out note to the image caption that you are working on the English language version and happen to have completed it first. Otherwise, you know... Cheers, --Irpen 02:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Irpen: It would be helpful to put the original map back. Until the English map is ready. I really want to leave Wikipedia as I don't have time for it. Can I really rely on you guys hoping that you are working toward Neutral POV, respecting other countries and nations? Anonymous, 05:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think you know me well enough to judge whether you can trust me when I say that I respect my country and my nation as well as all the others. The problem with an old map is that it is incorrect because it does not reflect the new station. K.K. pledged to make one. If anyone makes it earlier, I will support the substitution. Personally, I am too a bad artist to draw it. I have no reason to mistrust K. K. who says that the English map will be there in one-two day time. On a side note, anonymous, even if you contribute occasionally, please reregister. It would make communication easier. Schasty, --Irpen 08:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

No, prob, congradulations of Vyrlitsa btw. [15], [16] --Kuban Cossack 02:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

And now trolls are attacking it! Help. --Kuban Cossack 19:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Just make an English map and everything will be fine and dandy. --Irpen 20:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

...as long as the English version not based on Russian transliteration, that it :) Anyway, the real reason I'm leaving this comment is this edit. I can't come up with justification off the top of my head (plus, it's getting late and I'm pretty shot), but it somehow does not seem right to omit that piece of information. Maybe the intro line isn't the best place for it, that's true, but to remove it altogether... I don't know, it just feels wrong.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 04:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I will explain at the article's talk. --Irpen 04:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok here at last is the English version, but unfortunately it looks quite crude, потому что из-за чертовой молнии станицу на полчаса отрубили без света...so my lovely photoshoped version was permanentely lost :(. This was done on a paintbrush and temporary it is here. --Kuban Cossack 00:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You know what? I see potential trouble coming out of your version and you know the reason why exactly as much as I do. I would have reverted it myself, but since it has English names, I find it useful despite the excessive "letters" you put there. I say, keep the Russian names only when necessary and don't insert them when not necessary. Modern names on modern maps is the place when they are not necessary IMO. Take my suggestion into account when you make a final drawing. In the meanwhile, because your version uses latin letters while the old ones used the cyrillic ones, I will not revert it for now only. Please don't be surprized if the ususal suspects have less tolerance then myself. You could have avoided the problem altogether if you did this the right way. We will talk about this again, when your final version is ready. Goodnight. --Irpen 00:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I followed the this style; and if someone decides to replace the big cyrillic with the Anglo-Russian translits and add translits of this in place of English ones; I will not mind.--Kuban Cossack 00:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Kharkiv/Kharkov again

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

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

bonny redux

He is trying to sneack back. Check WP:AN. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:56, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

8 - thankyou-s

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

Hi!

Can you please help me to stop Halibutt inserting the copyrighted image into the FAI article?

He looks like he cant read English text in rules on fair use--Nixer 13:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Dnipropetrovsk

I phonetically spelled out this word because not everyone has a browser that can read the IPA script, not to mention many are not going to learn IPA anyway. The insertion I used was from the New Oxford American Dictionary. --LibraryLion 22:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)