User talk:Irpen

Transnistria

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

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

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

Take your Stalinist propaganda elsewhere

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

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

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

Ukrainian Oblast's Infobox

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

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

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

Re: Transnistria

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

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

Wikiportal:Ukraine

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

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

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

Re re Transnistria

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Alexandras

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

Needs NPOV for Mintimer Shaymiev

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

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

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

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

Exquisite icons

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

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

Re your e-mail

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent Kaliningrad Oblast edits

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

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

Зеркало недели

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

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

PBW talks

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Halibu tt 13:50, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Or does it? Halibu tt 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)[reply]

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

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

Belarus/Belorussia

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

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

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

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

Allow me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wołodarka

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks from Dietwald

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

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

Hero of the Russian Federation

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's alright, I started on it and moved the list of heroes to [1]. Zach (Sound Off) 06:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yuriy Yekhanurov

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

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

Holodomor letter

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

I think what you say makes sense.

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

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

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

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

Phobia or incompetence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ukrainians' picture

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

Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine

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

Couldn't agree more... Halibu tt 09:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

it is easy to figure percentage of speakers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stalingrad

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

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

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

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. Halibu tt 04:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Halibu tt 21:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Halibu tt 22:08, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ru Pravda

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

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

Ukraine related topics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent changes to Russia

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

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

Image source/licensing for Image:Battleship Velikiy Knyaz Konstantin.jpg

The image you uploaded, Image:Battleship Velikiy Knyaz Konstantin.jpg, has no no source information. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be marked for deletion on 24 October 2005.

This message notification has been automatically sent by NotificationBot managed and run by AllyUnion. Please leave comments regarding bot operations at AllyUnion's talk page. Please direct all comments regarding licensing information at Wikipedia talk:Images for deletion. --NotificationBot 12:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]