User talk:Ghirlandajo/Autumn 2005

Thanks for the heads-up! I didn't know about that page. Olessi 20:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A long discussion has just ended concerning that article and how to mention the relationship between Germany and USSR in it. Some kind of compromise has been reached. Therefore, please, think carefully before introducing new changes, so that the battle does not start again.Balcer 14:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC) Image:Arkaim.jpg[reply]

Have you thought about mentioning Poland and Hitler as wartime allies? It took two to dismember Czechoslovakia in 1938, if you know what I mean. --Ghirla 19:18, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

seriously Ghirlandajo, you should stop spamming the Arkaim image to unrelated articles; Andronovo culture, Indo-Iranians, Indo-Aryan migration are all fair enough, but Mandala? At the top of the article, too? I think you are being to enthusiastic about those clearly pseudoscientific/esoteric claims about the site. The settlement was round. The similarity with swastikas and mandalas ends there. dab (ᛏ) 17:04, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you had looked at the edit histories, you would have noticed that I added this image to all those articles in just one hour several days ago. If you feel that the image is redundant and that unillustrated article is better, just remove it. --Ghirlandajo

Hi, I reverted your addition of Russian architecture to the "History of western architecture" series, because it is a series about the history of architecture rather than the architecture of individual countries. You will notice that the other articles refer to the architecture of a certain period only. Thus, an article on Stalinist architecture, for example, would be a more appropriate addition if that style of architecture were sufficiently influential. Burschik 14:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So please explain why Sumerian architecture (which may hardly be termed "western", BTW) and Byzantine architecture made their way to the list? I don't see how medieval Russian architecture was less influential than the Byzantine one. Moreover, the "History of Western architecture" in EB 2004 includes a section on medieval Russian architecture up to ca. 1700. --Ghirlandajo 14:59, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, on the discussion page of the template, I said that I was not sure Sumerian architecture belonged in the series. Feel free to remove it. If you think Byzantine architecture had less influence than Russian architecture (on the Western tradition) please feel free to remove it also. But the main point I wanted to make is that the article on Russian architecture is not an article about a specific period in the history of architecture, unlike the others in the list. You will note that the list does not include German architecture, French architecture or Italian architecture either. Burschik 15:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against Sumerian architecture, whilst the presence of Byzantine architecture is peremptory. I just want to point out that neither German architecture nor Dutch architecture nof Swedish architecture are truly individual, as they are covered by terms "Gothic", "Romanesque", "Renaissance", etc. The Russian architecture, on the other hand, had been isolated for centuries, so the terms like gothic or renaissance are hardly applicable to it. In other words, removing R.a. from the list makes a void which other entries would not compensate. --Ghirlandajo 15:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Category for Supercentenarians is NOT for unverified cases.(I may not believe in registered accounts,but I have studied supercentenarians for years and essentially introduced coverage of them to Wikipedia,besides compiling a widely known standard list).He belongs under Longevity myths only.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 19:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Louis, if you are the alt.talk.royalty regular I recall from my Usenet days, you'd better register, for registration makes Wiki-discussion much easier. Although I will not revert anymore, I'm sure Shirali fits into the category for Supercentenarians. Otherwise, we should set up separate categories for Verified Supercentenarians and Unverified Supercentenarians. --Ghirlandajo 19:21, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,that's me,and I've done well over 3000 Wikipedia edits since 2003 without registering.I never register for websites. I don't see any reason to accord category status to the unverified.--Louis E./le@put.com/12.144.5.2 02:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed that you often let us know about articles created by anonymous users in Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements.

As far as I can judge, many of such articles contain no [[Category]] entries and lack links to everything else.

Do you just happen to come across these articles by chance or is there some other way? Sashazlv 18:19, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See Special:Newpages. Cheers, Ghirlandajo 18:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for helping me with the Lubeh article. I am going to add more CD covers soon, and maybe a sound sample. Zach (Sound Off) 17:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a realy interesting page - Have you ever thought of expanding it? Giano | talk 20:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I haven't. I plan to add more articles on Naryshkin structures, as well as new entries on Stroganov baroque, Petrine baroque, and Moscow Gothic Revival. --Ghirlandajo 18:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

August had no right to start war on behalf of Poland (This was Poland, nobles' democracy, ok - king had no right to start the war). Therefore, he started war only as king of Saxony. Poland was NEUTRAL and the fact that it shared king with Saxony had not changed that situation. In other words, Polish armies were not fighting against Sweden, Polish senate sent congratulatory notes to Charles XII and it was Charles XII who by invasion break that neutrality. But even when Swedes were deep inside Polish territory some Poles still were considering themselves neutral and thought it is merely war of Saxon king, not Polish king. 150.254.130.180 13:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Do you know where I can get the high-resolution file or a print from this image:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Godunov_map.jpg

My son is performing the role of Feodor with the Houston Grand Opera this month. I would love to get him a print as a gift. Thanks, SRHookEm

I don't know where you can get the print, but you map check the map Feodor is drawing on the website of the Russian State Library. It is linked from and reprinted in the Ru wiki article on Feodor II of Russia. You may check it here. Cheers, Ghirlandajo 22:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get the image to load off the link you supply. Also, how do I ask the Russian State Library for help? The info is in Russian. I can't even email them! I'm sure they have a high resolution copy of the image. I just can't get to them to ask. Can you help with that? SRHookEm

You may try this link and this. I found a map of Moscow inserted in the larger map of Russia zoomed here. Try to reach them at cart@nlr.ru. --Ghirlandajo 16:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I think you're looking at the wrong image. I want the image of Boris Godunov looking at his son Feodor drawing the map. It's not an image of the map but of the father and son together. See my link--doesn't it display the image "Boris Godunov at the study of his son"? Also, the email address you list comes back to me. SRHookEm

I'm pretty sure both of the statements you flagged in Buddhism in the Russian Federation are factually correct, although the first one is oddly worded. I'll check around for the citation you requested. - Nat Krause 06:46, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please look in Gdansk Vote.According to it Krolewiec has to be used.At the time it was part of a Polish fief and thus "shares history".According to the vote it must be double named with Polish name --Molobo 16:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see no connection between Konigsberg and Gdansk. Konigsberg has a well-established English name for the whole of its pre-WWII history. Not so with Danzig/Gdansk. Further discussion moved to the Talk:Kant Russian State University. --Ghirlandajo 16:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant. The vote was made towards all locations with "shared history".They don't have to be connected to Gdansk. --Molobo 19:58, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ghirlandajo! Could you please still consider answering my question at Talk:Pyotr Kuzmich Kozlov? Like I said before, it's nothing urgent, but I would like to get an answer eventually. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 12:38, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check the page. I moved the article and answered your question 4 days ago ;) --Ghirlandajo 12:59, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I get for having a watchlist that exceeds twelve hundred entries. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 13:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article D.S. Mirsky, 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.

What's the connection between Ogińscy family and Rurikids? I've noticed you have been adding Rurkids cat to Ogińscy members. Same with Ostrogski. How were they related? Btw, you may want to create at least stub articles on the families history. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 03:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like so many descendants of the Rurikid House of Smolensk, the Oginskis lost their princely dignity in course of time. The provenance of Ostrogskis is still disputed, but their descent from Svyatopolk II seems to be corroborated by the records in the medieval synodics, as represented there. I already contributed Ostrogski back in January and plan to enlarge on the Rurikids as the inspiration strikes. --Ghirlandajo 09:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All the etymologic dictionaries I was able to consult cite it as a Russian word. Ir entered English first in a negative context associated with the revolutionary activities of the so-called nihilists. If borrowed from Polish, it would be inteligencja not intelligetsia, of course. --Ghirlandajo 14:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You mean single "l" instead of "ll" ? I'm not sure if the word did not have double "l" in Polish in 19th century. Do you pronounce the "лл" in Russian now ?

I think you may be right about the way it was intoduced to English (with the nihilists). Some evidence on how and when this happened would be helpful, though. --Lysy ^(talk) 20:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we do pronounce it with double ll. --Ghirlandajo 07:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes...this is getting crazy. The only thing I could do was delete Russian architecture and move Architecture of Rus back to that title, since ARchitecture of Rus had all the original history. I apologize if anything was lost by deleting the second Russian architecture article. Adam Bishop 15:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind message. I didn't announce, because I didn't know :) But should expanded stubs be added there or just new articles? BTW, after I knew about Vasily Alexeev's achievements I thought I should add inf. about him before I contributed into the article about Leonid Zhabotinsky. Cmapm 23:03, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at recent discussion at Ivangorod fortress. I think you are right that trying to repeat countries' histories that needs paragraphs and paragraphs of writing in short articles is unproductive and can only produce confusing texts unlike links to relevant pages.

I raised this issue some time ago at here. There are several Ukrainian towns (see for instance Drohobych, Kamianets-Podilskyi), whose articles try to retell the complex history of Ukraine in 10 words. Because it is impossible, the fights occasionally erupt about every word (like annexed/captured/occupied when the story is more complex). I think we should avoid doing this altogether, when possible. --Irpen 22:30, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As a native of Yaroslavl would you be intrested in writing an article about 1918 Yaroslavl Uprising (either as a section in Yaroslavl article or as an independent one)? Here is an article in Russian about the event: http://www.antibr.ru/studies/ao_jarosl_k.html Fisenko 16:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I would, but I don't think that I'm up for the job just now. I'm not an expert in 20th-century politics, you know. Hopefully, when I complete writing new articles from my to-do list, I'll be able to start Yaroslavl Portal or at least to provide a decent account of my native city. I'm thinking about 50 articles connected with Yaroslavl. But it would take me months to do all that. --Ghirlandajo 17:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dobryy vecher, tovarishch. The word "abominable" was one that I particularly wanted removed because it is irrelevant to the context of the sentence. The sentence is making the point that Boris strengthened his position at court by his marriage to not just some unknown woman but the daughter of Ivan's favorite. The fact that he was Ivan's favourite was the point of the marriage. Whatever personal attributes, good or bad, Malyuta Skuratov may have had, have no place in this sentence. If readers want to find out more about him, they can click on the link. Soglasno? JackofOz 11:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just hate seeing the EB1911 articles butchered like this, as if they were written by illiterates. Every racy word is being removed. I don't object to this particular edit, however, now that you condescended to give the rationale for it. --Ghirlandajo 11:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have a different view of the EB1911 articles. In the main they're fine, but they do contain some wording that is now quite out-moded and not nearly as concise as they could be. They do have some fascinating historical facts that don't seem to appear anywhere else, but the way they're presented does not always gell with current styles of writing. Nothing should be regarded as sacrosanct on Wikipedia, otherwise the point of this wonderful collaborative project would be lost. Cheers JackofOz 12:23, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! According to the Nesterov article, the town was renamed that from Stallupönen after Sergey Nesterov, a World War II pilot. However, the German wiki says that the town was renamed after Pyotr Nesterov, a World War I pilot. I have been trying to find out which is true, but found nothing on yahoo about a WWII pilot Sergey Nesterov. Unfortunately, I do not speak Russian and am therefore limited in my searching abilities. At your leisure, could you investigate and see which is the correct source? Olessi 03:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for investigating that for me. Olessi 05:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tnx. Replied. I am confused with those names... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job - tnx. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 13:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Supposedly the most magnificent of all Teutonic castles was Neu Marienwereder, somewhere in today's Lithuania. Are you familiar with it? Do you have any sources on it? If so, please let me know where it was located and what is the modern name of the location. Thanks, Space Cadet 16:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this is modern Kwidzyn --Ghirlandajo 09:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kwidzyń is Marienwerder, without the "Neu". Please help, if you can. "Byezumniy Kasmonavt" aka Space Cadet 15:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How can I help you if New Marienwerder yields zero hits in both Google and Yandex. I'm neither a German nor a Pole or Swede to be particularly interested in the Teutonic forts. There are Russian websites on Teutonic castles, and they mention Marienwerder as their strongest fortress. Therefore I believe that your source implies Marienwerder. Perhaps there were old and new castles there, and Neu Marienwerder may stand for the new one. Just a guess. --Ghirlandajo 19:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found nothing in a search for Neumarienwerder either. Space Cadet, what context was "Neu Marienwerder" used? What source was it listed in? That could help a little toward finding what it means. Olessi 20:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

==Tale of Igor's Campaign== [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg<|thumb|]] I'm writing to you because I've noticed you on Tale of Igor's Campaign article. I'd like to make a translation of Tale of Igor's Campaign on Wikibooks. What do you think? Would you join me in translating it, or maybe know someone who would? Nikola 20:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's OK if you don't have the time, and thanks for the pointers. That we are not native English speakers wouldn't be a problem - this is a wiki, so i'd later invite native English speakers to correct the translation! :) I have a Serbian translation with comments so obscure passages won't be a problem for me. Nikola 20:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding the Chernihiv article. A question about Mstislav. I thought that a different one is more commonly called "the Bold". You probably have more info but these are links that should be enough for a stub Mstislav of Chernigov [1], [2], [3]. I could write it too. I am sure one character will move it to Mstislav of Chernihiv or even to Mstyslav of Chernihiv in no time but that's a separate issue to deal with. --Irpen 00:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Coppied from User talk:Irpen#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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for your message Ghirlandajo. I will certainly check out the links you suggest, looking forward to discovering new talent. Do you have any recommendations for the Russian Futurists? Best wishes. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Futurist suggestions. I will check them out once the new image servers are responding properly. Lets hope page loading times improve dramatically !! --Cactus.man ✍ 09:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I really fouled that one up. Thanks for catching it. I'll keep you informed. Roy Al Blue 13:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, why did you destroy the battlebox when you made the edit on Sit River? Could you instead have fixed it so it would give the correct information? Roy Al Blue 13:38, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's not good, because I just added a new version of the Sit River battlebox with your new information. Sorry about that, you can revert it if you wish. Roy Al Blue 13:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you moved Dimitri Egorov to Dmitry Yegorov. I debated with myself for a while as to how exactly I should name the article, given that there are alternate spellings. Actually I was only considering the difference between Dimitri and Dmitri, but clearly his family name can be spelled differently too. In the end, I chose Dimitri Egorov because that's the spelling given on The Mathematics Genealogy Project. Since you're living in Russia, I obviously bow to your knowledge on this subject, but I'm wondering if there is a standard way of spelling Russian names such as this? Forgive my Canadian ignorance on the subject - I'm hoping to maybe add some more stubs of Russian mathematicians in the future, and it would be great if I knew how to do it properly to begin with. Cheers! --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 20:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had the same question. The spelling Egorov seems to be much more common. I think I understand where you're coming from: the surname seems to be written Егоров in the Cyrillic alphabet, and the Cyrillic Е at the start is typically transliterated with "Ye". However, I think the fact that Egorov is the common spelling (if that's true) takes priority. What do you think about this? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may check my previous answer on Peruvianllama's talk page. Further discussion moved to Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. Let's see what the others will say. --Ghirlandajo 08:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a page for Nadezhda Durova. Thank you for nudging me. Durova 10:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Good news. The Nadezhda Durova page made the "Did you Know" section on Wikipedia's main page. You've been a great help. Durova 17:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration request against User:AndriyK has been filed. If you intend to participate/co-sign, please add your name to the "Involved parties" section and write a statement.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:58, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the generic message left at several editors' talk pages in relation to the ArbCom case Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Community_vs._User:AndriyK. Since the fourth ArbCom member has recently voted to accept the case, the case is now considered accepted by the ArbCom as per Arbitration Policy. Please make sure your statement for the ArbCom is on the page if you are willing to write one (OTOH, being named as a party does not require you to make a statement, it just gives you a right to write one) and please make sure your statement is proofread if you wrote it earlier. Please, also, make sure your statement is in the appropriate place of the ArbCom page and not interjecting with others' statements. You are welcome to read up on the Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy and the associate pages.

--Irpen 04:00, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you not to go into revert wars when the city is referred to in a contemporary (or marginally historical) context. Like, tumulus is IMO OK with chernihiv. But of course in historical compound names it should be disallowed. mikka (t) 23:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

---

<...> there is no need deleting images before we establish the fact. When I uploaded the image of 500-rouble banknote, I believed that it was the fortified merchant court (гостиный двор) that was represented there. <...> But after you comment I see that it is in all probability Solovetsky Monastery. Can you find a link proving that it is really Solovki and not Arkhangelsk as stated on the banknote? If this is really the case, then we may download a reverse of the banknote, where Arkhangelsk's statue of Peter I is represented. --Ghirlandajo 19:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Ghirlandajo, I admit it was a knee-jerk reaction -- I guess I should have contacted you to point out the mistake. And of course, I would have never done that if I could just change the caption -- but the image of Solovki has very little to do with Arkhangelsk.

I apologize. I'm new on the Wikipedia, have only done a few minor edits to the Arkhangelsk article so far and have never participated in any discussions before (I only hope I'm writing in the right place and this message will reach you).

I realize that the mere fact that I live in Arkhangelsk, only about 50 meters from the Gostiny Dvor, and have been to Solovetskie Islands many times may not mean much, so here are some links where you can read the descriptions of the images on the 500-Ruble note:

"На пятисотке изображены главные символы нашего города <...>: памятник Петру I <...>. Легендарная шхуна "Запад", у которой нет мачт. Морской-речной вокзал <...> Но главное - на другой стороне купюры. Там изображены Соловки <...>" http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:IVHG2snPSmYJ:www.pravdasevera.ru/2002/07/06/25.shtml+%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BF%D1%8E%D1%80%D1%8B+OR+%D0%BA%D1%83%D0%BF%D1%8E%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%85+%D1%81%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B2%D0%BA%D0%B8&hl=en&client=opera

"Самым поражающим <...> из всех пост советских памятников Гулагу является купюра достоинством 500 рублей <...> На ней изображен монастырь Соловки, исторический комплекс на острове в Белом море" http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/etkind2/Russian

МОСКВА. 17.03.1997. ИТАР-ТАСС.

"Центральный банк сегодня выпускает в обращение новую банкноту достоинством в 500 тысяч рублей. <...> На купонных полях банкноты имеются локальные водяные знаки: на широком купоне - изображение головы памятника Петру... Кроме того, имеется изображение памятника Петру в г. Архангельске. В центре оборотной стороны банкноты изображен вид на Соловецкий монастырь, крепостная стена и здания которого выполнены красно-коричневым цветом, а вода перед монастырем - синефиолетовым цветом." http://www.solovki.ca/vsiako-razno/money.htm

Again, my apologies, and I do hope this clears up the misunderstanding. --Kalaus 22:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although you may not believe me, I don't have any sinister plan to promote only Polish culture or views. When I find a nice picture, I add it to my 'to FAP' list, and since I spend most of my times editing Poland-related articles I obviously find mostly Poland-related pics. Just a minute ago, I found this very beautiful picture Image:Detinets.jpg of Saint Sophia Cathedral in Novgorod, but it is fair use and fair use images are not appropriate candidates for inclusion in the featured pictures gallery. Perhaps you could verify this status and try to negotiate an open licence or get a similar open source picture of this beautiful monument, and then FAP it? I would definetly support this or any other nice Russia-related pictures you would FAP.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:44, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Piotrus, for your kind offer. I'll think what I can do with this particular picture. Your comment even induced me to add to my page a gallery listing a fraction of images I uploaded to this project. So far, two of my pictures - both by Prokudin-Gorskii - have been promoted to featured. Unfortunately, other candidates - such as Image:Stpeteskyline.jpg - have been moved by me or other to Wikimedia Commons, so they are not illegible as well.

By the way, I confess to wade through Polish segment of this project quite rarely, but today, while adding {unreferenced} tags to Krakow and Warsaw I noticed two nice pictures - Image:Warszawa2.jpg and Image:Katedra na wawelu.jpg - which are not tagged at all. Should we list them for deletion? What do you think? --Ghirlandajo 17:58, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the online Vasmer tip! It's a great find. --Iceager 08:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What provocation are you talking about ? The historical section wasn't ever much disputed in antipolonism. I didn't enter the modern history which was the point of disputes. Also to whom you addres Russian text ? I only know German, Polish and English. --Molobo 15:17, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can add it to both Kraków and Warsaw, none of them have proper references. My goal is to make people aware of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check, and the Wikipedia:Cite sources policy. One of the most common accusations to Wikipedia in general is the lack of sources and references, and we need to fix that. Please provide referencse for those articles instead of removing the tag. Besides, the tag is used according to the existing policies.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:53, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding unreferenced - note in my contributions that I have made a slight error - this template should be used AT THE BOTTOM of the pages, in place of the missing 'Reference' section. If you plan on adding it to other articles (which I strongly encourage) don't repeat my mistake (you may also want to add the following WikiProject ad: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check|help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world]].

Regarding the pictures: standard procedure is listing them as {{nosource}}, notifying the uploader and adding a note on the talk pages of the article's using image (and on releated regional noticeboards, if you have the time).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, although it seems that only the involved parties can put their statements there. However, judging from the support of arbitrators and from the fact that your opponent has already managed to disregard the rules of the arbitration by commenting on statements of others rather than writing a statement by himself, I’m sure that you’ll be successful in your case. Good luck--SylwiaS 12:30, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Belarus#Russian_occupation, and tell me do you see this as History of Belarus or more like the history of Poland and the Polish Partitions, lets modify it I have an excellent source on 19th century history in Belarus, it is slightly religiously orientiated but good nevertheless. http://www.pravoslavie.ru/arhiv/050513111111 Kuban kazak 23:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind words! Yes, I have done Ariadna Tyrkova-Williams and Nikolai Gredeskul in the last few days, but that's just because I got carried away while merging and rewriting Constitutional Democratic party and Constitutional Democrats :) Otherwise I have spent the last few months adding missing bits and pieces on the Far Left: Adolph Joffe, Christian Rakovsky, Nikolai Krylenko, Olga Kameneva and so forth. I am also responsible for the current versions of Alexander Bogdanov, Grigory Zinoviev, Lev Kamenev, Alexei Rykov... well, you get the picture. But my greatest achievement this fall was writing an 86Kb article on Leon Trotsky without starting an edit war :)

Anyway, as my User page says, I am mostly interested in biographies and bibliographies, so that's what I do, from George H. Smith to Józef Dowbor-Muśnicki. Unfortunately, working on the latter made it rather painfully clear that my Polish is pretty much unusable at this point and I had to abandon my grand plan to write a history of "Polish Military People". Oh well, at least my Russian is still good enough to do Russian history articles. I have an unhealthy amount of East European history data squirreled away in my brain and, with luck, I will upload a big chunk of it into the Wikipedia before I move on to the next plane of existence :) Ahasuerus 01:12, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Struve. I have added a couple of paragraphs about 1898-1905, but there is much, much more to be said on the subject :) Ahasuerus 17:05, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for the kind words, but that version would have been noticeable better if I hadn't stopped in the middle of an edit :) Anyway, it's been cleaned up and expanded some, but still needs a great deal of TLC. Ahasuerus 02:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No need to mince words or hold back, come out and say what you really think of my contributions! :) Seriously, though, thanks, but it's easy to resist "unrestrained nationalism" when you don't have a stake in the fight. Well, unless one succumbs to vicarious nationalism, I suppose.

On a more elevated plane, it's mildly depressing to see that the state of, say, Russo-Polish relations hasn't changed much since ca. 1866, but I guess the victim mentality of so many Central and Eastern European nations is not something that can be changed quickly given their history of mutual clobbering and the spread of nationalist ideology eastward from ca. 1790 on. <insert my obligatory ramblings on the Death of God, marginality, etc here> Ahasuerus 22:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so sceptic concerning providing coordinates for places? I agree, that those numbers may seem inappropriate in the article, but the most important is that they make up the link. That link enables you to look up the place on the map in just two clicks (you click on that link and then you click "Find this location on MapQuest". Cmapm 13:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK has been accepted. Please place evidence on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK/Proposed decision. Fred Bauder 02:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid you're mistaking Rus' for Russia. They are different things, that's all. --Lysy ^(talk) 13:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Rus' is medieval state. All Russians named own country "Rus" until 17 centuries. Muscovy was named by Russians as Rus too. Russia is the name of Russian State from the 18th century only. Modern Russia is the successor of medieval Rus' (as well as Ukraine). Modern Russian language and Russian culture is successors of the language and culture of medieval Russia. The Tsar dynasty of Russia began in medieval Rus (Rurik of Novgorod). The medieval epos of Rus (bylinas of the Kiev cycle) was kept only in northern territories of Russia. The most part of territory of medieval Rus is territory of modern Russia. Novgorod, Vladimir, Ryazan, Suzdal, Tver were the big cities of medieval Rus and cities of modern Russia also. What a problem? Are you a nationalist from a neighbouring country? --Ben-Velvel 14:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they are different, in a sense that Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is different from modern Poland. There are no other countries to claim 11th-century Polish heritage only because Poland and Germany conspired to stifle other Lechitic ethnic groups - Pomeranian, Kashubian - long ago, thus precluding them from evolution into separate states. But, just like Poland, Russia has been known as Russia in English and as Russie in French continously since the 11th century, and the likes of Lysy have to live with it. --Ghirlandajo 14:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.taraskuzio.net/academic/history.pdf

Historiography and National Identity among the Eastern Slavs: Towards a New Framework1 TARAS KUZIO, York University, Toronto, Canada The bulk of Ukrainian territories did not come under Russian jurisdiction until the late eighteenth century when Tsarina Catherine abolished the autonomous Ukrainian Hetmanate. After the disintegration of the Kyiv Rus’ state in 1240 the majority of Ukrainian territories were either independent in the Galician-Volhynian principality or under Mongol rule. They then passed under Lithuanian, Polish-Lithuanian and then Cossack rule. The 1654 Treaty of Periaslav between Ukraine and Muscovy was concluded after the Poles refused to consider the Ukrainian Cossack proposal to transform the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth into a Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian (i.e. Ukrainian/Cossack) commonwealth. Ukrainian Cossack Hetman Khmel’nyts’kyi signed the treaty on condition that Ukrainian autonomy be recognised by the Muscovite Tsar. This Ukrainian interpretation of a confederal relationship of two equals has continually clashed with the Russian, Soviet and Western view of Ukraine’s submission and/or re-union with Russia. Russian links to Kyivan Rus’ and Ukrainian lands were therefore broken for four centuries. When the Treaty of Periaslav was discussed in 1654 both sides used interpreters and Ukrainian (Ruthenian) Cosacks had a clear perception of Muscovites (as well as Poles and Tatars) as foreign ‘Others’. The Tsarist empire only began to integrate the autonomous Ukrainian Hetmanate over a century later and to russify its population only after the 1860s. Western Ukraine continued to remain under Polish, Austrian, Austrian-Hungarian and then again Polish rule until 1939. Similarly, from the disintegration of Kyivan Rus’ until the late eighteenth century Belarusian territories lay outside Russian control. It was only with the partitions of Poland in the 1770s and 1790s that they were annexed by the Tsarist empire. These historical facts throw into doubt the eighteenth–nineteenth century imperialist framework adopted by Russian and Western historians that sought to portray Russian imperial rule over Ukraine and Belarus as a long continuous process of national development from Kyivan Rus’ to the present. They have therefore been conveniently ignored by both Russian and Western historians. Historical objectivity would Ž nd that both Ukraine and Belarus spent more time outside Russian in uence and control within the conŽ nes of Ž ve European states (Poland, Lithuania, Austria, Hungary and Romania).--Molobo 13:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ghirlandajo, and thanks for the edits. There is something, though: are you sure that Iuga is the same as Yury, Koriat's son? I had checked out the references, and couldn't tell for sure. Romanian sources cite him as "of unknown lineage". And did Koriat rule in Podolia? - excuse my ignorance on the subject. (In case you're wondering, it was me who started the article, but I mist've done something wrong wuth the edits in the beginning, so Wiki didn't register my signature: user "whatever number" is still Dahn.) Dahn 22:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I bow to your expertise - I never meant to suggest that you were not right, I just did not know the circumstances (the reason I quoted the Romanian prosopography issue was that I as well did not know wether it had bothered getting the details of it, not to set it against you: I was more willing to consider that it has been unprofessional, and I'm glad that you have the knowledge of what they do not - in fact, you might have cleared an important subject for each and all comments). My precise observation was that I was aware he was a certain Koriat's son, just not sure if it was the same - again, you have better info, that I respect. I patched the article mainly by translating the Romanian page (which is very shaky and succint, as most are on the Romanian wiki - not to mention that they do not stick by any rule of grammar), and wanted to check out the ends of the issue. All you get from sources on this side is "a Ruthenian prince", and it's not even established if he was ruling something in particular, or just of royal lineage. Also, the question I had about Koriat's rule in Podolia are linked to the fact that wiki mentions him (just) as a ruler of Black Ruthenia, which is described as part of Belarus. You might want to have a look at that, perhaps it needs a bit of tuning up or some additions. Again, many thanks and sorry I misunderstood (and took up so much space on your page). PS: In my defence, I have to add that anything north of Bukovina is, sadly, "hic sunt dragones" to all Romanian historiography, late and new. Dahn 21:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What Polish Empire ? What are you taling about ? --Molobo 13:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edits in List of Russian flags and Flag of Russia? Would you state that the white-blue-red tricolour has been used without interruption since 1635?--Panairjdde 17:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Where did you find 1635, in the first place? I sufficiently explained my edits in the summaries. --Ghirlandajo 17:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. About Flag of Russia. I added the Romanov flag since there were already two historical flags (the Soviet one and the 1914-1917), you removed the 1914-1917 flag, commenting "there is a List of Russian flags for such images". First, why did you remove the 1914 flag and left the Romanov one? Second, the list of Russian flags reports all the flags, even the jack of the navy, while in the Flag of Russia article should go the history of "the" Russian flag.

   Why, do you want to make Flag of Russia and List of Russian flags identical? IMHO we have List of Russian flags specifically to list minor modifications of the Russian tricolour. The Romanov jack was in use for three decades, not just for three years, and it radically differed from the classic pan-Slavic colours. --Ghirlandajo 18:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   The list of Russian flags include the navy jack, the army flag, the navy ensign, and the presidential flag. None of these has a proper place in the "Flag of Russia" article. That means that "Flag of Russia" will never contain all the the flags of the "List of Russian flags". Notice also, that I added the Romanov flag, and that the 1914-197 flag was already there, thus forming an initial historical part about the Russian flag. If you think that the Romanov flag has a place in "Flag of Russia", you should provide a really good excuse to keep the other flags out.--Panairjdde 09:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry, check Image:Romanovflag.gif to see who added what. --Ghirlandajo 10:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2. About List of Russian flags. I corrected the statement (already in the page) that the white-blue-red tricolour is uninterruptedly used since 1695 (not 1635), you reverted my addition writing "rv". So I ask you, how could you state that the white-blue-red tricolour has been officially used since 1695? :--Panairjdde 18:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   Check your edit: where the period between 1695 and 1858 disappeared? Was there no flag of Russia before 1858? Please watch your own sloppy edits before complaining. --Ghirlandajo 18:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   I just want to make you notice that the article in its current form (that you edited), claims that the Date for the white-blue-red tricolour is "1695 -". So my question is, does this means that in the period 1917-1991, this flag was an official flag of Russia? As regards my sloppiness, it would look bad, if not in presence of your arrogance.--Panairjdde 09:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I added then removed the link to Tyutchev-I think it might be a simple download of a copyright book. Please reconsider adding this link. --Molobo 17:28, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Before, I wrote to you, I looked over your work in Wikipedia. This was to get a idea about what kind of a person you are. And I must say your contributions, works, and their scope are impressive, to say the least. So I must confess that I was a little dismayed when you reverted my additions to the article on Catherine I of Russia, as "ridiculous," without bothering to explain the reversions on the talk page. I am very familiar with Eastern European History, with all of its current, and past, partisan slants and biases. Since English is my native language, and I have the ability to correct the many errors of grammar, syntax, spelling and such, that occur in many articles that originate or are edited by some people whose "Mother tongue" is not English, I spend a lot of my time correcting these kinds of errors. I do quite a bit with articles that are written by "native English speakers too". This is to keep Wikipedia more scholarly and professional. Some of my academic friends who are anti-Wikipedia love to point out these kinds of errors, and make lame jokes about them. So when I was looking over the Catherine article, and saw that her earlier name was spelled MARFA (sic), I decided to spell it correctly as Marta or Martha, and since she was of Lithuanian heritage, I asked a Lithuanian friend of mine, to tell me how they would spell and pronounce her name, hence Marta Skavronskaite. I wasn't feeling particularly "ridiculous" that day, and saw your reversions by accident, since I didn't bother to put it on my watchlist. Not that immportant I thought. Inconsistency does bother me however, and I recently cleaned up a short article that used VILNA, WILNO, WILNA, and VILNIUS, all in same article. I change MOSKAU, RZYM, PARIGI, KÖNIGSBERG, into English, and do so with proper names too. So, my friend, I did not change 'YEKATERINA ALEXEYEVNA', from its proper Russian to something "ridiculous", nor would I. Please read the Wikepedia article on Mikhail Muravyov, for a different perspective on the history of the Russification of other people. I hope you are not a partisan of Zhirinovsky. Regards. p.s. It's Kaliningrad you know, St. Petersburg, and Volgograd, too. Königsberg, Petrograd, and Stalingrad out of context, only serve to confuse and sometimes inflame people. (unsigned by anon_

Someone laborously replaced by this Lithuanian name in many language versions for Catherine I of Russia I guess it is our good friend. mikka (t) 08:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source for this image or it will be deleted after 7 days. Thanks! -SCEhardT 04:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you'd like to know, the page was unprotected (without an ensuing revert spree). I dawdled a bit much, but I've now submitted a revision to the page for everyone's consideration. Please see my comments at talk:Russian architecture. Regards, Michael Z. 2005-12-1 05:49 Z

Ghirlandajo, you have not explained why you have reverted my edits of History of Belarus, therefore I have reverted them back. Please do not start revert war and if you don't like particular edit explain what do you find wrong with it. And please o not start calling me "imperialist", "nationalist" or other names but discuss the merit. Thanks. --Lysy ^(talk) 13:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lysy, calling me "stupid he-goat" and "vodka pisser" wouldn't help to further your cause. Please use the talk page instead of slandering me on Administrator's noticeboard. --Ghirlandajo 17:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know too many POV-pushing admins and I did not enter in contact with any of them lately, so I have neither intention nor wish to warn anyone. If you have problem with any of the admins you might take it to Administrators' noticeboard. Halibutt 14:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Enough wasting time. Your continuous reverts are spoiling the work of others who try to work on the article. You've been asked by a number of other editors to stop it. I have now reported you for 3RR violation here. --Lysy ^(talk) 16:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know you may feel "bullied" but this is not because of some evil Lithuanian-Polish-Ukrainian conspiracy against you. It is your uncooperative editing behaviour and you aggresive style of discussion that isolates you from other editors. Harmonious editing is possible and I very much hope that you'll understand it one day, too. --Lysy ^(talk) 17:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

After having made 16,000 quite harmonious edits, I think it funny that you preach me how to edit, as you probably never contribited a single new article. If you stop flooding the article with such russophobic statements as "the tsarist administration attempted to limit the participation of Belarusian gentry in governing the country, as well as to discriminate their culture. At the same time, Russia used every opportunity to enlarge the Russian possession of land in Belarus." - there will be harmonious editing, as there used to be before your and Molobo's assault on the article. I many times asked you to discuss your grievances on the talk page, but blind revert wars seem to be the only strategy you know. I still await your apologies for today's disruptive behaviour, though. --Ghirlandajo 17:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As to the sentence that you quote, it's based on a scholarly work by a contemporary Minsk historian and there was a clear reference in the article for this. Still you have chosen to remove this part without any explanation. Why ? --Lysy ^(talk) 18:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As to your huge number of edits, Nobody's denying this and I always have the admiration for the active editors. What you might want to learn, though, could be some respect towards the others and their work. As to discussing edits, I'm always willing to do it but as I've noticed other editors already managed to incline you into some discussion of your edits, I did not need to do it this time. What I referred to was your manner of discarding others' edits and pushing yours in spite of obvious lack of consensus. What I would suggest to you (and Molobo) would be to discuss edits first. Reverting work of other people with offensive edit summaries will for sure not bring you towards any harmony in editing. Try to think about it. --Lysy ^(talk) 17:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lysy, stop it. I don't want to talk with Molobo, who is well known to all Wikipedia as a petty troll. I asked *you* to explain your nationalist slurs, but you preferred to ignore my admonitions and continue revert warring. When Halibutt ran out of arguments against me on the talk page, you and Molobo assaulted the article and started reverting my edits. This is called foul play, guys. --Ghirlandajo 18:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. Halibutt asked you a number of questions of the talk page and is still waiting for your answers. I also would be interested to see your explanations there instead of the personal remarks. --Lysy ^(talk) 18:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have to stop wasting my precious time on talking with you. It is quite pointless. I don't know why you stubbornly refuse to discuss your nationalist edits on the article's talk page, where other editors may want to comment, but prefer my own talk page or administrators' noticeboard. --Ghirlandajo 18:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Better go to the article's talk page and try to address the questions about your edits that are waiting unanswered, instead. Thanks. --Lysy ^(talk) 18:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid using historic references made under Tsarists and communist regime that served propaganda makes certain edits very unbalanced and POV. Likewise you seem to posses a "Great Russian" view of things, which was pointed to you even by other Russian users. --Molobo 17:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Molobo, if I seem to posses a certain view of things, you are a fierce and unrepented Polish nationalist who has been many times blocked for extreme POV-pushing. So please don't pretend to preach me. Your endless revert wars on Russophobia and Anti-Polonism are too disgusting to recall. --Ghirlandajo 17:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

are too disgusting to recall Please use civil language in the future. If you have any problems with my edits I can only ask you to state them in civil manner. --Molobo 17:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It figurest that the FA level article on Polish-Soviet War (oh, excuse me, you prefer the Soviet-Polish War, right?) would not be up to your standards, and that you prefer to use the term Katyn Incident to Katyń Massacre. Well, I am afraid I have to take Halibutt's side here - but then I am sure you are not suprised, as long ago you have discovered our plan to take over Wiki and turn it into a Polish propaganda tube. Seriously, I am afraid that if you will keep on going against community consensus, cannot talk without making personal attacks and seeing your own bias, then and keep pushing your POV, you will face the same consequences that all POV pushers have.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 22:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla, what's wrong with you ? First you say that you don't have the time to discuss on your talk page, then we agree to discuss the merit on the article's talk page, but intead of doing this, you're hard trying to antagonize Polish and Russian editors basing on ethnicity by adding a provocative message to Portal:Russia/New_article_announcements. Is this your way of cooperative editing ? Seriously: is there anything I could do so that we could work positively and not towards a conflict ? Feel free to email me if you prefer this way of communication. Your friendly Polish neighbour. --Lysy ^(talk) 20:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Check your e-mail and revise your slur on the noticeboard. You seem to forget that it was your pal Molobo who started revert warring and recruited a bunch of Polish revert warriors by posting a provocative announcement on Polish noticeboard.--Ghirlandajo 22:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huh ? Check your email :-) I've responded to your mail over an hour ago and assumed you went to sleep .... --Lysy ^(talk) 22:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hoped we're over with reverts and will discuss such things first, but I see you're doing it again :-( --Lysy ^(talk) 20:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You should address your concerns to Piotr and to the inveterate revert warrior Cadet, who reverts without even caring to provide a summary of his edits. I didn't edit the page for over a day, until there appeared your friend Piotrus, who attemped to recruit more revert warriors on several notice boards and resumed reverting his opponent's edits under pretext of vandalism. I don't know who and how made him an admin, but he was obviously required to scrutinize Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not before being promoted. --Ghirlandajo 20:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirla, I assumed your good faith, but this has gone for long enough. I'm not going to stand your offences any more. Not any more. If you want to accuse any more people of bad faith - feel free to do so, but after seing your latest accusations and after seing your latest edits I doubt cooperation with someone who cannot call me the proper way is the way to go... Halibutt 01:12, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ghirlandajo, but this has gone far enough, even my patience has its limits. The page in question is not a black book and you know it, it's just the place where I gathered all the links I'm planning to post on the RfC page (as you can see by the title, for instance) I'm starting later this day. You were brave enough to continue with your endless accusations, aggravating disputes and offensive language, so I hope you will be brave enough to stand up to the RfC.

Or perhaps there is a way to avoid it I'm not able to see? Perhaps there is a way to make you change your ways and start to respect your opponents (me included)? It's not the last warning, it's the last attempt to reach some solution on a personal basis. I really like lots of your contributions and I really believe that most of your contributions are valuable. However, the way you treat other users - me in particular - is the worst I could think of and I really don't know what could I do more to make you at least apologize for what you said.

And no, I did not call you names and your accusations are absurd. I shall not apologize for something I did not say and I don't believe I should. If you see no other option and believe that starting RfC on me just because I'm starting one on you is ok, then go ahead, I'm not afraid. I'm going to sleep now and will start the RfC as soon as I get up, unless there is some other option you propose. Piotrus contacted me about the possibility to start the informal mediation, though I'm not sure if such an option would do suffice. Halibutt 06:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, Ghirlandajo, we were not both bad tempered. You were. Accusing me of insults when there were none will not change that. And your comment about not wishing to offend others seems quite dubious, especially after you used the offensive tone and language repeatedly, even after such behaviour was pointed out by others. If you can't change yourself and start to respect other editors then perhaps you could reconsider your membership in this wikipedia, which is community-oriented and community-driven. As I said 100 times, I highly appreciate many of your contributions. However, the way you treat others and your complete disregard for the community or rules of civilized dispute made me think of you not very highly.

So far I've seen enough of your disruptive and offensive behaviour and I'm not sure it is really going to change, but perhaps I'm wrong. In my honest oppinion this has went too far now and I'm beyond the point of forgetting everything right now. Note that I see no problem with getting over our past differences as you put it, as I don't think there were any past differences between us. What I have a problem with is not differences or disagreements, but your behaviour, unwillingness to work towards a compromise, offensive tone and language, lack of respect for the others and so on. However, I consider your comment on my talk page a step in a good direction. Whatever be the reason behind it, it shows at least some will of improvement. Because of that I'm not going to start the RfC right now and will wait for what happens next. You can call it some sort of personal probation if you please. If your behaviour is really likely to change I'm going to forget the whole issue. Does this seem fair to you? Halibutt 14:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So you "don't think there were any past differences between us"? So you didn't insult me in the past? You again take yourself, Molobo, and Space Cadet for the whole "community"? You didn't call me a racist? I'm extremely disappointed with your response. After I extended my hand to your for a third time in the last month, you proceeded to deny your own wrong-doings and to preach me in a judgmental tone, e.g., "You can call it some sort of personal probation if you please". Who do you think you are - Jimmy D. Wales? --Ghirlandajo 18:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To make long thing short, I'm once again assuming your good faith over the issue and I'm extending my hand towards you. It is entirely up to you whether you bite it like you did before - or shake it. Halibutt 15:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And..? Halibutt

Your comments above once again show your unwillingness (and probably unability) to compromise. Whenever I disagree with you (see my last posting on History of Belarus), you start to vociferate about my bad faith, which you instantly assume. When you have no arguments to respond properly, you ask for apologies. What I should apologise for - for your calling me "vodka pisser", "vodka drinker", or for your starting a black book slandering me? On the other hand, you consider it proper to refer to all Russians as vodka pissers or russkis, apparently not thinking the term offensive enough. I can't (and won't) colloborate with such an uncooperative editor. Please leave your accusations for your new black book project. As is quite clear to everyone watching the revanchist persecution of me by a gang of Polish users, your primary aim is "to make me reconsider my membership in this wikipedia", as you asserted it above. Very well. I;m already thinking about leaving this project in disgust. Go on with your disruptive activities, and you will get what you crave for.--Ghirlandajo 18:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for your support of my recent successful RfA. If you have any further comments or feedback for me, my door's open - don't hesistate to drop a note on my talk page. Happy editing! Enochlau 11:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just watching a very sympathetic and highly popular pro-Russian TV programme on Polish national channel 2. I thought I'd mention this to you as I remember you said once that Polish media is Russophobic. --Lysy ^(talk) 19:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Under Mongol occupation, for example, Muscovy developed its postal road network, census, fiscal system...

Is that really so? What are your sources? Postal road network, census existed in the own territory of the Golden Horde, in China under Mongols, but what about population censuses in territories of vassal Russian princedoms? Ben-Velvel 22:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2. Mongol influence. Did Russia develop due to Mongols? Or it developed because answered the Mongolian challenge? It is a theory of a challenge created by English historian Arnold Toynbee... Ben-Velvel 22:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrey,

you have to take part of the mediation since you're the one who reverted the text on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_Belarus#Issues_to_be_solved:_revert_war_.231 . Please take part and feel free to express yourself. Don't forget the arguments at home! -- Bonaparte talk & contribs 21:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is a generic message to inform you that you are currently the subject of a User Conduct Request for Comments at Request for Comments process. It has not yet been certified by a second party. If it is, Please add your view of the matter under the "Response" section. Halibutt 00:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ask you to reconsider adding the link in Fyodor Tyutchev article, It seems its a copy of copyright book. --Molobo 17:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even if your allegation is correct, what does it matter for wikipedia purposes? We don't reproduce its content in the Wikipedia. You dislike Russian links, because they are "sponsored by Putin". You don't like Belarusian links, because they are produced "by dictatorship regime". Now you remove weblinks to English articles on Russian subjects. Only Polish websites are a reputable source of data for you. --Ghirlandajo 17:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you perceive me this way-I only asked you to reconsider linking to an copy of an copyright book. As to cases of Russian and Belarussian state pages-I am sceptical about pages from authoritarian regimes interested in propaganda. --Molobo 17:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, you've cared to leave on my talk page today. I'm afraid it was not very useful. I wonder what could be the purpose of this comment, other than showing lack of respect. I'm disappointed to see that you're again ignoring the harmonious editing arrangements I've attempted to negotiate with you in our email exchange. :-( --Lysy ^(talk) 18:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that phrases like this one - "From the general knowledge, kidnapping people was a common Russian practice throughout the history and in fact continued, in a modernized form, throughout much of the 20th century." - further what you call harmonious editing, I can't help you with it. Actually, your nationalist comments may further "harmonious editing" only in the pl.wiki. --Ghirlandajo 18:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but these are well known facts that many people were sent to Siberia or other remote parts of Russia throughout 19th century as well as in 20th century. I'm rather surprised you did not know this. I suggest you read e.g. "Gulag" by Anne Applebaum instead of making personal remarks intended to offend other people. --Lysy ^(talk) 18:23, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Katorga and "kidnapping" is not quite the same if you know what I mean. This is not a silly chat for kids, but international encyclopedia, after all. If I start commenting on every piece of ignorance you post here, I would have no time to edit anything else. So good bye for now. --Ghirlandajo 18:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you find any such statements be my guest. It would be hard since he had many Russian friends and even wrote "To my friends Moscovites". I am restoring information since you didn't post any objections instead of threats of vandalism to other articles on polish poets.The information however is easly found in link you gave yourself. --Molobo 18:33, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the summary, if you want another battleground for you habitual silly revert warring, go for it. --Ghirlandajo 18:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Andrew, before we can go any further we have to see if you agree with the current paragraph which state like this:

On several occasions, Russian armies operated in the Polish Empire, further damaging Belarusian economy during their hostilities against other powers in the Great Northern War and the War of Polish succession. There were also cases when the Russian armies kidnapped scores of eastern inhabitants of the Commonwealth, among them hundreds of thousands of Belarusian peasants^[4]

It would be best if you can accept it or/and please feel free to ask me. It is also your edit here as you allready remarked. Let's see if we can reach an agreement today. The deadline is today around (22.00 UTC). You may reformulate and bring a new version but please take into account that today we'll solve this first issue. Good luck! -- Bonaparte talk 18:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I repeated ad nauseum, "kidnappings" are unacceptable. You and Piotrus may "solve" any issue you like, but the silly phrase will be deleted. --Ghirlandajo 18:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is sourced? Deleted just because? Halibutt 07:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Girays, 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.

I noticed that you've edited Uzbek, and there appears to have been some vandalism at the article, but I don't know enough to know if any of the changes are accurate. I thought you might want to know. Salsb 16:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was a vandal attack which I reverted. The article is now on my watchlist. Thanks for letting me know. --Ghirlandajo 16:28, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I removed solitary links to years from Giray dynasty in accordance with the Manual of Style and you put them back without comment. You may be interested in reading the relevant section in the Manual of Style and the talk page.

I see you are an active editor, keep up the good work. Bobblewik 18:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just created a stub for the Battle of Akhalzic. Earlier you said to inform you if I created any article that had to do with Russia. Since Russia is one of the combatants, I thought I'd let you know. Roy Al Blue 03:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I expanded the article a bit.--Ghirlandajo 07:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another one: Battle of Aslanduz. Russia vs. Persia. Roy Al Blue 01:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And another: Battle of Krasnoi. Russia vs. Napoleon. Roy Al Blue 02:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One more: Battle of Kulevicha. Russia vs. Ottoman Empire. Roy Al Blue 14:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back with another: Battle of Ostroleka. Russia vs. Poland. Roy Al Blue 02:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've got more for you: Battle of Warsaw (1831) and Battle of Iganie. Roy Al Blue 03:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ghirlandajo. I am not sure I am into such nationalistically charged matters at the moment. I have much more important things IRL, ATM. I am sure that you can handle the situation, anyway.--Wiglaf 09:43, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ghirlandajo. I do try to follow the Assume Good Faith guidelines, although admittedly I am only human. The fact that a user added the majority of the information to an article does not bestow a privilege regarding the article's name. The overwhelming majority of articles on municipalities use the administrative name; NightOnEarth's move to Ochakiv to comply with that standard is thus not surprising . Of course, you are welcome to your own opinion about the article's name. What concerned me was this series of edits:

1. Move of Ochakiv to Ochakov
2. Change of Ochakiv's redirect destination from Ochakov to Özi
3. Change of Ochakiv's redirect destination back to Ochakov from Özi.

Shortly before reading the Ochakov Requested Move for the first time, I had been reading Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK, which caused Irpen's comments about AndriyK's move tactics to be fresh in my mind. Because your redirect to Özi seemed odd to me (as the move of Ochakiv back to Ochakov automatically created the correct redirect), I asked for your rationale for that particular edit. When there was no response almost two days later, I asked Halibutt for his opinion when I informed him of multiple RMs.

I do apologize as I jumped the gun regarding your intentions. You are a very productive contributor to this project, and I do appreciate your contributions and your prior assistance to me. However, can you see from my perspective why, shortly after reading about AndriyK's actions, I had some apprehension in my mind? Olessi 10:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As you moved my article from Dečani] to Visoki Decani Monastery, please take care to dab several dozens pages that link to Dečani to the article on the monastery. If you take a look at "what links here", you will see that most links refer to the monastery and not the town. --Ghirlandajo 11:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)'

I'm doing this at the very moment -- the entire taxonomy was a mess. I think current location matches the conventions better. I review the articles and sort the links accordingly. Thanks for your concern. Duja 11:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the comment you left at Piotrus' talk page and I believe it should've been directed to me and not to him, as it was a remark posted by yours truly. Next time please contact me in person if you have any comments. Just a clarification now. As to the title - I believe there is no rule prohibiting me from using Polish at user talk pages. After my RfA as a sign of good will I started using English mostly to let you check my private chats with the others. However, the case of kłamstwo oświęcimskie is a tad different, since it's a specific juridiciary term, present in the Polish penal code. However, the next time I use it I'll try to find some translation for it. As to the rest of your comments, I believe you are again assuming my bad will. I did not left that comment to cover personal attacks, as there is no personal attack there. Also, I did not post it in order to recruit revert warriors, as apparently you were the only person to break the 3RR there - and Piotrus did not joined the editing there. Finally, I saw no need to promote my cause since I believe so far it's generally accepted, at least a vast majority of scholars (except of course for the hillarious www.katyn.ru site). Halibutt 13:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These are not allegations but hard facts. Poland, who had at her disposal one of the largest armies in the world, was defeated by Hitler so rapidly and ignominously partly due to the fact that the whole army was stationed on eastern borders, preparing to invade the Soviet Union, like they had done back in 1919. --Ghirlandajo 21:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This theory is so uncredible, I can hardly imagine you even believe it. Is it just your speculation or have you heard about Polish plans to invade SU in 1939 from someone else ? I am really curious to know how such things are borne. --Lysy ^(talk) 21:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lysy, don't take it wrong, but I'm really getting tired of your curiosity. Go to a local library and read books, for the facts I mention are considered what you call "general knowledge". Inter-war Poland was a bellicose state which waged wars against all of its neighbours, except Germany. You may find an appropriate quotation on the subject in the article on Russophobia. Sorry, I have to edit other articles and not to enlighten you, as I have been doing for more than an hour now. --Ghirlandajo 21:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, I have expected such an evasive response. You don't surprise me :-( --Lysy ^(talk) 21:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you had asked me a month ago, I would probably treat your request more seriously. But now my opinion of you has changed, to be sure. I see that your behaviour frequently verges on trolling Bonaparte style, and I'm not prepared to waste my time on conversing with trolls. No offense meant, but I have yet to see any valuable contribution to Wikipedia from you. Good bye. --Ghirlandajo 21:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You may find it educational to read Блицкриг в Европе, 1939–1941: Польша. If you don't have the time, just take a look at map 1 and map 2. If even this Russian source will not convince you that the Polish army was not stationed on the Soviet border, then I must say I give up. I guess some people prefer to imagine an alternative historical reality, and nothing can be done about it. 22:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

"If even this Russian source will not convince you" Russian source ?? Jesus Christ, are you serious ??? They had agreement with Germans, they attacked Poland with Hitler. They murdered 20.000 of Polish officers and sent more that 500.000 Pols to concentration camps. They occupied Poland for more than 50 years. Yeltsin admited that Russians did it in 1990!!!! Do you really think that these sources are impartial ? Polish army hasn't been concetrated near the russian border, Polish divisions and brigades has been lokated on all Polish teritory. This map shows part of Polish divisions which were mobilised on the east part of Poland, divisions which was located in west Poland were allready mobilised. Please be informed also that Poland fought against two largest armies in the world for 35 days. France, Belgium, Netherlands, and British corps, fought only against Germans for 43 days, and they had more soldiers, more tanks and more airplanes then Germans. Please, read "God's playground" by Norman Davies. He is an English historian. Mabe it helps you to understand history of Eastern Europe and you will never write lies, again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.136.122.195 (talk) 09:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I kindly ask you not to impute your wrong and unsupported accusations. I did never call you a vodka pisser and it is obvious from my comment. I simply explained that I consider your calling of Poles "Polacks" equally offensive. Read my comment again and you will surely notice it. Also, I did not call you a racist yet, though some of your remarks indeed bordered racism (assuming certain features of a person basing solely on his nationality, race or religion is racism). So, in other words, if you really want some apology from me, please provide some evidence that I indeed have offended you. Otherwise it's still the good ol' a u vas negrov ubyvayut tactics. Halibutt 10:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]