User talk:Ghirlandajo/Autumn 2006

Хорошее утро (I know that's wrong)
I concur with this edit of yours here. I, however, have given into the pressure from your mate  and altered my banner, anything for a quiet life. When it is too late people here will wake up and realise Wikipedia is just a collection of rules and regulations that nobody follows because there is no-one left actually writing the thing. This project could be the best thing in the world, if people would just get down and write it. Anyway you have my support - good luck with the arb-com thing. I'm flabbergasted no-one was brave enough to unblock you yesterday. It is getting very sinister here indeed. Giano | talk 09:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Praise
I've just come across your work and have been browsing through learning a lot about Russia! Thanks very much for your articles, which have really improved Wikipedia's coverage in this area. 86.136.92.2 14:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Tsar
Hi, could you please explain which of my edits to Tsar you consider to be OR? And, for that matter, how "my version" is substantially different from yours, except for a slight change of the order of statements? --194.145.161.227 20:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

And BTW, my condolences for the unreasonable warning and unjust block by Tony Sidaway. --194.145.161.227 20:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for telling me about the Tsargrad thing. I just sourced the disputed information. As for the account - I have one, but I'm too lazy to log in most of the time. --194.145.161.227 13:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

RFA
Well, I did notice you had forgotten about your contact with the proposer, so I started on a little piece, but it got longer and longer. In retrospect, I should have said earlier that Piotrus was only chosen because they could not find anybody else, perhaps Bishonen could have taken that on too when he invited the proposer to withdraw it. I am sorry about this because in any case it means you (and Giano) will have less time to really work on Wikipedia - as for me, I am on a learning curve which does not go so steeply up as Ideogram. The age, I suppose. As for the dwarf remark, oh, I do not know, I have a job and five kids, so any time here is really stolen from them and my wife. Da, idu spat'. Spokoynoy nochi. --Pan Gerwazy 22:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI
Please see Talk:Sukhumi. :( &mdash; Khoikhoi 17:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK
Nice nom! --Srikeit (Talk 18:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Early conceptions of the Channel Tunnel
I've already sussed one bogus duke from the above page (see talk) now it's your department, was there a Duc de Lille in 1702? - I can't find any evidence of one but it is not my subject. I have a feeling half this article is a hoax, but I'm not sure. You know this sort of thing, can you have a look. I know for sure there was a mid 19th century attempt to dig a tunnel which failed, and Naopoleon thought about a tunnel, bit I think that is it, the rest of the page I suspect is a load of bolox, what say you. Giano | talk 19:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * A blatant hoax imho. Memoirs of Saint-Simon are available online at Google books, and I can't find any reference to this anywhere, not even to Duke of Lille, let alone the tunnel. To top it off, the "phantastic dreame" thing looks like a bad attempt to make a French-looking phrase from English. The French article has nothing on the thing either, so I'm tagging it unless the author offers explanations and quotes. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  20:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Much stuff is available on gallica, but with my current dial-up connection it's of little use for me. Once upon a time, when I was more interested in Père Anselme than I am now, I compiled this incomplete list of French peerages, which does not list any Ducs de L'isle. What is more interesting, my favourite novelist mentions one Duc de Lille in Anna Karenina, but that's only a pun on the name of Leconte de Lisle, that is, a mystification. I'll investigate the matter when I have a better connection. -- Ghirla -трёп-  20:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK x 3
We appreciate all your hard work at DYK and elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Don't let others get you down -- Samir धर्म 05:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You're quite welcome Ghirla. There are many of us who believe that admins should contribute as well as "administer".  Take care -- Samir धर्म  12:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Pochayiv Lavra
I saw you originally wrote this page, some major aspects have been changed since you wrote it, but I don't have sources to check for their acuraccy, maybe you can take a look.--Milicz 15:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the ghirlaphobes don't let me edit peacefully these days. I take a break until next week and then I'll try to take a look what's going on there. Peace, Ghirla  -трёп-  21:41, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Please trim your statement on Requests for arbitration
Thank you for making a statement in an Arbitration application on Requests for arbitration. We ask all participants and commentators to limit the size of their initial statements to 500 words. Please trim your statement. If the case is accepted, you will have the opportunity to present more evidence. Neat, concisely presented statements are much more likely to be understood and to influence the decisions of the arbitrators.

For the Arbitration Committee. -- Drini 18:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

RfA
Hi Ghirlandajo,
 * ''Cautious support. Well, I felt able to say hello ;)

Thanks for your support! – but cautious...? Did I unwittingly ignore you at some point ("I felt able to say hello...") but, per the smiley, you (thankfully!) don't hold it against me...? If so, my apologies and assurances that it was unintentional. If not, sorry to misunderstand; please enlighten... Yours, David Kernow 18:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm so disappointed with admins in general and have been deceived in so many of them lately, that my support for a candidate cannot be but cautious. I remember we had a small disagreement when you wanted to eliminate redirect St. Petersburg. I'm glad that the issue was solved. Please try to seek a wider consensus before implementing such major edits. As for "hello", I remind you your own edit on this page. I'm sure you will be a great admininstrator. Cheers, Ghirla  -трёп-  21:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh yes, I remember now – I was unwittingly being too bold. Ironically, St. Petersburg has recently passed by me again, this time as regards its administrative divisions; Ëzhiki has been helping me make sense of Russian administrative divisions. If you have any knowledge of/interest in this kind of topic, perhaps you might also check the Russian entry here, plus those of any other country you might know; meanwhile, any singular forms you know for terms marked "(pl.?)" here would also be very welcome. Both these pages are on the verge of being introduced to the encyclopedia proper. Hopefully our meeting again will therefore be propitious! Best wishes, David Kernow 23:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * PS Re "hello", I guess my edit here must be archived. My impression is that it perturbed you, for which my apologies; I try to be constructive at all times, but perhaps my spirits happened to be down. It sounds as though yours are a little down, disillusioned by some administrative activity; if there's anything you're currently working on where some assistance would help to lift them, let me know! Yours, David 23:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

St. Michael's Golden-Domed Monastery
Hi Ghirla. Sorry about that. I thought that you saw the nomination that I had posted on the Ukrainian announcement board. Or do you not check there? But thanks for your great work on the article, which helped a lot in getting the article to featured status. Thanks again, —dima/s-ko/ 20:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's OK with me. I just happened to be on vacations when the voting was going on. If I had known that the article is to be nominated, I would have surely made some major rewrites. Cheers,  Ghirla  -трёп-  21:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The Kwen Kven Queen Kwene arbitration case
I did not know which title to give this, so I addressed it to you. Hope you do not mind. Have a nice holiday. Er, I mean that. --Pan Gerwazy 09:54, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

DYK

 * The entry was removed because it failed to meet the inclusion criteria. An article over five days old must have been marked as a stub and must not have exceeded 1,000 characters prior to the expansion.  This article contained no stub tag, and it was almost 1,500 characters in length (excluding spaces).  &mdash;David Levy 19:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just noticed that the discussion continues on Wikipedia talk:Did you know and the updaters believe that the article conforms to DYK guidelines. I can't say it was nice of you not to inform me about the discussion. But then, it hardly comes as a surprise that, out of 1000 admins, it was David Levy who spotted the latest Ghirlandajo's disruption. Thanks for your watchfulness. -- Ghirla -трёп-  17:55, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

your request, and WP in general
hi Ghirla -- I am myself on a wikibreak, compared to my usual wikitime anyway, right now I'm just looking at my talkpage and doing the odd minor edit. I've also been away and coming back to a pile of work so that I really do not have the leisure to address complicated issues on Wikipedia. For this reason, I do not have the capacity to deal with subjects I am not intimately familiar with, such as Mongol invasion of Rus, sorry. I see, however, that you are yourself being given a rather hard time at the moment, with some rather opaque RfAr (not that I had enough time to look at that either...). I'd just like to assure you of my support, both moral and practical, should you require it. Regarding cases of bad blood that turn Wikipedia sour for us, I'd just like to remind you to take a step back before you get worked up enough to walk away from the whole project in anger -- as you know, I have myself ample experience with the smelly underbelly of Wikipedia: I took it upon myself to deal with a number of obnoxious cases, as a service to the project, in order to make the point that "Wikipedia works" and even persistent dishonest practices will not prevail. But it would be a mistake to over-exert oneself in this area, because these are very thankless efforts. If you feel harassed by the bad blood over a certain topic enough to think about quitting, remember the satisfaction to be got out of building articles on more obscure topics and walk away from the bogged down dispute to enjoy the clear air of virgin articles on minor rulers, obscure birds or forgotten folk-songs (or whatever may catch your fancy). regards, dab (&#5839;) 21:10, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed! I'll second that. If articles on a broad subject like Spanish Baroque are being boldly retouched by the Incompetent, turn your talents to articles on individual artists and architects, or individual Baroque structures. I learned that lesson with Rococo, which has been eroding drearily since I moved out. --Wetman 02:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a good idea to introduce "endorsed versions" of articles on a user by user basis. Or we could form a sort of "senior editors" or "academic snobs" guild, hosting a list of endorsed permanent links to disputed or eroding articles. This wouldn't count as pov-forks since we wouldn't be competing for article namespace, it would just give easy reference to a 'clean' version in cleanup efforts. I think it is too much to ask of productive (productive of content) editors to babysit their work: after 30,000 edits, the babysitting takes up so much effort that you're essentially prevented from adding new content. If course the 'endorsed' links should be updated in cases where the articles actually improve. The profile of such 'endorsement' pages in user space would be dependent on the profile of the endorsing user (something like a trust network): trusted users' endorsements would be linked to and looked up by other editors, while endorsements by known belligerent trolls would just languish in userspace without doing any harm. dab (&#5839;) 08:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea but I'm not sure if it would be possible to implement it. I think the idea makes more sense than what we have today, when dozens editors add this or this to thousands articles and then edit war because of the article's assessment. This is another sign that the project gets crazier day by day. There are more editors who buzz around than those who actually write stuff. I try to avoid my 3,000-entry watchlist as much as possible these days, so as not to clash with trolls. Neither can I start articles, knowing that the Ghirlaphobe behind my back stealthily posts new slurs on the arbitration page and I'm not allowed to defend myself. Editing is not much fun under such circumstances. I will try to edit sister projects these days and return to full-time activity when the case is closed. -- Ghirla -трёп-  08:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Illegitimi non carborundum. (I am fine one to talk, though.) If you need a break, please take one, but please come back: you write such interesting articles. -- ALoan (Talk) 22:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You seem like a reasonable person . ..
. . . and as they say, "if you want something done, ask a busy person." Would you please take a moment and take a look at the Lion article and see if what is going on there is as it should be? I will not sign, so as to not seem to want to sway the discussion. 23:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Fire of Moscow (1547)
Am I allowed to put http://www.sgu.ru/rus_hist/img/x1-VMosk.jpg.jpg on the Fire of Moscow (1547) page? The author died 350+ years ago and this image doesn't appear to be copyrighted. Can you please double check on that for me. --Ineffable3000 11:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Tsarskoye Selo/Pushkin
Hi, Ghirla! I would appreciate your comment regarding the recent move resulting in this and this. While it's obvious these new titles are a no-go, perhaps it's possible to re-organize and re-shuffle some sections to avoid confusion in future. Thanks.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I used to think that the Pushkin (town)/Tsarskoye Selo separation was already sufficiently cross-referenced, but apparently I was wrong. My suggestion would be to further improve the cross-reference. Perhaps if we put a dablink at the top of Tsarskoye Selo directing the readers to Pushkin (town) "for the article on the modern town", and then place a (very brief) History section in Pushkin (town) with the " link leading to Tsarskoye Selo, that would make things more obvious.  What would you say to that?&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Vladimir on the Klyazma
While I can readily believe that Vladimir patriots may have spouted all sorts of nonsense about the city's founding, I respectfully suggest that you look at the reference I inserted before you assume that you yourself know everything about the founding. To put it simply, Karamzin said that it was Monomakh and almost everyone has thought so ever since. Karamzin was a fine historian (better than many scholars realize), but we all make mistakes and the evidence for Monomakh's founding is really quite weak. For details (and they are many and complex) see my reference. Your own entry contains no references (even to the Vladimir patriots, who deserve to be cited no matter how silly they are, or else not mentioned at all) and is certainly not verifiable in any sense. -- Eesl

Yakov Polonsky
As always, many thanks Ghirla -- Samir धर्म 17:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Leadership
Might I inquire as to how I've disappointed you? We haven't really interacted much, so I'm not quite sure what your concerns are. Kirill Lokshin 15:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough in regards to the assessment. We don't really agree on the issue—I think the assessments and tags are extremely useful, for a variety of reasons—but their proliferation is certainly something I have been guilty of encouraging.
 * As far as our lack of progress on the topics you mentioned, though, I don't really see that the project is to blame. Aside from Grafik—who works primarily with WWII material—we simply don't have anyone participating with the same knowledge of Russian history that you have.  If we fail to notice, as a project, that certain articles are missing, it's not because we don't want these articles, but rather because the only editors who actually know enough about the period to be able to point out the problems and gaps (which, in many cases, might be only yourself) aren't participating in the project.  Is it really reasonable for someone of your talents to assume that everyone else has the same level of expertise? Kirill Lokshin 15:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is why I've studiously avoided becoming involved in the big ArbCom fight going on (despite invitations to do so). You've certainly made significant improvements in your approach to other editors in the recent past; I hope that you might find it in your heart to treat us mere mortals with a bit more patience and forebearance in the future, regardless of the outcome of the current mess. Kirill Lokshin 16:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * *bows* ;-) Kirill Lokshin 16:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Battle of Krasnoi
Ghirla:

I see you've been editing my Battle of Krasnoi article...you added Hess's famous painting of the battle yesterday. I have read a great deal about Napoleon's 1812 Invasion of Russia, and I'd like to collaborate with others in creating/maintaining articles on the 1812 war in Wikipedia. I'm interested in Russian sources regarding these battles, as they have been traditionally overlooked by western historians who write about the 1812 war. Contact me at my home email. Regards, Kenmore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenmore (talk • contribs) 16:46, 8 August 2006

Ghirlandajo:

I was trying to edit and improve my "Battle of Krasnoi" today and you left a "no weasling" message for me, in addition to undoing my edits. Perhaps you didn't realize it was me working on my own article? Please advise.

Kenmore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenmore (talk • contribs) 14:22, 12 September 2006

To: Ghirlandajo and others Re: Battle of Krasnoi edits of 9/12/06

It is very difficult -- in fact even confusing -- to attempt to summarize the Battle of Krasnoi "succinctly" in terms of who won or lost. This is because it was a succession of individual skirmishes more than a single, all-encompassing battle with a single, discernible, easy to describe result.

Right now, the summary box for the article reads as if Napoleon in person was defeated at Krasnoi. Such was not the case...not at all. The Russian victory was over the individual corps of Eugene, Davout, and Ney. Napoleon himself remained at some distance from Eugene, Davout and Ney as they were being mauled by the Russians.

Further -- to simply define Krasnoi as nothing more than the Russian victories over Eugene, Davout, and Ney -- is also to skirt the truth, because on the fourth day of action (Nov. 17th) Napoleon did indeed lead his guardsmen in a general attack on Kutusov, the result being that Napoleon accomplished his goal of fighting the Russians off temporarily so that he could extract as much of his army from Krasnoi as possible. This temporary rear-guard activity of Napoleon's was an important part of the events of Nov. 14 - 18th.

Let me explain some more.

Many Western historians -- generally Francophiles or worshippers of Napoleon -- describe Krasnoi as a French victory over Kutusov, focusing only on the events of Nov. 17th.

The Russian historian Tarle, in fact, in his account of Krasnoi, dwells on the actions of Nov. 17th to the detriment of the rest of the battle (Nov. 14th - 18th). The great Napoleonic historian David Chandler ("The Campaigns of Napoleon") ignores all the action at Krasnoi except that of Nov. 17th (Napoleon's brief counterattack), and calls Krasnoi a French success.

All of these pro-French views, in my opinion, are misleading and erroneous because they totally ignore the disastrous defeats suffered by Eugene, Davout and Ney on the Nov. 15th, 16th, and 18th.

On the other hand, certain Russian accounts of Krasnoi I am familiar with summarize it as just Miloradovich's rough handling of Eugene, Davout and Ney...without paying Napoleon enough credit for his counterattack on Nov. 17th.

My aim is to explain Krasnoi in a way that takes into account all of the action, from Nov. 14th through Nov. 18th, and which emphasizes that the Russians very much got the better of the fighting even though Napoleon did save part of his army by counterattacking successfully on Nov. 17th.

Perhaps it would be best to summarize the "result" as follows: "Russian victory over the corps of Eugene, Davout, and Ney"...and to leave it at that? That way the "result" does not convey that fallacy that Napoleon personally was defeated.

The best historians of the war, in my opinion, tend to call Krasnoi a "partial Russian victory".

Right now, I regard the Krasnoi article as a work in progress. I would like to upgrade it in the future with references to excellent history books, fully accurate counts of casualties, artillery pieces lost, maps, etc.

Kenmore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenmore (talk • contribs) 18:49, 12 September 2006

Russo-Kazan Wars
Классно!!! :))) Предлагаю в дальнейшем развить последнюю секцию до полноценной статьи, благо что материала много.. + добавить последнюю главу про походы против партизан 1552-1558 годов! --Wiki 14:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC) зы. А не более правильно было бы назвать статью Muscovite-Kazan Wars? Ведь начались они до окончательного объединения Руси?

Ekaterina Geltser
Thanls for the feedback. If you would like to get rid of the photos that is fine, but considering my VAST collection of antique ballet photos from Imperial/Early Soviet Russia that none but me and a few others might see, I thought, after seeing the article, that Id rather share them than have them sitting in my albums and on my PC....... :) I suppose my need to share the photos got the better of my judgement regarding the short article - it is a bit much for such a short article, but the photos are so great! Mrlopez2681 15:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Category:Wars of Ingria
And Category:Wars of Karelia, too. *sigh* I've listed them both for deletion. Kirill Lokshin 19:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The Death of Achilles
I just sort of finished the article on The Death of Achilles. What would you pick as DYK-entry?

BTW, I would hate to see you leave this wiki, or reduce your activity here. Rest assured you have also many friends here. Errabee 22:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard‎
Hi Ghirla, I thought you might be interested in this which is lifted from here


 * Tony, I beg to differ -- with courtesy but most seriously. All you have done in your comment is convince me that if you were a b'crat, I'd have to ask you to stand for recall. John Reid 11:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You could fucking whistle. --Tony Sidaway 11:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * And you could tone down your comments. That was uncalled for. Even if John Reid was the most abbrasive person since Jack the Ripper, such comments as the one you just made are out of line here. Please calm down. --Durin 12:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. Ridiculous threats deserve to to be treated with loud and resounding contempt. --Tony Sidaway 13:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not often I am totally amazed by hypocrisy on such a grand scale . Giano | talk 14:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Tony Sidaway then removed my last comment with this startling edit summary. Seems there really is one law for some, and another for him. No one liftes a finger to stop him. Giano | talk 14:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Amazing? I think you mean "fucking amazing". HTH. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And I see we are not to tolerate anti-social behaviour either... -- ALoan (Talk) 16:53, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Giano, I have seen this striking exchange but, as you know, I am intimidated from posting my comments on Bcrats' board and I don't want to deal with Mr. Sidaway any more. May be others have been intimidated too. If I perpetrated anything like this, I would have been blocked by multiple admins simultaneously. Let their conscience be the judge. -- Ghirla -трёп-  15:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Kven
Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --FloNight 23:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Response
To keep it all in one spot, we can communicate on my talk page or via email if you prefer...I have left a reponse to that affect on my talk page.--MONGO 07:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Query
Hi. I noticed you removed Louis-Alexandre de Launay, comte d'Antraigues from Category:Russian diplomats. He was Russia's ambassador at some point, so wouldn't you say the label qualifies? Dahn 10:23, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I see. That is a good point. Dahn 10:30, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Feodor II of Russia
Hi. I hope we can agree that "most foully" is intrinsically a POV statement. Could you source that he died from having his testicles crushed? Thanks, Storkk 15:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ancient European History
would appreicate a dialogue. my aquaintance Billy Meier has given us some information about the ancient Giants not heretofore given. i just dont want to post it because it is only from one source. but would like to share it. where can i post it to where only you will get it? wiki editor mlhooten   mlhootenATgmail.com

hello
hi. in my country (israel) there are great concerns that russia is no more democracy but authoritarian regime. you are live in russia, so do you think it is correct? and you think putin is effective president? Superzohar 18:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NC(GN)
I apologize for spamming your talk page, but since you had contributed in the past to the WP:NC(GN) proposal, which is currently ready for a wider consultation, I thought you might want to give it another look now and, hopefully, suggest some final improvements. Thanks. --Lysytalk 22:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hosios Loukas
Hi, thanks a lot for expanding my Hosios Loukas stub. Looks much more competent now! Darn it, I didn't even find the right English term for that cross-in-square thing. :-) By the way, maybe you can satisfy my curiosity. That English language external link I had described the architectural pattern as "tetrastyle", but our Tetrastyle article describes something rather different, a type of classical portico. Do you happen to know how that term is used? I mean, it would sort of make sense as a term for a type of dome, I guess. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[[Talk:Erika Steinbach]
You and I have only crossed paths a few times on Wikipedia, but I feel we would share the same perspective on the vote taking place at talk:Erika Steinbach. We need your vote, the Polish POV pushers have tried to revers the Danzig/Gdansk ruling in regards to another German/Polish city, as doing so will defame a German politician (Erika Steinbach). Please round up more like minded people and have them vote, we need all the help we cna get, like on the Jogaila vote a while ago.

--Jadger 02:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Andrey Kozlov
moved again... - CrazyRussian talk/email 03:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
Big thanks ! I'm always glad when people appreciate my contributions :) Todor→Bozhinov 13:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Incredible!
I have only been USING Wikipedia for may be a year, and I always wondered who authored all those "Russia-themed" "Did you know?" articles. Today I finally took the time to find out, and I am impressed to no end with Ghirla! Keep up the good work, please, and don't quit! You are person of a rare talent and much dedication, and it would be a shame if "phobes" discouraged you.

cheers, Zoirusha

Reply
Lol, what do you mean? &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Russian Enlightenment
I made my additions that need your polishing. (meladina 09:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC))

Polar exploration
Thanks for your great additions to this article. I have since added considerably more material about the Renaissance period, and think, perhaps, that your additions might be moved to that section, since it is more in keeping with the timeline. Before I do that, however, I wanted your opinion on moving it. Danny 11:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Giano
Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, MacGyverMagic - Mgm|(talk) 22:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Egyptian Revival
I've found a pretty good source for quite a bit of information on the subject - I've included some on the talk page. Perhaps you'd respond? Thanks --Mcginnly | Natter 01:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

UberCryxic's Plan to unilaterally edit the Battle of Krasnoi article
Ghirla:

I respectfully request that you not allow anyone to edit or revise the Battle of Krasnoi article without consulting with me first. I wish to discuss this battle in detail with UberCryxic first. UberCryxic is very deeply in error about Krasnoi, and after I discuss my sources with him, I'm sure he'll agree with my position.

My proposal to UberCryxic is that he and I set-up a notebook listing exactly what we think happened on each of the days of the battle, from Nov. 14th to Nov. 17. He can share his sources with me, and I'll share my sources with him. Everything will be addressed and footnoted.

Thanks, Kenmore 9/25/06 --kenmore

Agatha of [Somewhere]
Moving the Agatha of Bulgariaarticle to Agatha, wife of Edward the Exile might be a reasonable solution. Let me know what you think or leave a note at the talk page. I was tempted to AFD it, but perhaps it can be saved. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * A great rewrite. The Rurukid explanation does make better onomastic sense. Thanks very much ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Kenmore
Hey, I apologize if my behavior towards him seemed incongruous in any way. As I said in the talk page, I did not mean to incite any ill feelings. That aside, I have a question for you. Do you know what my first experience as a registered user in Wikipedia was? It was a quasi-fight with you over Borodino in January. Do you remember me calling you an "obnoxious teenager" or questioning your intelligence? Do you remember me doing THIS? Just because someone is new to Wikipedia does not mean they are excused from having basic standards of personal conduct. I hope you keep this in mind the next time you decide to dish out criticism in this matter.UberCryxic 15:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So do I. I'm glad to see your article featured on Main Page today and I'm proud of having been the first to welcome you to Wikipedia! -- Ghirla -трёп-  16:58, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I want to make something clear, and I'm sure you've felt this before too. Our behavior on Wikipedia is different than what it would be if we were having a personal conversation. If the latter was happening, I would not say to anyone, "This source says that Napoleon won the battle and that source says why." Rather I would simply proceed to explain events as best as I can. On Wikipedia, however, everything we say has to be backed up by reputable sources. Most reputable sources I have take a different perspective on many of the 1812 battles described here on Wikipedia (Andrew Uffindell regards Maloyaroslavets as a French victory, for example), which I presume were mostly written by you. There could be source selection bias; that is, maybe the sources that I have say this and the sources that you have say that (and same with Kenmore's sources). The only thing I can reasonably say is that most Western authors regard the French as the victors in the majority of those battles. I can also reasonably claim that 1812 has been mythologized in Russian history to the point where the truth has been obscured. The notion among some that the Russians came out well after Borodino is traceable to Kutuzov's letter to Alexander, in which he speaks of a "great victory" and implies the French will not reach Moscow. Silly statements and claims like these were perpetuated by a Russian nobility who could claim to have the moral high ground after chasing the French out. Tolstoy put the icing on the cake, and there you have it. Modern scholarship has corrected many of those errors (thankfully) and has put many issues regarding the campaign into context (like the fact that more than half of Napoleon's main strike force had already died in the summer largely because of malnutrition, disease, and starvation). The Russian army played an important role in driving out the enemy, but not a decisive one. The elements finished the French on their own even before the onset of winter, before Krasnoi and Maloyaroslavets.UberCryxic 17:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes you were the first, after accusing me of having an agenda! Haha...just kidding. For what it's worth, I consider you the closest thing to indispensable when it comes to Wikipedia, even though you have characteristics and tendencies that I find objectionable. Your contributions to this project are like a whole encyclopedia on their own.UberCryxic 17:05, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Modern Scholarship Regarding 1812 Tilts Toward The Russian View

If anything, modern scholarship on Napoleon's Russian invasion tends more and more to debunk the myth of Napoleon falling to nature and not to the Russians. More and more Western historians these days are crediting the Russians with having waged a successful war of attrition against the French, harnessing geography, economic realities and nature to wear down an opponent that would otherwise have been invincible. It was Russian stamina, obstinacy in combat, generalship and martial prowess that made put Napoleon in a position where nature did the rest of the work.

Here's an example of the latest scholarship on 1812...written by a world reknown LSE professor:

Lieven, D. C. B. "Russia and the Defeat of Napoleon (1812-14)" Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History - Volume 7, Number 2, Spring 2006, pp. 283-308 Slavica Publishers

''Although a vast and often excellent literature exists on the Napoleonic Wars, there remain important gaps and misconceptions in our understanding both of the wars themselves and of the context in which they were fought. Probably the most significant of these gaps and misconceptions concern Russia's role in the international relations (including, of course, the wars) of the Napoleonic era, which is very imperfectly understood both in Russia and in "the West."1 Some reasons for misunderstanding are specific to Russian or Western historians: in other respects, however, Russian and Western scholarship on the era shares similar weaknesses. In this article I look first at Western and then at Russian writing on Russia's role in Napoleon's downfall. I seek to explain why Russia's part in the collapse of Napoleon's empire has been misunderstood and underestimated both in Russia and the "West." I also point to the ways in which this has distorted a realistic and balanced understanding of the defeat of Napoleon both in Russia and abroad.''

''Given the manner in which the wars of this era were mobilized by nationalist mythmakers, it is perhaps not surprising that the enormous Russian contribution to the destruction of Napoleon's empire should have been played down by British, French, and German historians. A more [End Page 283] interesting problem is why Russian historians have also contributed to this underestimation of their own country's efforts. ''

http://muse.jhu.edu/cgi-bin/access.cgi?uri=/journals/kritika/v007/7.2lieven.html

Kenmore 16:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Feedback for essay
Hi, there. I have made some large changes to the essay now known as Administrators are not only here to build the encyclopedia (I renamed it as the original title deviated too much from my original point). I would like some feedback on whether you find it more acceptable now. Thanks. Cowman109 Talk 18:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Question
Ghirlandajo, I have serious question to you about architecture. Do you classify this building as pure Mannerism style building: original photo, drawing 1, drawing 2 ? Regards from "well known nationalist" M.K.
 * In the absence of my colleague and friend Ghirlandajo, I would advise you to read Nymphenburg Palace (who names these pages?) as in my opinion it is more Baroque  than mannerist, especially considering its earlier layout.  However, I suggest you wait for Ghirlandajo to appear because he is the expert, and a second opinion is always essential. Giano 20:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes Baroque could be an answer, but I am trying to identify different styles in this building.M.K. 20:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well to my eyes it is very north European 18th century architecture take a look at Palazzo del Te which is pure mannerism where ornament is used sparingly to achieve proportion and harmony.  With mannerism the house must stand out in its landscape, but the severity of its design must also (IMO)  be a complement to it. Mannerism, was a reaction to the ornate earlier High Renaissance designs of a few years earlier.  On your building one could argue that the quoining is mannerist inspired, but it has been widely used earlier too,  but this had also become a common form of architectural decoration by the early 18th century,  The 2nd floor  windows have more decorated architraves than the first which would be unusual in southern Europe, in spite of this however the first floor windows still intimate a piano nobile by their size and the gravity of their architraves - perhaps it was a civic building where important and grave business was carried out on this floor - so while there are mannerist influences - I still say Baroque - I wonder if Wetman  is watching this - he will have a view that will be valid Giano 20:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * For instance it was stated that this building is in Renaissance shape with Mannerism décor. Do you, Giano, concur this view too? M.K. 20:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No, not completely that is too simple, the style of the building has evolved a long way from both Renaissance and mannerism, by a long way I mean in both evolution and distance. I would love to know the date it was completed, I guess about 1720 - 1740 - but North European is not a subject I am very familiar with, so I am happy to be corrected Giano 20:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The building is in Lithuania, built around 17th century, was damage by wars and was renovated in 60s. M.K. 21:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The townhouse exhibits Italianate detailing which was common in Northern Europe owing to the work of both Tessins, but the earlier images reveal a Baroque layout which makes me recall the haunting stills of Nymphenburg from L'année dernière à Marienbad, a landmark film which illustrates the adoption of Baroque aesthetics by a modern filmmaker. If the building is in Vilnius (as the style of the nearby church makes me guess), it may have been an illustration of Jan Sobieski's political and matrimonial alliance with the Bavarian Wittelsbachs. I advise Giano to take a look at this shamefully delapidated building in rural Ukraine. Perhaps it may become the subject of one of his future articles :) -- Ghirla -трёп-  21:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * so, Ghirlandajo wants to say that building has inconsistence elements influenced by modern "hand" or am I wrong? M.K. 21:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope. I say that, as the modern picture shows, the building looks closer to late Renaissance than Baroque, although the restless layout of main blocks on the drawings indicates the Baroque influence from Central Europe. You shouldn't expect facile Western-concocted tags like "Mannerism" or "Baroque" to be readily applicable to structures erected at the fringes of Europe. Every building is individual; attempts to classify are often misleading. Giano is correct in pointing out that there was a strong classicizing undercurrent in the 17th-century Nordic architecture (compare Tessin's Baroque idiom with the first Baroque palace in Prague). Besides, such key details as window surrounds could have been changed over time. You should ask Wetman; he is the real expert in Baroque architecture. -- Ghirla  -трёп-  15:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Aaa, this message is a bit clearer; yesterday I somehow failed to interpret it properly. Yes Giano made good points I will take them to the account too. M.K. 20:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Nerchinsk
I have invited you to a discussion on Talk:Nerchinsk. Please explain how multiple-language headings do not comform to WP:MOS --Niohe 21:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * He's put them back. I do not agree of course. I think he has a point in that because of those rwo treaties, the Manchu name should be mentioned in the article. But so should the Latin one, that means the two versions. The way to do this, I think, is a chapter with alternative names, like Ezhiki did at Kyakhta. By the way, is there any reason to doubt the veracity of fortification.ru? It gives a slightly different account of 1653-1658 in the area from waht we have in the article. Not that we would need to change much in the text of the article.--Pan Gerwazy 22:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Your request
Yes I have taken the matter there now. I am personally fine with the article either way, but I just think the new name is more appropriate and accurate.UberCryxic 18:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It's been almost a week and we were the only ones that commented. Is it fine if I change the name of the article now? Or do you want to do it?UberCryxic 18:36, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey can you change it? I'm having some difficulties. When I try to move it to "French invasion of Russia" it says an article with that name already exists (and some other stuff). Know what could be wrong?UberCryxic 04:54, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

unref
"please learn to use the template correctly"
 * Do I dare ask?
 * I do.
 * Dear Andrey, would you please explain to me your cryptic comment in more detail? Thank you kindly. - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:Unreferenced says:
 * "There is currently no consensus about where to place this template; most suggest either the bottom of the article page (in an empty 'References' section), or on the article's talk page".
 * "There is currently no consensus about whether this template should be used with stubs. Certainly all articles, including stubs, should cite references, but opinions vary as to whether the stub tag is sufficient notification of the need to improve the article, or whether there is a need for more specific notification via this tag".

These are very sensitive matters and I'm tired of: a) moving the template to the bottom of the page; b) replacing it with "stub" tags. People seem to be using tags (not only this, but others too) without consulting the rules. I hope you understand what I mean. -- Ghirla -трёп-  06:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Beger
Why can't I retract my own nomination? This has been done before. Bravada, talk - 10:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Didn't notice I deleted another nomination, probably because it slotted between mine and the image. I apologize for the kerfuffle. Bravada, talk - 11:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

sobornost
God and Theotokos bless you, Ghirlandajo. The edits where most appreciated! Could you look at sophiology for me and also I would like to start a Russian neo-idealism article. LoveMonkey 05:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Kodori Valley <-> Upper Abkhazia
Against my better judgement I got involved in an edit war on the renaming of the article on the Kodori Valley to "Upper Abkhazia". I am asking for your advise and support. I was considering posting a notice about the ongoing militant POV-pushing edits on Abkhazia in the "urgent announcement" section of Portal:Russia/New article announcements. Although this seems to be the common way to gather support for Russia-related issues, I am not sure if it is the real Wikipedia way.

In case you are wondering why I show interest in such issues and places, I am not the russophobe you somethimes think I am. In fact my great-great-grandfather was decorated for serving the Tsar in the Caucasus. -- Petri Krohn 22:59, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Re:RfC
Yeah, I've saw it. I'm afraid I don't have enough time atm moment to preach to the uncovertable. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 17:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Job vs. Jove
I don't know much (well, anything) about the subject, so I may be missing something, but we should use the name under which this person is best known in English language academic works. If more than one version is commonly used, then any would be acceptable (the choice of the first major contributor usually takes precedence). If there are many versions, none of which is firmly established, we should go with romanization (Iov). Hope this helps.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I will explain the geo-portion. As for the historical names, I see Mikka and Irpen already left him their notes. You might want to leave one yourself so there's no mistake that such massive moves are disruptive. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Lawering & trolling
Hello, all I asked you to do is to drop an URL to a website or put name of book/ journal/ magazine/ other source you are getting your images from. Is that so hard? Google and Yahoo! has good image searches to help you out. Is it lawering asking to comply with simple Wikipedia policies asking to copy&paste website addresses? I am not directly questioning if PD tags are appropriate or not (except for one case when it is obviously not). Is it trolling trying to remove and clean up huge amounts of mistagged, orphaned, and unsourced images? I am just a human version of OrphanBot. And, BTW, Image:Lubyanka 1916.jpg is not PD-Soviet either. It was created in 1916, and Soviet Union - only in 1922. And, BTW, if you mention it, the fact the guy in Image:Mikhail gorchakov.jpg (and that's not a photo) died in 1800's does not make the image PD. The image could have been created last year. YellowDot 17:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sknyatino cats
Hi, Ghirla! Regarding this edit. The purpose of the Category:Rural settlements in Russia is in fact to list only existing rural settlements. It should not cover entities which are no longer rural settlements (otherwise it would cover pretty much all settlements in Russia), nor those that ceased to exist (for that, I suggest Category:Settlements in Russia that ceased to exist, or something to that effect; it could cover all sunken, burned, razed, or otherwise demolished settlements). This is more than just formality; that's factual accuracy.

I am not as clear-cut about Category:Cities on the Volga. I feel uneasy to call a non-existing entity "a city on the Volga" when it's in fact neither, but I can see how this can be convenient from that category's perspective.

I'll remove the first cat but leave the second one in. If you wish, I can start the category for demolished settlements (I think Russian Wikipedia has one), but I need to think of a better name first. If you have any suggestions, I will gladly welcome them.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your suggestions are valid, although actually categorization is not as rigid as you seem to imply. It seems to me that the primary purpose of categorization is to help locating articles and to prevent them from being lost in the endless maze that Wikipedia is. -- Ghirla -трёп-  16:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I realize there is some flexibility; however, categorization also helps editors (as opposed to readers) to work within the big picture. If we start adding everything but the kitchen sink into "Rural settlements in Russia", that's going to complicate my job considerably; perhaps to the point when that particular cat will become unusable to me.  Restricting scope in ways that are logical and do not diminish both readers' and editors' convenience is always more preferrable than overgeneralization for the sake of simplicity.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

привет. Это я добавляю ссылки на Энциклопедию в статьях
ты просил что-то пояснить?

Thank you
I've just returned from a very long and hard day, and have not the energy just yet to catch up, the large martini has not quite hit home, but I saw this and thought it very kind - thanks. Giano 17:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just been reading it all, I think we could extend the devoted service to Geogre (he ha not yet mentioned Bishonen) I arrived here as User: Ragussa in May 2004, and I think Geogre was already here then, I wouldn't bother mentioning it all again though, it's all rather bruising enough as it is! Giano 17:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Size of the articles
I have found only the guidelines on Article_size >50K - should be divided, >30K may eventually be divided, <20K should never be divided. The Russia article is 34K. I would say that it should not be divided as it is now abakharev 18:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong in having a redecuced article?--РКП 11:15, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Alex, Russia was 49K this morning before РКП started trimming it. I'd say the split was justified.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
 * RKP started butchering it brainlessly, not trimming. I have serious suspicions he is a sock of a seasoned troll. `'mikka (t) 17:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that I approved how he did it. I still, however, stand by my statement that a 49K article is too long, be it for the largest country in the world or not.  Brevity is a sister of you-know-what, and if articles on other countries exceed the 50K limit, it only tells that there is work to be done there as well.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What can I say? Russia is not Bhutan. The largest country is the world should have the largest article in Wikipedia. Actually, it doesn't. Just a random check: Signapore is 58K, Ireland is 57K, Romania is 56K, etc. Now anonymous people will consider the article too short and start adding all kind of nonsense there. -- Ghirla -трёп-  08:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Himalayan Brown Bear
Heh, yea that article is new. I saw a red link, was bored, looked it up, and started an article. T REX speak 20:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK
It's all right. Let's discuss then РКП 11:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

It's fine with me. --РКП 11:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Kenmore & the Battle of Krasnoi
My apologies for bothering you with this, but any assistance you could provide with this issue would be very appreciated! Thanks! Kirill Lokshin 20:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

La Bayadere Article
What you did yesterday looks terrific! (Charts do not really work here.)Queenofthewilis 12:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

OrphanBot vs. YellowDot
Is there any rational explanation why OrphanBot targets the same images that were assaulted by User:Yellow Dot, who proclaims himself a "human version of OrphanBot"? This self-professed newbie seems to possess a weird gift of prognosticating the bot's actions. What is the relationship between the two? -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  10:42, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell, the only relationship is that YellowDot is targeting those images that OrphanBot can't: images that require human judgement to tell if they don't have source information, or an incorrect license, or that they violate Fair use criteria, for example. Once YellowDot places an image in Category:Images with unknown source or Category:Images with unknown copyright status, OrphanBot will remove it from articles and notify the uploader, but it would do the same no matter who placed it in those categories.


 * As a side note, unless explicitly stated otherwise, all image use policies are retroactive. This means that all images need source information, and all images claimed as "fair use" need to follow the fair use criteria. --Carnildo 18:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

RE User:Gugutis
Hello, I reviewed the article and at least in some parts of it reminds me Marija Gimbutas works, sadly new user do not provided any addition refs. Nevertheless I added additional message to his talk explaining situation. M.K. 19:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem, I added particular user to mine watch. M.K. 21:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Golden Ring
Greetings. I've just made this off this. Many of the English articles are much weaker than their Russian equivalents (Alexandrov and Plyos, for instance). However, given that we don't have anything at all on Kideksha, I would appreciate it if you could translate that. I know there's a formal procedure for requesting translations, but it's only a matter of a couple of paragraphs. Biruitorul 05:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * All right, I look forward to it. Biruitorul 06:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Tmutarakan
No, I'm not disputing anything; if I did, I would have added a disputed template. I'm only requesting that sources for the article are provided because they are necessary for verifiability. I may list some sources myself later today. Beit Or 11:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on the portal announcements!
By the way, the new image posted for La Bayadere is copywrited and I see no indication that its photographer has given it up to the public domain... will our article be in jeopardy because of this --or does it not really matter? Also, I see there are suddenly MANY images being posted in this fashion on different ballet-related articles here. Being new to Wikipedia, I do not know all of the ins and outs so I thought I would ask you. Indicating that the image was scanned by the wikiuser themself, or that it comes from their private collection of books or is being uploaded for educational use does not really fall into Wikipedia's guidelines on copywrite infringement, does it? If this is really no big deal (legally) then please let me know because I probably have a bigger collection of images than anyone here! I've just been afraid to use them unless they are over 100 yrs old or have absolutely been released into public domain by the photographer THEMSELVES. Please advise.Queenofthewilis 13:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Soloviev
Yes me too. Be careful what you wish for. ;>) God Bless. LoveMonkey 14:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

What??
Dude, take it easy. Situation is already tense. What does America has to do with that? It is Russia and Georgia crisis. Sosomk 15:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Some wisecrackers say that there are two states named Georgia in the USA. Do you believe yourself that Saakashvili's policies are independent? -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  15:51, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I do. The White House did not even make a comment about the crisis yet. Trust me, if Georgia was another state of the US, this would be different. The only people who are gonna pay for it are the poor Georgian living in Russia whoa re being devastated and killed by the Russian Skinheads and thousands of refugees who are kicked out of their homeland by the Russian-Abkhaz coalition. See, Dmitry Kholodov. You can't imagine how much of a Kiss-Ass job Georgia has done to Russia during the history. The biggest pride of Georgian people is independence and hopefully, the UN will help us not to get nuked by Russia. Sosomk 15:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Georgia hails to the great comrade Putin, the best friend of all children. Sosomk 16:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Girla, common my friend, nobody wants to see you disappointed. We all should work together aside of our differences of political views or believes. I’m not your opponent, on contrary. And i learn from people like you who have experience of Russian affairs and history. So, let’s stop this nonsense. And im not Georgian editor, although I do love Georgia and her people due to the fact that i have traveled there since 1991. Also traveled to Russia many times. Unfortunately never visited Yaroslav. Also please don’t bite Kober sometimes :) He is an amazing person, very friendly and understanding. All the best. Ldingley 16:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ghirla.In my opinion,Saakashvilli is bloody dictator,who's reign is a danger to the citizens of Georgia and the neighbouring states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.Dimts 08:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What gives!?
First I find myself on the same side as you in 2 votes (in one week, no less) and now we appear to be working peacefully towards improving the Tmutarakan article... perhaps a new era of detente in Ghirla-Briangotts relations has dawned... Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Our interaction
Ghirla, I spoke highly of you in the RFAr regarding you. Rest assured I carry no grudge. And yet in several recent comments you have expressed hostility towards me. I ask you not to be angry with me and to cooperate with me in calming the debate. Any time you wish to discuss with me on our talk pages in a civil manner I will be happy to accommodate you. --Ideogram 07:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Sviatoslav I of Kiev
I think this article needs a lot of work. I would like to bring it up to par with some of the other articles. As it stands it consists of a very small biographical sketch and a huge excerpt from Gibbon (which probably would be more appropriate in wikisource). I'll be researching and making expansions to the current text as I'm able in the coming weeks. If you could look in on it from time to time and make changes, perhaps we could collaborate on this. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made some major expansion and added citations. Still needs some work. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you know what the name "Sviatoslav" means? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Holy Glory. I would like to know what is the Norse counterpart to this. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe it would be "Helgatyr" (Helgi= holy and tyr=glory) but I'm not aware that this was ever used as a personal name. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually Hloð is "Glory" in Old Norse. Tyr is Old English. Both Helgi and vé can mean "holy". There was a personal name Hloðvé which was used by a Jarl of Orkney, but I'm not sure if it has the same meaning as Sviatoslav.Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI I've nominated the article for WP:GA. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any info on Sviatoslav's family life? That section could use some expansion. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Awaiting your contributions
I see that you deleted the only image from Shlisselburg. I hope that you provide a free replacement. Thanks in advance, Ghirla -трёп- 17:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking! I enjoy searching out images. In this case, I found that the Russian version of the article had a freely licensed image available; I've linked it from the talk page. I would have moved it to commons (and used it in the article) but it's author/source and license statements are only in Russian, so we need a Russian speaker to translate and make sure everything is shipshape. Again, thanks for asking. JesseW, the juggling janitor 01:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC) (copied from my talk page)

Belltowers
Hi Ghirlandao! Whether or not WP is a picture gallery (and by the existence of a gallery on the bell tower page there is evidently some such function associated with it), the provision of the picture of Katun bell tower was intended to show that there is a wide variety of structures that qualify, not only grandiose buildings of stone. Also, that there are some bell towers outside of Russia and Belgium - which seem for some reason to make up most of the others in the gallery. Now just because my contribution has made you cross for some reason is no justification for you to strike it out. I have therefore reinstated it. Пока - Smerus 08:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Что касаєтся 'Delvig' - извиняюсь - I made a blunder in editing and couldn't retrieve it - I entirely accept your point as regards WP procedures - however, as you know, 'Delvig' is the appropriate English usage. Всего доброго - Smerus 09:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Pep Talk
Ghirlandajo old bear, were you having a "dip" on Wetman's talk page? I just put some Pep Talk on my User Page you may want to partake of. It sure boosted my moral and I hope it will do for you. Now is not the time to have second thoughts about your splendid editing.
 * Careful with your thumb in the libation though, your being watched ! :-D
 * (Lunarian 13:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC))

Vyborg Library
Excellent that you coined the Vyborg Library page! I added some things to it - e.g. Quantrill got things wrong

The ceiling in the picture is of the stairs leading to the main lending desk. I've been there sevweral times - fantastic place. The page is looking good - I may yet add some things.


 * Managed to get hold of the architect responsible for the current restoration. The Russian and Finnish webpages are somewhat out of date. TTKK

Which map?
? --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've added citations to the map's image page. The map is unfortunately Mercator projection, which causes some distortion and may make Sviatoslav's empire look unrealistically big. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your objection to Demosthenes
Thank you for your comment in Demosthenes' FAC. I've answered to your objections. Just check Featured article candidates/Demosthenes.

I'll just repeat here that the article follows to the letter the instructions of WP:LEAD. The article has to retell the whole story in a summary style and that's what the article does. Just check Wikipedia's rules.

And, if you want check the lead of my last FA, Alcibiades, which does the same thing, exactly because it is obliged to do it.

Cheers!--Yannismarou 17:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * When an author can't formulate the content of his article in several phrases, it makes a bad impression on me. If you change your lead to something along the lines of Aspasia, I will support. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  07:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Малый Высоцкий
I'm wondering about your conventional spelling of this as Malyi Vysotski since Google returns 13,500 hits for "Malyj Vysotskij" and only 22 for Malyi Vysotski. According to all transliteration rules in use in the English language, there is also no possible way to get Malyi Vysotski out of Малый Высоцкий. The article Romanization of Russian has information on transliterating Russian into English. I would appreciate if you could change both articles back to the version Malyj Vysotskij. Большое спасибо! -Юит (Yupik)
 * Both wrong. Romanization of Russian is governed by the guideline in the Wikipedia space (i.e., Romanization of Russian), not by the article is the Main namespace (i.e., Romanization of Russian).  I made the correction accordingly.  Thanks once again for bringing this to my attention!&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 12:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Demosthenes
First, you compare two different articles. Aspasia is much shorter than Demosthenes. It is not the same thing. Demosthenes' length demands a longer lead and not "just a few sentences". Hence, it is not a lack of "ability" but the different needs of two different "articles" that demand two different styles of lead.

Second, why you tell me about Aspasia and why do't you compare Demosthenes with Alcibiades? These are similar articles that can be compared. In Alcibiades nobody found a problem with a lead. You don't want Alcibiades. Ok, take other FA articles about ancient Greeks: Theramenes, Epaminondas, Thrasybulus? What about them? Why during the nominations of these FACs (whose leads are line mine) nobody found a problem with the lead? Just think about that.

Third, you tell me to rewrite a lead, which already fully conforms with WP:LEAD. The lead must stand alone as an overview of the article. What you ask me to do will not stand! It will be something wrong! Please read carefulle WP:LEAD.

I don't know what is your experience with FAC proceedures, but as an editor who has in three months nominated three FAs and who actively and constantly participates as a reviewer in WP:FAC and WP:FARC I can tell you that objections for a lead fully in accordance with WP:LEAD are not actionable. Cheers!--Yannismarou 07:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmmmm... I'm interested in all votes. But I'm also interested in arguments. Have you thought that your objection may be based on an invalid argument? Are you sure you have checked in datail Wikipedia's guidelines before you cast your vote? And since you are not often in WP:FAC, have you thought that trends may have changed and the demands from the article may be different? Just think a bit about these things. This discussion is very interesting and I'd like to continue it, but I must leave (I have a French exam and I'll miss it!). So, if you give a new answer, you'll have my response probably in the evening. Cheers (again! - By the way, how's "Cheers" in Russian?)!--Yannismarou 08:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

RfB With A Smile :)
<div style="padding: 0px; background: #FFEFD5; border: 1px solid #FFEFD5E; font-family: Trebuchet MS, sans-serif; font-size: 95%;">

Featured article candidate - Gliding
Thank you for your comment on gliding. Can you be rather more specific than "something must be done"? How exactly is the article "spoiling fun" at present? I will make any sensible changes that you want. JMcC 12:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Thanks for your useful comments and for removing your objections. Is there any chance of positive sppport for the candidacy of gliding? JMcC 12:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Russia/Russian Federation
Can we please continue this discussion on User talk:Koavf. He is the original contributor of the disputed edits, (and it seem he is in need of your support :-) -- Petri Krohn 12:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

My new Response for Demosthenes
I've given a more detailed answer to your new comment in Demosthenes. Check Featured article candidates/Demosthenes. I'm sorry because you insist on bringing false arguments (you have obviously not read Wikipedia's instructions or, at least, you don't care so much about them) and you use wrong expamples (you compare the lead of Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, an article of 30Kb with the lead of Demosthenes, an article of 90Kb???). I suggest you give a more detailed look in FA's criteria, before you get more involved in FAC reviews. Cheers!--Yannismarou 13:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Flickr images on Wiki
Hi, I speedy deleted Image:Sochistmichaels.jpg since the Flickr page spesify a non-commercial Creative Commons variant on that image. We don't allow non-commercial licenses (excpt possebly as fair use, but that was not claimed here). Any Creative Commons license that restrict commercial use or making of derivatives (any combination with nc or nd in the name) are not allowed. If you can explain that to him, and that he has to link to the actial image page on Flickr when he upload images from there it would be nice (they allow all sorts of licenses, and it's spesified on each image). Most of those images effectively have no source. --Sherool (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

About ongoing circus
Yes, you are absolutely right about united front to stop ongoing stalking from particular group of contributors. This situation is unacceptable and some contributors already left, because could not cope with this staged situation. This should be stopped in any means necessary. M.K. 16:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

C'mon
Don't keep fanning the flames. Please? - brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 06:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Copied from User talk:Aaron Brenneman
 * Aaron, deleting the comments of others is considered bad manners. Such actions may be acceptable on IRC, not here. Perhaps Tony and Doc are your friends, but not mine. I have not seen a single helpful comment from them. That said, I don't see any point in encouraging drama queens. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  06:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * End copied section.
 * Crikey. I know it's bad manners, that's why I put the note on your talk page at the same time.  I'm a bit hazy on your other two sentances: You can't delete comments on IRC, I'm hardly famous as an IRC participant, and suggestions the Tony, Doc, and I are cozy are woefully misguided.  I simply saw something that would further inflame an already over heated situation. Particularly when there's half a possé at ANI rounding up the incivil and shooting them. -  brenneman  color="black" title="Admin actions">{L} 07:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: comments regarding IRC
The note I put on my user page was to inform people that they can reach me there. My presence on IRC is not an attempt to gain power over anyone else or to be excused from editing in articlespace; and I don't really think it's a crime to let people know where I can be easily contacted. I should be very disappointed if I were given exception from normal procedure due to my being on IRC, but I'd also appreciate not being judged for being there as well.

As for why I posted it on ANI, I wanted to generate discussion where it'd be most likely seen. If that was an error, I apologize. --Keitei (talk) 09:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Your concerns about me
I don't want to see anyone blocked, even the anonymous editor I have been dealing with lately. And Interiot's comment below (the second one, at 04:49) hit me right between the eyes. However, I am at a loss over what to do about it. (It is for this reason that I never commented in the first Giano thread, and will probably avoid this one from now on.) Let's say we only block "when a user is in some way making it difficult for others to contribute to Wikipedia". Well, slagging off on someone is only disruptive if that person or that person's friends take offense. So should we all turn the other cheek, and let some editors make crude personally disparaging remarks? There wouldn't be any disruption that way, but Wikipedia would be a less and less inviting place to hang around. Or, if disruption only occurs when people take offense, then the disruptiveness of a comment (and hence, its blockability) becomes a function of how many friends the target and offender each have. I was going to add a disclaimer like this to my remarks last night before you commented, but couldn't figure out how to word it, so I left it for the morning.

Regarding your specific concerns about me, my approach in this case would have been to ask Giano nicely to reword his observations. It's a fair question to ask if the arbcom should really be thanking someone who writes such things on a public blog. And my opinion is somewhat different now than when I started this subthread, thanks to Interiot. I don't want to enshrine the principle that high status contributors can get away with whatever they want to say, but I definitely realize I have no idea how to deal with these situations effectively, so I will avoid them in the future, as I did in the first uproar and should have done this time. (Obviously the 50 or so principles and findings of fact haven't helped a damn thing.) Thatcher131 11:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, was this intended for me?
Hi Ghirandajo, was this intended for me? If it was, I have to confess that I have no idea what you are talking about, sorry. Could you explain? Thanks, Ben Aveling 11:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Rus' Khaganate
I am preparing an article about this poorly-documented and -understood time in Russian history, for eventual migration into the main article space. I would like to make it as comprehensive as possible. Your comments and additions (including from sources critical of or in opposition to the theories presented so far) would be most welcome. In particular I would like to expound on the attitude of both Normanists and anti-Normanists to this issue. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 21:20, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved the article to main space with your edits. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I will continue to work on the article with you. I note with satisfaction that Sviatoslav I of Kiev is now a Good article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Some major overhauling last night. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:51, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

1956 венгерская революция
Здравствуйте Гирла, Будьте добрым, перечитайте нашу статью про венгерскую революцию. Мы много работали над статьей, надеюсь что мы писали из "нейтральной перспективы". Думаете, что это лучше, чем прежде? Кстати, извините за мой плохой русский.... K. Lastochka 15:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

W. S. Gilbert
I've spun off the Bibliography, as requested.

Iliaş of Moldavia
Hi, and thanks for your kind words. I have since contributed Iliaş of Moldavia, and please let me know if there is more I can help with: connections between Ukraine/Southern Russia/Belarus/Lithuania and Moldavia were frequent and interesting, but way too little gaps are bridged currently.

It is interesting to note that, after blocking me, Greek users have not actually reverted the article, but gradually moved it to a spurious version that didn't just remove all mention of "Istanbul" (as if Phanariotes were around in the 15th century), but silently deleted a mention of obviously not all Phanariotes being Greeks (even though this leads to several self-contradictions in the text). The sheer amount of bullshit and truthiness accounted for my outburst (which should not have happened, but I shan't be apologizing to those editors). Oh, well (unfortunately, my native tongue's wikipedia is even worse currently, so I cannot be following your example...). Dahn 12:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Re to your request
These were not messages posted by me. I donot understand why I have to provide a translation. I'm not responsible for other people's writings.--Yannismarou 13:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Then I'll re-edit there the answer you arbitrarily deleted here. By the way, in English language a person who is involved in "conspirational activities" is a conspirator.--Yannismarou 13:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Ghirla. No hard feelings whatsoever. Indeed, Yanni was a little jumpy, but that has to do with you assuming his involvement in conspiracy. Some people just can't take such (even implied) accusations lightly. Yanni is a good contributor, and really one of the fair-est and NPOV-est Greek editors I've met (I am not! :-)). Let's get on with our business, shall we? (I see we have some mutual friends...) •N i k o S il v e r•  16:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted. I also apologize for the tone of my responses. Your comments on any of my articles are welcomed like the comments of all the wikipedians. Cheers!--Yannismarou 18:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I am very glad you sorted this out guys! •N i k o S il v e r• 20:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I was waiting for the chance for you to understand what I meant 3 comments above... •N i k o S il v e r•  13:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page
''I think Cyde it is you who make things worse! Giano 17:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)''

That is the only thing that I removed.

Secondly, no one ever stopped people from removing content from my user and talk page. Have a nice day. <font color="#4682B4">Fredil <font color="#FF6347">Yupi <font color="#FFDEAD">go  What has Wikipedia become ? 17:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK
Yeah, looks like Peta and Samir are busy atm. I need to go now and was hoping someone would hand out those things. If not, I'll come back tomorrow. Perhaps we need to badger someone to do the next shift. I need to go now. Thanks, Blnguyen | BLabberiNg 08:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Old East Slavic
I responded on my talk page. Beit Or 09:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

???
What are you doing dude? Here are our words from those days (you can find them in the talkpage):

Me: ''On that note, I will offer a compromise. Calling the battle a draw would be a serious disservice, so I propose that we simply say "Marginal French victory," having seen that first word in some other descriptions of battle results''.

You: It's OK with me but I would like to know what other editors think.

This is a little surreal right now because you seem to be disputing that you agreed to this, when clearly you did. If you have now changed your mind, that is fine, but you have to be clear if that's what's going on or if it's something else. Right now you're just confusing me.UberCryxic 15:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you at least make an attempt to discuss in the talkpage why you want to start this issue up again? Let's have a moratorium on editing at "Nominal French victory" because that's what it used to read before this started (and had been for months).UberCryxic 12:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Zinaida Serebryakova
Hi, Ghirla! I would appreciate your take on this edit and this discussion. Thanks!&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Images and articles
Привет Ghirlandajo, I noticed your post at the architecture portal a couple days ago about the drawings in Fischer von Erlach, I agree, they are very fine indeed and so is the article. I also noticed your humility in crediting Vyborg Library to TTKK. That was very kind of you since you wrote most of it ;-) I have seen good things from TTKK so far, so any encouragement is of course also good. While I am here with compliments, I would also like to ask a favor, which is to see if you could take a look through these two categories and save anything that should be kept. These cats get deleted after seven days, and I don't want anything to get deleted that shouldn't be. Спасибо, DVD+ R/W 18:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I retagged three images as fairuse. I have no problem if others are deleted. We have free replacements in most cases. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  06:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Prinias
Goal!! Excellent recovery of my fumble, Andrey!--Wetman 18:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Ghirla, you were the first to support me when you suggested we collaborate on Nadezhda Durova. I've learned a great deal from the examples you've set as an editor. My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. It's always been a pleasure to interact with you. Results are at Recently_created_admins. Warmly,  Durova  21:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Hello, Ghirla, thank you for support and advices. I really impressed with quality of Wikipedia's history articles and would like to participate in project. Ioakinf 11:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for informing me about this problem. I left a message in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Greece and in Talk:Iraklion Archaeological Museum, where I decided to throw a poll. I donot know how these things are done - my only experience is with Talk:Ephialtes. Your advice, your vote and any assistance are welcomed. For instance, I don't know if this is the right thing to do or if I'm in a hurry or if I should inform an administrator. Please feel free to comment or to make any modifications you wish in my initiative in Talk:Iraklion Archaeological Museum. Once again thank you!

And by the way, if you are interested in any topics related directly or indirectly with the Greek history, you are of course welcomed to participate in the WikiProject History of Greece.--Yannismarou 14:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Treniota and Svarn
Hi, I see you have moved geneologies to talk pages, theoretically you are absolutely right, but bare in mind that if we remove all unsourced statements from Wiki - probably 80 % of it will be gone. In some cases we have little choice but assume good faith. You know, it might be quite difficult (if not impossible) to find on-line sources on this particular subject.Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 18:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have to agree on deleting Treniota's family as it's probably a mix of Palemonids fantasies with wild rumors and guesses. All the early dukes need their family relations to be pruned, checked and verified. And as to Svarn, I believe his family was (more of less) correct. Renata 18:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as WP:NOT warns us that Wikipedia is not a genealogical reference, I object to pasting unsourced genealogies into the articles. I do not have time to remove them from all articles in the Lithuanian-Belarusian segment; Svarn and Treniota were two accidental victims of my zeal. Svarn's genealogy, in particular, was taken from an off-wiki source painstakingly prepared by myself, with all personal and place names "translated" into Polish. This has been discussed at length before in connection to Trubetskoy, where my off-wiki work was ridiculously distorted to suit pro-Polish POV. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  18:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, even with current miserable state of family relations those sections are extremely useful. I have been going through some of them, fixing spellings, formating, etc. I think we should try to clean them up (they are worth it). Do you have any handy reference books on the matter? Renata 02:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * BTW, what's the real name of Svarn? Švarn? Shvarn? Shvarno? smth else? Renata 05:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I fixed the names. Shvarn's name is a mistery: not Slavic and not recorded in countries other than Rus. The theory that his mother was a Lithuanian does not hold water. Generally speaking, the onomastics in Danylo's family are very untypical for the house of Rurik. The proliferation of Greek names (Daniel/Danylo, Leo/Lev, Heraclius/Irakly) is usually explained by the Greek extraction of Danylo's mother (which is not proven). Furthermore, there is a possibility of some Georgian connection: Vsevolod III's wife, an Ossetian, is called the daughter of a certain Shvarn. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  06:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Should he be moved to Shvarn? Renata 11:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Check
Khoikhoi's RfA. You are being attacked with personal insults. --anon


 * Best to ignore, Ghirlandajo. I never accept anonymous calls myself. --Wetman 03:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Primary Chronicle
Any chance to get from somewere the illuminations from the medieval manuscript and to put them ont the commons? CristianChirita 07:35, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that the Hypatian Codex was illuminated? I can't find it in the List of illuminated manuscripts. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  08:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've the confusion that Radziwiłł Chronicle has text form the primary chronicle.CristianChirita 08:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wars
Not unexplained, it was typography: I had followed Dash mistakenly. Will take some time to correct. To sum it up, use – to separate dates, but not country names in war names.

--

Leandro GFC Dutra 17:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One thing is the indifferentiated hyphen-minus, ‘-’; quite another is the en dash, ‘–’ (–). For war names, the correct form is country-country war (year–year), with an hyphen-minus separating country names and the en dash separating years.  I had mistakenly read the guide above and thus had separated the country names with an en dash, and am reverting now, but it will taken some time as I am in no leisure now.


 * Leandro GFC Dutra 13:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Leandro GFC Dutra 13:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

 * Thanks for the DYK on Iliaş, Andrey. Dahn 10:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sfengus / Sviatoslav I of Kiev
I'm going to stick a citation needed template on the reference to Sfengus for now per your request for a source. I don't, unfortunately, have the Greek version of Skylitzes available. I will track down the reference through secondary sources ASAP. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I looked in Dunlop and you are right, it was Oleg who told folks not to pay to the Khazars. To be fair, Sviatoslav probably said it too, but I've removed that line from the article. Incidentally I have just gotten a hold of a large file of materials from Pritsak, Brutzkus, and others on the Rus Khaganate and will soon be overhauling that article (once I have the time to go through all this stuff...). Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 03:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Second Battle of Polotsk article is now done...it needs to be added to the 1812 invasion campaign box
Ghirla:

I have started a Second Battle of Polotsk article...footnotes and more polishing will be added later. In the meantime, could you add it to the 1812 Russian invasion campaignbox? I don't know how to do that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_battle_of_Polotsk

Thanks. Kenmore 17:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Muchas gracias


Hey Andrey, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, &mdash; Khoikhoi 04:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Boris Pasternak
I can understand you cutting out the comment on Boris Pasternak about the Academy Awards (even though it has a direct influence on the popularity of his novel and in turn him as an author), but why did you revert the first part of the paragraph. It completely used the wrong terminology. I'm reverting that section back. Please refer to the talk page in a discussion before changing it again. <small style="font-family: Impact; color: rgb(0, 102, 0);">The Photoplayer 09:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK

 * I got a note too, but the substance of the article is really yours! --Wetman 19:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Ethnic Russians in the Northern Caucasus
Stated writing it, but got nowhere, do you think you can start it off and then we can work slowly on the sections. We need to have this article, because this information is scattered about a dozen of them, and it would be nice to bring it all together. Regards. --Kuban Cossack 20:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

How do I start new Wikipedia articles? I have three more 1812 battles ready to post
Ghirla:

How do I start fresh Wikipedia articles? I have articles prepared on the battles of Viazma (11/3/1812), Smoliani (11/14/1812), and Tschasniki (10/31/1812).

Your help is much appreciated.

Kenmore 00:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Uploading a picture to my Battle of Vyazma article
Can you show me how to upload this picture to my "Battle of Vyazma" article?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Battle_of_Vyazma_1812.jpg#filehistory

I would like to put it in the section titled "The Russian Cavalry Attacks", and I would like for people to be able to expand it to its original size by right-=clicking. I'll take care of the caption.

How is this done, anyways?

Thanks, Kenmore 02:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Borodino and other 1812 battlefield pictures
Ghirla:

In response to your questions about the pictures you've uploaded for the 1812 battle articles, they are quite good. The photographs of battlefield monuments are excellent. What would also be good is if we could find any modern photographs of the battlefields themselves, so people reading the article can better visualize what was happening there in 1812.

Are you familiar with the "American Heritage" history books published here in the United States? They are history books on the American Revolution, American Civil War, etc., which use both historical paintings and modern photographs in their publications. The artistic -- or imaginative effect -- on the reader is excellent, because the juxtaposition of the modern and historical pictures compounds the sense in the reader of what the battles and events must have been like.

I also liked the photograph of the Paskevich Palace in the Paskevich article...it conveys to the read the magisterial splendor that these aristocratic generals must have lived in. Photos like that compliment the sense of history our articles should induce in the reader.

Any comments or feedback is welcome.

Kenmore 02:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

West Point 1812 Russian Invasion Military Maps
I would also like to start putting West Point's 1812 Russian invasion military maps on my articles...those maps are the absolute best, here in the West, for showing what was happening in Russia on monthly intervals during Napoleon's invasion. The maps show how the strategic situation was impacted by the battle at hand.

The problem however is that the maps are so huge that the viewer must be able to use the "zoom" tool in Windows in order to get a meaningful view of the map.

The Russian Campaign 46. Eastern Europe, 1 June - 1 July 1812 http://www.dean.usma.edu/HISTORY/web03/atlases/napoleon/napoleon%20pages/napoleon%20map%2046.htm

47. Eastern Europe, 1 July - 24 July 1812 http://www.dean.usma.edu/HISTORY/web03/atlases/napoleon/napoleon%20pages/napoleon%20map%2047.htm

48. Eastern Europe, 24 July - 14 August 1812 http://www.dean.usma.edu/HISTORY/web03/atlases/napoleon/napoleon%20pages/napoleon%20map%2048.htm

49. Eastern Europe, 27 August 1812 http://www.dean.usma.edu/HISTORY/web03/atlases/napoleon/napoleon%20pages/napoleon%20map%2049.htm

50. Eastern Europe, October 1812 http://www.dean.usma.edu/HISTORY/web03/atlases/napoleon/napoleon%20pages/napoleon%20map%2050.htm

51. Eastern Europe, 18 October - 5 December 1812 http://www.dean.usma.edu/HISTORY/web03/atlases/napoleon/napoleon%20pages/napoleon%20map%2051.htm

52. Germany, 1813 http://www.dean.usma.edu/HISTORY/web03/atlases/napoleon/napoleon%20pages/napoleon%20map%2052.htm

Gogol and русские люди
Would you think that this PD image I uploaded would be better as the main one for the Gogol's article? --Irpen 03:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There are many more images to choose from at gogol.boom.ru. I still prefer Muller's portrait. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  16:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Egipetmost
Hi Ghirlandajo, sorry to bring this up again since you just removed a comment about it from here, but I've moved this image Image:Egipetmost.jpg to the Commons as Commons:Image:Egipetmost.jpg. Can you add anything there to the file about where you found it, and who drew it? If you really think it should be deleted then ok, but I think it has historical value and can be used to illustrate an interesting article Egyptian Bridge (nice job writing that by the way). Also, I started Portal:Architecture/New article announcements inspired by the one at Portal:Russia, so when you write (or find) any new architecture ones please add them there. Regards, DVD+ R/W 17:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Renaissance
Can we find a free image of the staircase from somewhere? I just gave the page some attention because I don't see how Neo-Renaissance can improve if Renaissance is so bad, it#s the a horse before the carriage sort of thing. I have just found out that I will be in Firenze for a while in April so will take some specifically detailed architectural detail and motif fotos, but tyat is 5 months away so the page has to be improved before then. I'm expecting the template police there any moment :-)Giano 12:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Pierre Rossier
Hi, since you commented in the FAC discussion for this article, further changes have been made to the article and I was wondering if you would now consider supporting its candidature. The article has been a FAC for three weeks now and there have been no comments or votes for some time. Thanks for your thoughts. Pinkville 01:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Izmail
I really cannot understand your edits in the text, First of all, it is already mentioned in the text that it is part of Bessarabia. Secondly, when Izmail was returned to Moldavia, the country was not "controlled by the Ottoman Empire", but occupied by Austria after it had been controlled by Russia for twenty years (see Regulamentul Organic); also, you have deleted the accurate information that, between 1856 and 1878, Izmail was part of the United Principalities (and not "of Moldavia"). The "it has a new master in independent Ukraine" is just gruesomly POV in comparison with the simple statent of facts it replaced. The "was occupied by the Kingdom of Romania" may be ok for 1940 to 1941, but it is, frankly, inane in reference to 1918-1940 (note that I have avoided using the term for any change in sovereignty). Please, state your reasons clearly on my talk page or the article's. Dahn 07:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

invitation
Hi Ghirlandajo

I was impressed by your knowledge and want to invite you to the new WikiProject Military history/Russian and Soviet military history task force. I think they can benefit from you.

Greatings Wandalstouring 17:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wandalstouring, Ghirla, and anyone else:


 * Please be certain to include me in the Russian/Soviet Military history taskforce...I'm well readon the subject and I'm eager to participate in the taskforce's activities. Thanks.


 * Kenmore 18:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

In reply to your message
Hi there. I saw you engage in some questionable categorization activities, e.g., packing Georgians or Poles into Category:Russian historians. This approach is not helpful. Please take care, Ghirla -трёп- 15:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Phanerozoic"

Dear Ghirlandajo, in List of Russians you can read:

This is a list of people associated with Imperial Russia, the Soviet Union, and Russia of today. For a long time Russia has been a multinational country, and many people of different nationalities contributed to its culture, to its glory, and to its sorrow. They may be ethnic Ukrainians (like Nikolai Gogol), Georgians (like Stalin and Georgi Daneliya), Belarusians (like Kazimir Malevich), Tatars (like Rudolf Nureyev), Azerbaijanis (like Kerim Kerimov and Uzeyir Hajibeyov), Jews (like Trotsky and Maya Plisetskaya), Poles (like Vaslav Nijinsky), Armenians (like Aram Katchaturian), Germans (like Catherine the Great), Danish (like Vitus Bering and Vladimir Dal), Italians (like Karl Briullov), Greeks (like John Capodistria), Romanians (like Mikhail Kheraskov), Frenchmen (like Marius Petipa), Dutchmen (like Sergius Witte), Portuguese (like Anton de Vieira), or, naturally, ethnic Russians. Sometimes we don't know their exact ancestry. Sometimes their formal nationality was written down at random or for political or other reasons. They may have emigrated or immigrated, and thus may appear in other "Lists of...", but nevertheless their names are linked to the words "Russia", "Russian".

SO, I DO NOT THINK I HAVE MADE ANY MISTAKE. OTHERWISE THE List of Russians SHOULD BE CHANGED

Phanerozoic 22:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka
Thank you for expressing an interest in my recent RfA. As a followup, I wanted to let you know that unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. However, I do appreciate that you took the time to monitor the discussion as a neutral participant, and I paid close attention to your thoughts, as I find it a valuable thing to understand how I am perceived by others in the Wikipedia community. My current plans are to continue contributing in a positive manner to Wikipedia, and if there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 10:34, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Jogaila
Sorry for bothering, but I'll be interested what Wiki rules are saying about such poll campaign. Does any rule give any evaluation of such behavior?  Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 11:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Mikhail Nikolayevich Muravyov-Vilensky
Shouldn't this article be moved to Mikhail Nikolayevich Muravyov (Governor)? Because some people might think that his surname was Muravyov-Vilensky? Thanks. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 11:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a good idea. He was a minister for a longer period of time than he was governor. Although his ironic victory title is not official, it is good for distinguishing him from two or three other 19th-century Muravyovs, who were officially known as "Muravyov-Karssky" and "Muravyov-Amursky". -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  11:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My prime concern is that people do not think, that it was his surname. But can the use of Muravyov-Vilensky be sourced and how commonly was it used? If reliable sources do exist, I see no probs with current title. But this title should be explained in the article I think. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 11:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Russian dogs?
What happened to the Russian dogs? We only have Grape's pet "Haggis" now, and he is the wrong breed! Giano 14:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Star
Many thanks for the barnstar. I look forward to working with you in a cooperative and productive manner. Beit Or 19:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-friends
I have added you to my list of Wiki-friends. --Ineffable3000 19:35, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Article Naming
Jogaila must be the most voted-on article there is. John Kenney has suggested a new plan for naming rulers. Basically, his idea is to change the current Ivan IV of Russia to just Ivan IV, (likely, in English, more people recognise Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great rather than Ivan IV and Peter I, but that's something else). For ambiguous things (like Alexander III, the idea would be to put the title in brackets, like Alexander III (Emperor of Russia), Alexander III (King of Scots) and Alexander III (Pope). Then we can use the pipe thing, like Alexander III (Emperor of Russia), to just print Alexander III. If you wanted, you could use other things, like Agatha (wife of Edward the Exile) , Maria Feodorovna (wife of Paul I) and Maria Feodorovna (wife of Alexander III) . It is the same way we disambiguate other things. It is explained at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) if you want to have a look. All the best ! Angus McLellan (Talk) 09:53, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hyrla
It's the cuter Ruthenian form, nothing to lose your hair over. Truthseeker 85.5 12:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sir Syed FAC
Hi Ghirla - I've addressed your points - about 10 new citations from multiple books, including those you suggested. Please have another look at the article/FAC. Thanks, Rama's arrow  13:37, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi ghirlo
Hi ghirlo, I missed you.--Clujeanul 15:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi bonny, I have not. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  15:57, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked indefinitely. -- Grafikm  <sup style="color:red;">(AutoGRAF)  16:46, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sweet. :-) <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;">Khoikhoi 01:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Xenophobia must be stopped
If even admins are making xenophobic remarks and, (Ruski - pejorative for Russian in Polish), what can we expect from ordinary users. Enough is enough, I think. Something must be done. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 10:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: User:Leandrod
Does convincing him to stop the page moves not count as noticing the problem? ;-)

Admittedly, I had (apparently naively) assumed that he would go back and fix the problem once it had been pointed out to him; it seems that he has no intention of doing that, unfortunately. I'll see if I can fix it; but I have a fairly large number of other things to do, so I don't know when I'll have time for it. Kirill Lokshin 15:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Help with a Peer Review
Hello ! I'd like an expert opinion (rather than just the usual automated response), to a peer review I requested for Óengus I of the Picts which Calgacus and myself wrote. Would you have some time to give it a look over and let me know what you think ? Many thanks in advance, Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Request for deletion
Hi, um... wich images need deletion you say? There is no, so Image:Âÿçüìà.jpg doesn't block anyting and Image:Abramtsevo.jpg is from commons already (and it's not used in any articles)... If you mean you have a free image to replace Image:Âÿçüìà.jpg just upload it under a "better" name, replace the image in the article(s) and slap on the orphanded fair use one. --Sherool (talk) 19:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Château de Rosny-sur-Seine
Hey Ghirlandajo, thanks for editing and sending this to DYK. I just translated it last night. Since you mentioned the part about Nippon Sangyoo Kabushiki Kaisha, I thought I should do some extra research to verify and cite what I translated. I found these three sources in a quick google search. They are all pretty short, and I don't know if you read French or not but which do you think would be best to include? I also found the following in English, and am adding it to the references. I will also look for a link the original Times article at a NYT site.
 * http://www.humanite.presse.fr/journal/1996-01-23/1996-01-23-743719
 * http://huma.fr/journal/1996-09-20/1996-09-20-761198
 * http://planete-virtuelle.org/encyclopedia/R/Rosny-sur-Seine/
 * http://world.std.com/~hmfh/dubdesec.htm

Thanks and regards, DVD+ R/W 16:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The first link is too short; the second link does not appear to be related to the question; the third link is the Wikipedia article about the village. The NYT link seems to be the most relevant. By the way, do you know that this Japanese bastard also owns the Empire State Building? -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  16:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Kievan Rus' in History of Transnistria
We currently have a low-intensity and, to a point, fairly civil discussion on Talk:History of Transnistria which seems to center on the point of to which extent, and at which time in history, Ancient Rus' may have influenced or covered the left bank of the Dniester river (i.e., east of the Dniester). I hereby invite you to contribute with your knowledge, please. Thank you. - Mauco 20:03, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Aman Tuleyev
On discovering this article, I noticed a rather unfortunate link to Alexander Tikhonov, the ice hockey player. Of ourse, nothing to do with you - the maker of that article (months later) should have checked the links to his new page. The imprisoned Alexander Tikhonov was not even related. I have added some more info on Tuleyev which I deemed interesting. Sorry, but this is no Kakiev article ...--Pan Gerwazy 20:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Anatoli Vassiljevitsch Ivanov
Здраствуйте, Андрей. Я видел, что вы так-же приняли участи в дсикуссии об Анатолии Васильевиче Иванове. Так как я не являюсь постоянным участником википедии, то мне сложно приводить какие-либо аргументы в этой дискуссии без того, чтобы меня не обвинили в предвзятости. Я бы был вам очень признателен, если бы вы могли бы мне помочь. Заранее благодарен, Игорь--djiggy 11:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Amber Room
Hi Ghirla. FYI, I read somewhere (but unfortunately don't remember where) that Polish divers have sarched through the semi-fragmented wreckage of the Wilhelm Gustloff but not found any trace of the Amber Room. Perhaps if you know more you would like to add something about this to the article? My thought would be that, since the ship was totally crammed from holds to superstructure with refugees, it seems unlikely there would have been room for dozens of crates of Amber Room stuff.

I've also encountered speculation somewhere that one reason the Poles didn't execute Erich Koch, the infamous Gauleiter, was they hoped to get info on the Amber Room out of him — but never did. I don't know if there's any truth to that or not.

PS: This is the longest 'talk' page I've seen!

Sca 14:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Siege of Constantinople
What do you mean by "please don't pillage other articles, without proper attribution". The events were part of the siege, the information was freely licenced under GFDL, and was added with proper citation. And why did you remove the citation you requested for "Mikligardur"? --Grimhelm 17:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Instead of merging the articles, you created two forks, thus violating the guidelines of Wikipedia. I will merge them later today and nominate for DYK as our joint work. Cheers! -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  17:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't regard it as a fork (apologies for that). Thanks for the DYK nomination suggestion, but I think "Siege of Constantinople" is more accurate as a title than "Rus'-Byzantine War", as I said in the talk page. --Grimhelm 17:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You know it was me who suggested this (unfortunate) title on Christianization of Kievan Rus'. Siege or no siege (nobody stormed the walls of Constantinople this time), the term "war" is preferrable, because I'm going to write articles about all other Russo-Byzantine wars over the following weak (just like I did with Russo-Kazan Wars, Russo-Swedish Wars and Russo-Turkish Wars in the past). In such war series, consistency is important. It is not good if the first entry is called a "siege", while the following conflicts are "wars", since there was no material difference between them. A Byzantine scholar thinks about the event in terms of a siege; all the Slavonic historians refer to it as a "Constantinople campaign of the Rus" or a "Tsargrad expedition". We should find a middle ground. I hope you understand what I mean. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  17:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, but the siege was the only battle of that "war", and the war was actually part of the larger Rus'-Byzantine Wars. Conflicts occurred in 860, 907, 911, 941, 945, 971, and finally 1043; it is impossible to define a single siege as a "war" in its own right. --Grimhelm 17:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

List of sieges
Thank you for pointing that out, and I will do so. I was actually working on the Sieges of Constantinople article first, but I will add them to the main list of sieges article. Does this mean you would accept Siege of Constantinople as the article title, as part of the larger Rus' conflict and line of sieges to Constantinople? --Grimhelm 17:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I just completed the merge, leaving the Siege of Constantinople as the title of the battlebox. I believe the resultant article is our joined work and I look forward to working with you in the future. Do you know that Byzantine-Bulgarian Wars are tagged as in need of an expert's attention? -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  17:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll accept the new title then, and thank you for the credit in the history page (more than I was ever given the last time one of my articles was merged…). I'll try to improve the article with some more citations. --Grimhelm 17:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, the citations may raise the article to the GA level... -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  18:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

1812 Franco-Russian War
Ghirla:

You'll notice that I'm dusting-up the "campaign boxes" of some of the 1812 battles, such as Ostrovno, 1st Polotsk, etc. I'm drawing my figures from some excellent datasources. I've also tampered with the "result" sections...if you are not happy with this, please change it back to whatever you prefer.

Kenmore 05:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore


 * I started to fill in the "Battle of Saltanovka" article, but was compelled to stop immediately because the sources on this battle provide conflicting descriptions of what happened.


 * The problem is: was Bagration intending to break through at Saltanovka, attempting to reach Barclay, or was did he intend to retreat before the battle began, simply using Raevsky's division as a diversion against the French at Saltanovka.


 * Stay tuned.

Kenmore 05:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore


 * Ghirla:


 * Thanks for your reply regarding my 1812 comments. In the meantime, I'm going to send an email to a Georgian professor here in the US who is an expert on Bagration and the Russian 1812 war...he did his doctoral thesis on Bagration. If he replies, that will clear up some of the confusion regarding Saltanovka.


 * By the way, it may surprise you to know that in the West, Saltanovka is known as the Battle of Mogilev, and it is said that Bagration, with 60,000 troops, attacked Davout, who had 28,000 troops, and that Davout won the battle.


 * Kenmore 14:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Battle of Krasnoi is finished
My organizing and rewriting of the Battle of Krasnoi is generally finished. Except for a final spelling, grammar, diction check, we can regard it as done.

Kenmore 17:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Battle of Krasnoi peer review
Ghirla:

I have no problem with Wikipedia reviewing the Krasnoi article now if they have suggestions for making the article better. There are still some final improvements I planned to make before submitting it to the committee. Those final improvements are:

1. I still need to footnote sections #1 ("Background") and #2 ("Rout of Ozharovsky"). This is especially important because some major historians confuse the Ozharovsky skirmish with the Guard's feint two days later. I want to explain the distinction in a footnote.

2. I have a few more details to add to section #3 ("Defeat of Eugene") regarding specifics of the combat on that day.

3. I need to better research the data in section #6 ("Summary of Results"). There's some controversy as to how many cannon the French lost at Krasnoi -- some say 133, others say close to 200. Also, it's not clear how many of the cannon were lost at Krasnoi itself, as opposed to guns lost on the 40 mile road between Krasnoi and Smolensk due to Cossack raids. The same holds true of the 39,000 French casualties.

4. I want to better and more accurately specify the corps and division numbers of the various French and Russian units involved.

5. I still need to do a final grammar and diction check. No doubt sentence mechanics and paragraph construction in many instances need to be improved...from the perspective of writing, it's still a bit raw.

Right now, I don't expect that the article warrants any better than a "B" rating.

Kenmore 05:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Schoen Grabern
I've added my suggestions about Schoen Grabern to the "discussion" page on that article.

As for St. Dizier, I need to research that before commenting. The campaign of 1814 has never interested me too deeply. I will however make a point of looking into this for you.

Kenmore 06:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)kenmore

I'm trying to get Alexander Mikaberidze's input
Ghirla:

I sent Alexander Mikaberidze an email asking him to critique the Krasnoi, Vyazma, Czasniki, Smoliani and Polotsk articles. I don't know if he'll respond, he's pretty busy. But anything I hear from him I'll share with you, and no doubt he'll have to be credited in the final "A" level drafts of the articles in the future.

Kenmore 06:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Ghirla: can you edit a Krasnoi map image for me?
The map of Krasnoi that I created by editing an Adobe document image in MS Painbrush can be seen in this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kenmore#Ozharovsky_problem_solved:_he_had_3500_troops_at_most

The map is now accurate, and I'd like to post it in the main Krasnoi article. However, I need to find a way to cut away all of the image except the map itself (in other words, no Adobe image, no other "print screen" details on the map's edge, etc.

Do you have the means to do this for me? Please advise.

Thanks!

Kenmore 07:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Battles of Russia (2002)
Ghirla:

Can you tell me more about this "Battles of Russia" book you were telling me about? Can its contents be read over the internet? How big is the book, and how many battles does it cover?

Kenmore 00:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)kenmore

Unblock
Please see my message; here, and here. Regards Mustafa Akalp <sup style="color:blue;">TC 09:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Re:DYK for Battle of Vyazma
I am sorry for the omission but I am still in the process of learning the multitude of hidden subtleties and undocumented community expectations that have been omitted from the Guide to Updating DYK. The missed notification occurred on my first attempt at updating the DYK template and I am still to learn all the unwritten rules associated with the process. --Allen3 talk 12:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

cheers
I like it when I take up a topic and after some minutes note you joining in, as happened several times now. Thanks for the nice collaboration. dab (&#5839;) 18:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ah, yes, I thought I hadn't noticed these articles before, that's why I redirected my redlinks to Maeotian marshes. dab (&#5839;) 18:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

still in a Scythian vein, I just came across Asii, which seems highly suspect to me, maybe you'd like to have a look.

Привет
Thank you for your greeting. I do not plan on mirroring your barnstar-studded devotion to Wikipedia, but I have done a little bit here and there (both as an IP address and as Eli) to flesh out, clean up and/or correct some articles. Mostly, these have been related to the natural history, flora and fauna of Kamchatka and the Kuril islands. Do keep up your comprehensive coverage of Russian human history and architecture! It is appreciated. Всего доброго!

Eliezg 02:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Копорье
Hello! Regarding the names of the place Копорье, I can, as a Swedish-speaking Finn understand your protectionism (but for that matter can't see why you accept the Swedish name but not the Finnish) I am mostly reasonable regarding names in different languages and generally don't intervene when in question are names that never have had any relevancy, but also sensitive when it comes to fanatical attempts to deny the existence of another name. (To which I have to spend an irritating amount of time in fighting on the Finnish WP, when daily used Swedish names frequently are erased) The following I will paste also onto the discussion page of Копорье:

Regarding ancient names of the place
The directions in WP:NC are only telling how to name articles about places, but it also says in several links that different names should be mentioned first thing in the beginning of the articles. Some browsing around WP shows that in most places where there are several names, they are also mentioned; the article about the Spanish city Alicante directly tells the name also in Catalan, the Inuit town Qaanaaq has a name in English, the German region Holstein has a Danish name, although the region never have belonged to Denmark (though it nabours), a lot of Irish places have names in Gaelic (there is actually a separate direction page on how to name Irish places) etc. In this case the name of the article is, as stated in the instructions, the official present name of the city, transscribed from cyrillic letters, that is Koporye. The region, Ingria, has been inhabited with Finnish tribes since prehistoric times, as the distinguished user Ghirlandajo himself tells in the article about Kingisepp (where actually also is told the Finnish name, Я´ма, though transscribed it comes out as Yama instead of Jaama). See also the russian article Ингерманландия, chapter about Народы. Ingria belonged to Sweden 1609 - 1721, and also 1580 - 1595, (The latter is ignored in the Russian article) and therefor in a way to Finland, as Finland was a part of Sweden by that time. The Finnish tribes lived there until the Sovjet leaders gradually had them expelled all around the Union, mostly to Siberia. The last ones moved to Finland when the president of Finland (by that time Mauno Koivisto, as far as I can recall) granted them Finnish nationality in the 1980-90's. Thus geographical names in Finnish are a relevant part of the history of the region, and can't be neglected, whether you like it or not. Unless you come with some very heavy evidence that I shouldn't, and in that case also verified by some administrator, I will restore the name Kaprio in it within a few days. Islander(Scandinavia) 23:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Almanach de Gotha
If you think my edit was Germano-centric, feel free to edit it to make it better, but the sentence you reverted to "Until 1918, any aristocrat wishing to marry, and for their progeny to carry their title, had to marry a woman of similar rank," is just completely wrong. Most "aristocrats" could marry anyone they liked. Only German aristocrats had to worry about equality, as far as I am aware. Royalty throughout most of continental Europe had to worry about such things, but royalty and aristocracy are not the same thing. Furthermore, even this latter is mostly a product of the 18th and 19th centuries - before that rules were much looser. I think my formulation was considerably more accurate than the current one, but I'm open to other wording. What I'm not open to is leaving the incredibly misleading current formulation in place, which suggests that a French count has to marry equally if he wants his kids to inherit his title. This is nonsense, as far as I'm aware - a Duke of Polignac born in 1817 had as his mother plain "Barbara Campbell". Morganatic marriage, as far as I'm aware, applies only to German houses and to sovereign houses. It does not apply to mere nobility outside Germany, and we shouldn't imply that it does. john k 12:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Moscowtriumph
Do you know what happened to the image you uploaded and included to the article about the Moscow Triumphal Gates? --regards, Odengatan 10:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, for years we used to have the license tag SovietPD for the Soviet works before 1973. Bright legal wikiminds found the license invalid and deleted all the files tagged with this license (except ~2000 we managed to retag). The file Image:Moscowtriumph.jpg was one of them and was deleted on Commons. We should ask some Petersbugian with a digital camera to photograph it for us. Alex Bakharev 11:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I note that the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation retroactively restored the copyright on works on which the old 25-year copyright from the old Soviet code had elapsed. That never happened in Sweden which until 1994 had a similar 25-year copyright on certain images. The Supreme court of Sweden recommended the Riksdag to refrain from similar retroactive clauses since they possibly would be hard to uphold in civil actions.... Odengatan 13:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Help!
I am ignorant and in need of help. I have edited material under different user names because I don't remember how to get back into my old account because I have little time to be on wikipedia. I think it is a great project, but it is set up to screen out people like me in the interests of keeping out trolls. So it might be better to pass difficulties that I do not understand to you: I tried to change the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Standing_on_the_Ugra_River to the more correct in English: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stand_on_the_Ugra_River

I put a note on the discuss page. But no one has taken action, and so now there are both pages. I was not allowed to simply move the page because I did not have enough history.

Also can you let me know how to log back into an account where I have lost my password. I am http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nlight and Nlight2 although the latter seems to have been deleted.

Thanks in advance for you help. Best, NL


 * Hi, I have merged the copy-paste move of the Great stand on the Ugra river. If you have activated an e-mail on your accounts you could request the system to e-mail you your password on the login screen it is the button in the bottom right. If you have not activated the e-mail, then I am afraid the account is lost. Just register a new account and link the userpage of the previous account to the new one Alex Bakharev 02:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * He has a point as far as English is concerned. Stand is more idiomatic than standing, which seems very odd. However, "stand" can, and usully does mean "(very short) hardened resistance to attack" (Custer's Last Stand). Confrontation also loses the meaning of armies looking at each other for days on end, without doing anything. A translation in Dutch, that I had prepared, is being delayed because of the problem of translating stoyanie. --Pan Gerwazy 09:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Kven
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.

Kven-user limited to one account and is placed on probation. He may be banned from any article or set of articles which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing. The Kven-user is banned from editing articles related to Kven or making any edits regarding the topic. Should Kven-user edit under any username or IP prior to selecting a username any edit made may be removed on sight and the account indefinitely blocked. Should Kven-user violate any ban, he may be briefly blocked, up to a month in the event of repeat offenses. All blocks to be logged at Requests_for_arbitration/Kven.

For the Arbitration Committee --Srik e it (Talk 00:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sending this out to wikiart folks everywhere,
so please don't feel picked on. Here's my thing. I've been watching list of sculptors recently and have been weeding out the entries in red on the theory that this is an index of sculptors in wikipedia. However i have been reluctant to remove artists that I know or discover to be real, wikipedia worthy people, so am trying to decide if i should just do a stub - maybe a lot of stubs - of these folks or leave them on the list [I HATE lists with too much red - check out the List of Frank Lloyd Wright works for example.

For example, i checked out one, François-Joseph Duret (1804 - 1865) and discovered that there are at least two sculptors with that name, (1732 - 1816) and (1804 - 1865)- this one is the son -  and both probably could comfortably be in wikipedia. I did have a rather bad moment recently when someone DELETED my article on Connor Barrett about an hour [maybe less] after I first posted it, on the theory that he was not wikiworthy [or something] and a lot of these fairly remote (in time and place from me) artists are a lot more obscure than Barrett. So, i would like to know that i have the support of the wikipedia art history community before doing this. Drop me a line, if you wish to sit down and be counted. Life is good, Carptrash 05:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)  P.S. although i do mostly American art i have contributed to lots on non-American articles including Aleijadinho, Ásmundur Sveinsson, Einar Jonsson, Gunnfrídur Jónsdóttir, Henry Moore,  Ivan Meštrović, Ørnulf Bast, Rayner Hoff, and probably some others. I say this because most of the stubs I'm proposing would be Europeans.


 * Carptrash, the article on Barrett probably already existed. I fixed some redlinks and deleted a couple of typos. English sculptors, or sculptors working in England are not well represented, so I'm adding all that have an illustration in Gunnis, for a start... --Wetman 06:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:The mother of the Russian sovereign Svjatoslav, Olga along with her escort from the Chronicle of John Skylitzes.jpg
Can I ask what the objection is to this image? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I generally object to spamming the same images across multiple related pages. The image is OK in Olga of Kiev and Christianization of Kievan Rus' (where it has always been). It is quite annoying to see it popping up in articles about Olga's son, husband, and other pages where her name is briefly mentioned. If you disagree, you may restore it. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  14:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, that makes sense. It probably would have been a good idea to put that in the summary though. I didn't know if you were challenging the image's validity or what. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries
You know, if you would just enter factual edit summaries, instead of entertaining yourself by calling stuff names all the time, maybe other editors wouldn't feel compelled to check up on your edits when they see their watchlist spammed with your content-free self-expressions. —Michael Z. 2006-11-07 14:02 Z 
 * Honestly, I wince at your apparent connivance of Christofor's spamming spree. I assume that you are an administrator and have the article in your watchlist. If this is the case, I find it hard to explain why you preferred to wait until CRCluver and me deal with the disruption and then went here to reprimand my prompt action. This is disappointing. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  14:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't accuse me of "connivance". I don't review each of the hundreds of daily edits on my watchlist.  All I know about this since your edit summary attracted my attention is that it has something to do with category:Ruthenia, and apparently not commercial spam.  If you'd like me to have a look, I can do so when I have some time. —Michael Z. 2006-11-07 19:11 Z 

Gligan
Why then there are seperate articles for england, Italy or Byzantium??? In my opinion Bulgaria deserves at least a seperate sub-article in Eastern Europe.--Gligan 17:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope that you will now accept the new sub-article I wrote for Bulgaria. By the way there was time when Bulgaria was the largest state in Europe (Emperor Simeon I (893-927)), and culturally it was well ahead of the Kievan Rus' (I am not trying to insult you, and I do not mean that Rus' culture was miserable)- the alphabet you use was invented in Bulgaria in that time, with territory of 22km² the old capital Pliska was the largest city in Europe by area with sewerage and floor heating. The new capital Preslav was rival of Constantinople with its splendour. We had a Patriarch in 927 and so on. Of course Kiev and Novgorod were also very beautiful and significant cities... It would be interesting for me to know whether you and the Russians as a whole consider the Kievan Rus' as Russia.--Gligan 20:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict
Hi, I'm having trouble editing my section back at NPA noticeboard, no matter what I edit I can't answer to your specific comment. Just to make sure, did you answer to me with the bit about baiting? If yes, how is reporting about an enemies list baiting? Thanks Jean-Philippe 18:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Must have been an odd edit conflict. Sorry to bother you :/ Jean-Philippe 18:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, there was an edit conflict I think. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  18:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Sviatoslav
About: Image:The mother of the Russian sovereign Svjatoslav, Olga along with her escort from the Chronicle of John Skylitzes Why is not a good ideea to place the image in the article? Is just a question:)CristianChirita
 * Please scroll up for an answer. -- Ghirla <sup style="color:#C98726;">-трёп-  21:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

done:)CristianChirita 20:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Siege of Kazan (1552) images and tables
Привет! Честно говоря, не понял, в каком именно месте эти картинки противоречат WP:MOS? Даже если живопись современных художников и попадает под какие-либо ограничения по авторским правам, то скан летописной миниатюры и схема, которая уже несколько десятилетий кочует из учебника в учебник, как мне кажется ничьих авторских прав не ущемляют? В конце концов, табличку можно и без картинку поместить.. Надеюсь придём к консенсусу :) --Üntïflër (ә?) 15:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Varangians
Replied to your post on my talk page. --Drieakko 19:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry!
Sorry - I think I have overwritten an image you were using called 'Vartan'.

Many apologies for this. I don't know how to undo it!

Ploader 19:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)