User talk:Ghirlandajo/Summer 2007

DYK×2
--ALoan (Talk) 10:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, sorry - got my templates in a twist. But thanks for both.  It is good to see you about the place. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The last time I tried to edit them, they were less complicated and easier to modify ;) --Ghirla-трёп- 10:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They call that progress, I think. But "subst"ing them in is still easy enough :) -- ALoan (Talk) 10:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh,
Too bad you're not a bureaucrat either to promote me, rather than correcting your comment! :-) NikoSilver 13:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Supraśl Lavra
Hi Ghirlandajo,

I am the author of the article 'Suprasl Lavra'. I titled the article 'Suprasl Lavra' because that is the title that the monastery is known by in Poland, and natives of Suprasl are told that it was one of only four such holy places in the Russian Empire. I had looked on the history page of the official website and they didn't mention the date that it was given the distinction of 'Lavra' (address is http://www.monaster-suprasl.pl/ but they use the term Lavra throughout the page (Polish term Ławra, declined as Ławrze). I had called the monastery about where I could find out and cite the information.  The reply was that 1) The term lawra ws given by the Patriarch of Constantinople at its foundation in the 1500's and 2) The only place that the person knew to cite this information was in an old Russian book from the late 1800's, and that he would provide the name to me if I called back tomorrow.  My question is will this suffice, and since you speak Russian, would you be able to find sources on the Lavra in Russian.  If what local lore say is true, there were extensive pilgramages here during the period of Russian rule, and the Orthodox church was promoted and protected by the imperial government, which would hint that there would be a lot of literature about it in Russian (hopefully) thanking you in advance for your trouble, --Orestek 20:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Ghirlandajo, who and what decide when an orthodox monastery are Lavras?--Orestek 21:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Please check lavra article for details. In Imperial Russia the official decision was taken by the Holy Synod but in reality it was the Tsar who decided everything for them. Not that the distinction is really important. The title has been granted primarily for political reasons. Spiritual significance is seldom taken into account. Many ancient monasteries, which were known as lavras in the Middle Ages, are more reputable than modern lavras whose titles were officially sanctioned. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You edit on Pitsunda
Lazica is a Graeco-Roman designation for the region known to the medieval Georgian (and Armenian) annals as Egrisi (hence, the name of Mingrelia). --KoberTalk 08:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Kober, I can see the reason why Georgian people prefer to call the polity Lazica, while the Abkhazians favor a native spelling. It is pretty transparent, don't you think? --Ghirla-трёп- 18:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Egrisi is a name from which "Mingrelia" is derived (all major linguists in Georgia or elswhere in the world agree on that). So, I don't think that modern Abkhaz feel very happy to call Abkhazia Egrisi. Anyway, an interesting fact is that we don't know the name of the region in indigenous languages (Mingrelian, Laz, Svan, or Abkhaz). The names Colchis, Lazica, and Egrisi are derived from Greek and Georgian both of which were used as languages of culture by the local nobility and clergy. --KoberTalk 20:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Miskin case
It is getting very dirty now:. Actually, I had never heard of this guy Miskin before I saw your exchange with Swatjester. I had a look at Mardavich's talk page history (I wonder if everybody involved in this case did that) and saw that he had "archived away" comments by Miskin and by an admin who had warned him in a different case. Oh, and in case you wondered, I ahve never got any e-mail from Miskin. Checked just now. --Pan Gerwazy 09:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither did I hear about Miskin before he was blocked. And to tell you the truth, he has behaved as a typical WP:DICK throughout the case. Nevertheless, it's a matter of principle, not of personalities. --Ghirla-трёп- 18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

miskin arbitration
Ghirlandajo, I have nothing against releasing the emails. Like I said, I even screenshotted them so that everyone would be able to see them. However, I did make a promise of confidentiality. I'm contacting the people involved to see if they have issues with being identified. It's a little slow, because it's more than one. I have a great deal of respect for you. If you would like to see them, I have no problem showing them to you, provided you keep it to yourself and the ArbCom, until I am told that I can publically release them. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  22:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Russian translation
Andrey, I need your help. Please look at the Putin thread on the Humanities desk (3 June). What is it that Jack has written? Love Clio the Muse 13:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the begining from a monolgue of Boris Godunov in Musorgsky's opera Boris Godunov Alex Bakharev 15:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Found an English translation:

Boris:
 * My soul is sad
 * A secret terror haunts me
 * with evil presentments my heart is stifled, etc...



Buri-sad
Another Gokturk entry. Are there any other Russian sources on this guy that you might be able to tap into? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Native Speaker?
Like Clio, I am astonished to discover that English is not your first language. To have your cradle tongue be language with a different alphabet and a different structure, too, and not to have spent time speaking with native speakers is almost beyond belief. (I do believe you, though; I am getting used to the facts of the great skill, talent and training of so many of the Ref Desk participants.) Most of the English used on the web is of such abysmal quality that I am further impressed that you quote it as a principal source. Perhaps you have access to sites that I have never come across. Bielle 19:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Mail.ru
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Ghirlandajo! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule alexa\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 09:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Konotop
I noticed that you reverted my edit in this article. Would you care to explain on the discussion page the reason for it? If you have concerns over the neutrality of the article please note your objections on the discussion page. As of yet there are none. I hope you saw what kind of tag you reverted. Reverts without discussion are counterproductive. Please start dialogue istead of rivert war. --Hillock65 12:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I made only one edit on the page this year, so your accusations of "revert war" do not hold water. I'm not obliged to edit a page where you keep accusing me of vandalism. You can't expect me to stoop to this level of discussion. Furthermore, I am aware that you and your friends maintain a page in Ukrainian wikipedia which urges people to follow my edits here and revert them on sight. This is most unseemly and will be discussed on meta in due time. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well there is now more than one and again without any explanation whatsoever. Noone accuses you of anything, I merely asked you to explain your actions as you seem to be following my edits everywhere. (diff from last year made me smile, though). Additionally, it seems you have been taking an inordinate amount of interest in my person, which make me suspect you of stalking me not only here but planning and recruiting your revenge squads on the Russian WP. To assuade your fears, let me assure you that you don't interest me as an editor and even far less as a person. I don't enjoy writing you every time you revert without an explanation. Please state your reasons for reverts so that issues can be discussed in a constructive manner. Please discuss things rather than disturb others. --Hillock65 13:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If you suspect me of stalking or "recruiting revenge squads", file a complaint. Read my lips: I don't stoop to answering outrageous and patently false accusations. Bye, Ghirla-трёп- 14:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Third Perso-Turkic War
Went through about half of it, will finish the rest later. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Church of Kish
Hi. Please see. Thanks. --Grandmaster 10:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tashtyk, Tagar, Ket et al.
I am looking in on them. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Re: Ket people, He's now claiming that the Vajda reference doesn't say what you say it says. The Vajda book on Google Books is incomplete and is missing page 159. Don't suppose you have the scan? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Желание успехов
Hi Ghirla, I noticed you changed my Желаю Вам успехи to Желаю Вам успехов. While I can see why the latter might make sense, I seem to recall learning and hearing the former, and it gets a fair number of Google hits. Is the former version really incorrect? --Reuben 02:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Right you are! I checked my old textbook, too, and it's clearly my memory that's at fault rather than the book.  Спасибо!  --Reuben 05:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:Zvenigorod_savva.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Zvenigorod_savva.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at Possibly unfree images if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Butseriouslyfolks 05:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hello again. Sorry to bother you, but if you have an email confirming that permission, please forward it to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org" to properly document it.  Thanks. --Butseriouslyfolks 05:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * My exchange with Alexander Shipilin was in Russian. Nevertheless, I forwarded the relevant emails. Hopefully Mr. Shilipin does not mind that his private correspondence is distributed this way. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! BTW, it'll probably take me a couple of years to get to Igor Moiseyev, so he's safe for now.  ;-)  And I think Mark was just having a bad day. Take care! --Butseriouslyfolks 17:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that would work to his advantage from a WP perspective, as the image would no longer be presumed replaceable (to the extent images of living people are or could be presumed replaceable)! ;-)  --Butseriouslyfolks 17:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's only a matter of time before somebody inserts a fake death date in a living person's bio solely to justify the use of a fair use image . . . --Butseriouslyfolks 17:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Block of Russianname
Hi. I made that block because Hillock65 had requested that Russianname stop reverting his talk page, and Russianname refused, reverting it 14 times in one day. The sheer amount of reverting without discussion looked pretty out of control, so I blocked him to prevent the situation from escalating. It's only for 24 hours, but if you know Russianname and feel that's too long, I would be okay with shortening it. Apparently Hillock65 got blocked, too. --Masamage ♫ 17:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I will shorten the block as you suggest. Thank you for getting in touch with me about that; I wouldn't want to be too harsh on a first-time block, especially if the edit warring stops from now on. --Masamage ♫ 18:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, looks like the block has already expired anyway. --Masamage ♫ 18:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom
Your comment was not "mysteriously deleted", it was moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Miskin/Evidence by an ArbCom clerk. If you read the rules on top of the evidence page, it explicitly says "Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user". --Mardavich 18:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You seem to be really irritated by my statement, don't you? I wonder what's so special about it. When a wikipedian attempts to defend his good name against patently false accusations, it's not really an infraction to post his disclaimer right after the accusation. The threaded talk that followed it was not appropriate, but I have nothing to do with it. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not irritated by anything. However, your personal attack is noted. I just wanted to let you know that your comment was not "mysteriously deleted". But if you don't wish to follow the rules of the evidence page, that's your choice. --Mardavich 21:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Apology
Hi Ghirla. I in no way deliberately left you out of the list of people who had commented; your opinion is as completely valid as every other contributor. Please chalk that error on my part down to a simple oversight - I didn't mean to offend. Sorry! Neil  ╦  20:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, Neil. No offences. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Location of Vändra in 1843: Estonia or Livonia?
As you concentrate on pre-20th century Russian history, you might be able to comment on this issue. Is it correct to say that Vändra, the birthplace of Lydia Koidula, was in 1843 located in northern Livonia? ...or should we say southern Estonia? Is mentioning Livonia undue weight? Please comment at Talk:Lydia Koidula. -- Petri Krohn 00:16, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * In any case the phrase "Lydia Jannsen was born in Vändra, in south-west of the modern Estonia, a territory at the time part of Governorate of Livonia of Russian Empire." is not only incorrect (it is claiming that the whole of Estonia was part of Livonia) but full of mistakes against English grammar as far as use of definite articles is concerned. So I will have a look at it as well. --Pan Gerwazy 20:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Pietro Boncompagni
Thanks for digging up an appropriate categfory. --Wetman 23:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Mikhail Pavlovich
Hello, Andrey. Thanks for your interest in the articles I have written on the Russian royals. By early next month I would  write about Mikhail Pavlovich, at u request. However, information about him it is scarce. I want to ask for you’re help adding to my Romanov’s articles their name in Cyrillic alphabet. Thanks Miguel 1:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Your msg.
Thanks for letting me know. No, I don't think it was I who semiprotected it, but it doesn't matter. I'm OK with it being SP'd. ←Humus sapiens ну? 09:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Forum ref?
May I ask why you use forum as reference for death date? Its not really neccessary as nobody disputes date of death(at other article I wanted only ref for claims of him not being deported to USSR by UK) and as our friend Petri said, its not really good source anyway.--Staberinde 15:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Third Perso-Turkic War
Hello. With regard to the territorial changes, that is meant for the changes after the war, not during. The Khazars never occupied the territory, they left it (even before the war with Byzantium was completely finished). Also, they invaded Georgia (Iberia) and Caucasus Albania, they never invaded Azerbaijan, which at that time was the area below the Araxes river.Hajji Piruz 20:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello again. This picture is from another time period (I assume): (notice it says Samartia in the north Caucasus region). Good work by the way, cant wait to read the finished version! I'd be happy to help out if theres anything that needs doing.Hajji Piruz 23:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello again. Regarding this edit of yours:


 * The Byzantines were allies of the Khazars who fought on the same front. Both fought in the Caucasus at the same time against the Sassanids. Therefore, shouldnt the Byzantines be listed?Hajji Piruz 14:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD Etiquette
Regarding the Estonian Age of Awakening business, please note the following: 1. Withdrawing a nomination is not in itself an attempt to close the AfD. You're welcome to add the relevant templates when you withdraw the nomination, but if you don't do that, the AfD remains live until an administrator or another user adds them. I would have closed it myself, but since I was one of the ones recommending the article be kept, I thought it was best to wait for another admin or user to do it. Given that the AfD remained open, moving and commenting out recommendations that other users had made isn't a good idea. Yes, they should probably have noticed that the discussion was no longer active, but the thing was still open. 2. While I can appreciate your dislike for comments and questions being included in an AfD's main page, please note that there's actually no requirement that they be moved elsewhere. 3. In relation to the question you were asked about why the debate had been categorised a certain way, please remember that it wasn't (or at least it shouldn't have been) a judgement on you. Rather, it was a question. The manner in which you replied was abrupt at best. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:38, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know who of the closing admins allowed the nomination to be turned into a trollfest. Your attempts to justify incivility and harrassing from a gang of trolls by referring to unwritten "AfD etiquette" don't cut ice with me. Neither would I hold my breath after reading your regular comments in support of extremist editors, sprinkled all over Wikipedia. You have made your stance on the matter very clear. I request you to never post on my talk page again. Thanks in advance, Ghirla-трёп- 08:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Gokturk map
The one I put up was an approximation of a map in an old Turkish historical atlas, but it might be possible to do an expansion map. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:GokturkFlag.png
Please see. Thanks. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:46, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I am flabergasted. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right, of course, that it is not that critical. The flag has been removed from all the articles that had it (I would be wary of it being re-inserted though). I wonder how many of the other equally fictitious "Flags of the Great Turkish Empires" have been reproduced on WP. I just found the attitude that FOTW was a reliable source by itself, and that slapping the word "alleged" made everything ok, shocking. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Please join
Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-10 Podilsko-Voskresenska Line. --Kuban Cossack 17:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia, 1961
Hi Ghirlando. Sorry, I looked, but I wasn't able to find any English-language material on this. Jayjg (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla- some pictures that might be relevant. I don't know what the copyright status is but I expect that they expired under Soviet law. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Estonian Orthodox Church
You might want to add this, and the linked articles, to your watchlist. Also check this out: Estonian Orthodoxy in the 1990s. The section "Post-Soviet Developments" is an excellent presentation of the Estonian legal position. What do you call a situation, where the state denies a church the right to legally practice religion. In China it would be called "religious prosecution". -- Petri Krohn 04:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla...
I'm curious of your bold movings and whether the edits like this are the breach of WP:NCNT. Thanks for any feedback :) --Brand спойт 09:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, they are perfectly in line with our guidelines. The Ignatievs were neither royals nor peers, not even saints :) --Ghirla-трёп- 09:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What about this or this? (apart from [ru:Игнатьевы]) --Brand спойт 10:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Titles of our articles are not supposed to refer to comital dignity. Leo Tolstoy, not Count Leo Tolstoy, if you please. Sergei Witte, not Count Sergei Witte, etc. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:16, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Mudéjar Gothic
Hi, Ghirlandajo, long time without knowing about you!

I see that you are active again in this wikipedia, Mnogaya leta! I write to you because of a question related to Brick Gothic. I wrote a short section at the end of the article about a kind of Gothic architecture made of brick, the Gothic Mudéjar. I suppose that there is a coined use of the term because of the great quantity of Gothic architecture made of brick around the Baltic Sea. However, "Brick Gothic" is also a clear reference to any style of Gothic made almost enterely of brick, even more if the material is an important part of the aesthetics of the building. If you don´t find proper the inclussion of the section in the article, you could preserve the reference, at least in "See Also", because there is a strong relation between the title and the Mudéjar Gothic, that, as you probably know, had the brick as its main material and aesthetic resort. Yours and welcome again,--Garcilaso 12:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice to see you again. Is it OK? --Ghirla-трёп- 13:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That looks fine! Thank you and good editions!--Garcilaso 09:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Mo-ho sad
New Gokturk article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Lambsdorff portrait
Hi again. Could you do some clarifying regarding the person on this portrait, if possible? Because of fruitless googling, the caption currently makes no sense for me. Consequently I don't know whether she is Alexandra Nikolayevna Lamsdorf or Maria Ivanovna Lamsdorf. Thanks in advance. --Brand спойт 20:46, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * This is Maria Ivanovna Beck (Мария Ивановна Бек, 1835-66). I would not be surprized if her father was Ivan Beck (1808-1842), the first to translate Goethe's Faust in Russian. She married in 1857 Count Alexander Ivanovich Lambsdorff (Александр Иванович Ламсдорф, 1835-1902), the elder brother of Vladimir Lambsdorff, Foreign Minister. After the October putsch, the Ingresque portrait remained on exhibit in the Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts for ten years. In 1928 the Bolsheviks seized the painting and sold it abroad. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:26, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly took the blatant error into consideration, thinking that she is Alexandra (as I wrote above :) --Brand спойт 21:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Gumilev & Nomadic Empires articles
For the Lev Gumilev article: If a person both popular and controversial at the same time, this means that the person is influential. Whether his ideas are accepted by the mainstream of academicians or not is another question. For the Nomadic empires article: It's better to summarize each section and make the article more concise and comprehensive, since each section already have wiki-articles. I'd like to do edit but i'm under arbitration related with my conflicts with Tajik. For this reason, i can only comment on this. If you'd like discuss the issues, you're welcome. Regards. E104421 22:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hahahaha!

 * I'm well aware that some people, especially those who don't have to deal with extremist editors on a day-to-day basis, are willing to assume good faith ad infinitum and keep the project full of “potentially reformable bad guys”, as long as they don't have to reason with them themselves.

(Underscore mine.) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 04:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Giano's block
Very disappointing, Thebainer. Very. That's not what you were given the tools for. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As I said to Bishonen, Giano moved moved my comments out of their place in the preceding thread and into a new paragraph, presumably to remove the comments from their context in the prior discussion, presumably to achieve this precise effect. Here is the full thread as it was before my comment was moved. I don't know why you are referencing this edit; as I explained to Giano, I have not used IRC for some time, and I noticed his initial post to WP:ANI since that page is on my watchlist. --bainer (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Rollback
No I only end up in those when someone keeps vandalizing page such as that one. Hmrox 17:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you say that I "vandalize" the page written by myself? This is most amusing. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the confusion about the article. It was mistake and won't happen again. Hmrox 17:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Agatha: Thanks
I really appreciate your advices. In my particular opinion (not much important, of course!!) i think your theory about kievan origin of Agatha is true. Sorry if I had any wrong thing in the text of Agatha in wikipedia; i tried to divided the kievan theory in two parts: daughter or sister of Yaroslav the Wise. If this was wrong, i really appreciate if you think is better a correction, do it. Thanks again and sorry for my bad english (im peruvian and a tried to learn fast!!) Aldebaran69 23:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Cranks
Yeah, we’re not talking about legitimate POV disputes here, we’re talking complete lunacy. The guy is quarrelling with the most basic linguistic terms, such as “loan word” and “borrowing”, as well as the scholarly history of the Armenian language. I could have waded in on that talk page but I couldn’t see the point. He’s not some ingénu who’s made an honest mistake and will accept correction, he’s obviously there to push his own crank theory come what may. Reasoning with him is a waste of everybody’s time. The only solution is to remove him from the topic area. Since this is an encyclopaedia, such editors are far more harmful than casual vandals or hot-tempered users who engage in a bit of mudslinging behind the scenes. We need to have sanctions against editors who persistently and deliberately violate policies like WP:NPOV and WP:NOR in order to add fringe or extremist content here. --Folantin 17:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Mail for you, Ghirla. Pretty much the same stuff went to Folantin. Cheers, Moreschi Talk 13:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Category
You're right... I'll do my best. Regards PHG 20:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Occupation of Latvia 1940–1945
Is there some off-site communication and coordination going on here? See history. -- Petri Krohn 15:30, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously, the fact that this article is under probation, does not really stop them. In fact, it enboldens them: we are the vandals! --Pan Gerwazy 16:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Suva is clearly under the influence of Korp! Estonia on wheels. There clear indication of off-site cooperation, see User:Suva/monobook.js and compare the history to User:Digwuren/monobook.js. -- Petri Krohn 16:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Conspiracy theories are fun!
 * By the way, if you want to communicate with me off-site, feel free to send me a mail. Digwuren 17:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I copied the monobook from Digwuren during some conversation at some page in scope of WikiProject estonia. The original monobook content was pasted by DLX if I am not mistaking. The claims of Korp! Estonia on wheels is funny, but unfortunately unrelated. I don't know much about the probation, and just saw a stupid edit war going on, and decided to intefere. This article needs something else than edit war right now, and if you really do think that the POV-Title should be there, then I won't interrupt again. Currently I am having trouble of assuming good faith in that move seeing the other edits of the Korp! Soviet Union on wheels... Suva 17:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you sure you are refering to WikiProject Estonia and not the Estonian Wikipedia (or some other off-line forum)? Your edit history shows absolutely no discussion prior to creating your monobook.js. (Sorry, Ghirla for spamming your talk page, we like it here.) -- Petri Krohn 20:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. - It is highly unlikely that you could have communicated on English language Wikipedia: User:Digwuren was blocked, when you restarted editing. -- Petri Krohn 21:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Hahaha, come on. Would it be also highly unlikely you would stop your paranoias and just shut up? But as you keep instisting, I found this javascript here. Suva 22:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice inquisition. You are aware that people can read other peoples discussions around here? When DLX talks with Dugwurren about something Suva can read that too if he happens to see it. Contribution histories  and so on. Right now it seems like you are harassing people over where they got a piece of Javascript... Since when is such information grounds for this kind of nitpicking!? --Alexia Death 21:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, WikiProject Estonia should have a mailing list. If nothing else, it might make Petri Krohn happy.  I guess it won't matter if anybody ever actually writes in it. Digwuren 22:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC/U on Petri Krohn filed
You might be interested to know that Requests for comment/Petri Krohn has been filed. Digwuren 20:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Need help on article Destructive creativity
Dear Ghirlandajo,

I am new to Wikipedia, so my entry into the "Sherwood Forest" of rules, codes, people, and articles begins with the first test.

May I ask you kindly to have a look at my article titled Destructive creativity? It was placed on DYK, then nominated to AfD. I don't know people, albeit I am attuned to comments, made some updates, still need help. Your attention is highly appreciated.

Sincerely, Steveshelokhonov 10:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC) LA, CA. PS: Hermitage, fab Velázquez.

Sargon of Akkad
is now an FAC. Since you did some work on this article I thought you might be interested. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I will have a look at the page this week-end. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

user page question
Reading your comments on user talk:Jimbo Wales about user:EVula's user page and his collection of diffs (which, needless to say, I find hilarious although I believe I understand your concerns wrt new editors seeing stuff like that), I wondered what you might think of my own user page. In case you decide to drop by occasionally, if you're not using Firefox, please try here if the page is not displaying correctly. Btw: I read your thoughts on tendentious editing and the division of editors in insiders and outsiders, and I really like the way you soft-spokenly and matter-of-factly tell the uncomfortable truth. —AldeBaer 13:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Haha, thanks for the pointer! Yeah, I know my trivia section is getting out of hand. I may have to clean it up again and throw out stuff that has been superseeded (sp?) hilarity-wise (wording?) by other stuff. Please note that I don't include many diffs there, but rather pages and places I found interesting because they taught me a lot about the inner and outer workings of Wikipedia (combined with a good portion of personal POV from me as you may have noticed...) Best regards, —AldeBaer 13:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Treaty of Shimoda
Hello, you recently edited Treaty of Shimoda. Your edits made the article more encyclopedic and thus more neutral, many thanks for that! I also noticed you claimed some things mentioned to be 'patent lies'. The (agressively) clashing of Russians with Japanese (vice verse as well of course) has been documented in some sources, which I have referenced in the talk page now. Feel free to post a source as to why these are patent lies, so we could improve the article in a critical manner. Keep up the good work. T.Jansen 16:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Name-calling
I know you don't want me posting on your talk page, but making baseless accusations directed at other editors is not something you should be doing. This is your final warning regarding personal attacks. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't take such accusations lightly. Either you substantiate your allegations of personal attacks with diffs, or you bring apologies for your facile and baseless accusations. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Substantiation is on my talk page. As I've said there, I can provide more if you want it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Since you failed to provide evidence of alleged personal attacks, I would welcome apologies for shameful allegations above. Describing the actions of a troll as "trolling" is not a personal attack, it's a stern fact. Otherwise, we would have to delete WP:TROLL which contains all necessary definitions. --Ghirla-трёп- 18:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ghirlandajo, you should never respond to remarks by any Wikipedian that lists on its talkpage Things I've been called. --Wetman 23:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Wetman. Jimbo Wales seems to agree with us that his user page is inappropriate. --Ghirla-трёп- 11:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Featured picture
Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 02:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

More interesting suggestion?
Extent of medieval Kannada literature Not sure what you mean. Do you mean a better hook or better topic?Dineshkannambadi 16:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the hook completely to reflect something unique about medieval Kannada literature.Dineshkannambadi 16:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was referring to the hook. The new blurb is more interesting. Thank you. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the restructuring.Dineshkannambadi 18:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Matthias Grünewald
Yes, it is terrible. I'm summering in C15 Provence at the moment, but will give it a quick treatment soon, & return later, I hope. I don't have much specific material on him that I can think of, but it won't be hard to improve on the current state. Johnbod 22:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks- in theory I can get EB, plus Grove art, at home, but I've been having big problems doing so. Don't worry for now, but I may ask for it later if thats ok. Johnbod 14:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

History of Russian Manchuria template
I think the general idea is OK, but the implementation (both content- and technical-wise) indeed leaves much to be desired. Also, the template should definitely not be present in all articles which are remotely related to the subject, but only in those listed in the template itself (again, the list in the template could use some refining). I think Whlee is gradually moving towards understanding this, but if you want to give him a nudge, that might speed up the process a little.

I do have this template on my to-(re-)do list, but I don't really know when I'll get a chance to work on it. If you beat me to it, I sure ain't gonna complain :) Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

DYK
Thank you for putting this forward, Andrey. We work well together! I intend to write a brief article shortly on an American conspiracy to kidnap George III in 1775. I'll pass it over to you as soon as it is ready. Clio the Muse 23:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

PS On the Suvorov question I added some material that you might want to work into the article. Clio the Muse 03:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Pointless junk
While I agree this is pointless junk message which I'd have ignored, please don't reverts edits to my talkpage; I am perfectly capable of ignoring trash or dealing with perceived PAs myself. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Once again, I implore you to take care of rudeness and trolling on the part of Polish editors. Since you don't seem to be concerned, I have to deal with them myself. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:World War II
Hi! I probably need your help or comment regarding dispute occured in Template:World War II where user Piotr Mikołajski inserted the USSR in a list of Axis powers mentioning Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The template consequently was protected by administrator according with his request. The issue was already discussed in the talk page and it seems that consensus was established not to include the USSR in the list of Axis powers.--Dojarca 20:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I pointed out to Ocatecir and Piotr that out-of-process protection of inflammatory statements is frowned upon. If some media outlet would cite tomorrow the USSR as an "Axis power", that would bring Wikipedia into disrepute. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

more childish patriots
could you chime in at Chaldean again? I don't want to break the 3RR over this (even though this may be rollback-able), but I do not think we should allow this sort of thing. Even patriots are required to use their brains on Wikipedia. dab (𒁳) 09:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I will add the page to my watchlist. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Bibliotheca Palatina
Thanks for adopting this. I created it as it were with my left hand as a very quick writeup; it's looking good now. dab (𒁳) 13:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Looted Art Article
Dear Ghirlandajo, you added an NPOV tag to the Looted art article without describing the reasons/participating at the Talk page as requested by the NPOV rules. I assume, based on your edits, that you do not agree with the looting of the Sistine Madonna - nevertheless I believe that the Sistine Madonna serves as an important icon of the lets call it "confiscation" of German art collections by the Soviets, simply because of its iconic value. I even took into consideration your concerns and added a proper reference that extensively describes the Soviet Looting of Germany - focusing on the Sistine Madonna. The article even uses the very same terms for the headline and some sub chapters "Soviet Looting", "Sistine Madonna". I understand that such facts - as any truth - are not always comfortable to anyone, but it is nevertheless part of our shared history. The claim that the Soviet Union did not "steal", "plunder" or "loot" is extensively discussed in contemporay literature - its a myth. That notion is for instance discussed in "Mythmaking in the New Russia: Politics and Memory During the Yeltsin Era" by By Kathleen E. Smith, Available: http://books.google.com/books?id=hXZEPJQcWLYC&pg=PA70&dq=dresden+gallery+stolen&sig=3yEQ9_FVthWEvwMtP5jIYFug8kg#PPA70,M1 - the Time Magazine, also referenced in your article describes one such perspective: "Now Russian nationalists are getting into the act, demanding that their government stand firm on the issue and give nothing back. One may not agree with them, but their arguments are at least understandable. Suppose you are a patriotic Russian in your 60s. Your childhood was passed amid the horrors and suffering of the Great Patriotic War, in which millions died to defend the Motherland against Nazism. Then you survived Stalin, watched the utopian fantasies of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat go into sclerosis in the 1960s and '70s, and saw the imperium collapse in the '80s. Today the yellow arches of McDonald's shed their plastic gleam on Red Square, and gangsterism rules instead of socialist virtue. You know the Nazis inflicted incalculable damage on your nation, with the intent to obliterate all traces of 'Slavic culture' from the earth. Why, in this time of collapsed dreams and national humiliation, should you listen to Germans preaching about restitution?" (I could add more references if necessary but I rely on our goodwill) ... I understand that you like to uphold certain values, dreams and notions - as we all do - but I do not think that we want wikipedia to become a safe place for soviet, nazi, russian, german, american nationalistic propaganda ... Please refrain from deleting referenced statements from other editors just because they might appear inconvenient, and lets instead work together. How about adding proper references to the Nazi plunder of Europe (I actually started it) or the American plunder and looting (Meadows, Quedlinburg, Iraq ...?) Thank you, have a nice day, and Bolschoe Spasibo. (My russian isnt as good anymore ... :) )Okinawasan 13:14, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Amber Room Image
Another addition: I just received "The Amber Room. The Fate of the Worlds Greatest Lost Treasure" by Catherine Scott-Clark and Adrian Levy (Nonfiction) from Amazon. As you might expect i kept looking for the photograph you added to the Looted Art article and which is still included in the Amber Room article. On page 60 the book reproduces the photograph (actually two) and a proper description: "Vica Plauda leaves the room. She returns with a tattered folder ... In our hands is the only surviving colour record positive of the 'Eight Wonder of the World' ... made in 1917 by a Russian officer who fled with it to Paris." Vica Plauda is sourced as the head of the Photographic Section of the Catherine Palace, the image is already from 1917, and the office fled to Russia ... :) (On this page http://www.geo.uw.edu.pl/HOBBY/AMBER/amberroom.htm, Warszaw University, it says at "Tsarskoe Syolo in Russia, the state in 1940", I believe your descriptions are wrong and I leave it up to you to doublecheck, doublecheck, and change the misleading edits. Thank you. Poka.Okinawasan 14:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
Thanks very much - I am most honoured! I'm looking at the BP, & haven't forgotten Matthias G. Johnbod 19:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

template
Improving it shouldn't be a problem, though I honestly don't know if I can do much about it's abuse. I haven't dared too much correct the abuse of the religious templates like anglicanism. Circeus 22:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Theodore
Many thanks for the star! In fact I was worried no one would so much as read the article, so it's particularly gratifying. --Javits2000 21:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Great Work
Rockpock e  t  05:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha! Hopefully our collaboration will be a long one. --Ghirla-трёп- 18:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, snokhachestvo, was selected for DYK!
Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 23:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ostromir
I did check them all quickly (not counting) on Google scholar. Ostromir was clearly more in the balance than the others, though some are for "Ostromir Gospel Book" & some you can't tell. I'll move it back if you feel strongly, but I'm in no doubt it should really be "gospels", as "gospel" implies that, like the Stonyhurst Gospel, it only contains one of the four. Johnbod 01:11, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Great catch on Romanos II, btw! Johnbod 01:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
And you my friend - I thought they'd driven you off for good a few months ago. I'm actually officially still having a breather, but the weather's been shocking. take care --Mcginnly | Natter 23:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm sort of weather resistant I think. --Ghirla-трёп- 23:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

To kidnap a king?
Andrey, the page on Stephen Sayre, and the alleged American plot against George III, is now newly born. It was conceived as a result of a previous question on the Humanities Desk. I would be pleased if you could cast your eye over it, and make any amendments you consider necessary. Some illustration would be useful. All the very best. Anastasia, aka Clio the Muse 00:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for your work on this, particularly the portrait of Sayre. You are my hero!  Clio the Muse 01:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Cough
Useful ? . Well, if you say so! Bishonen | talk 12:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC).
 * When my opinion on some issue is predetermined, words that follow "keep" or "delete" are often just a filler. Perhaps I should emulate Paul August to avoid misunderstandings. --Ghirla-трёп- 00:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
I appreciate the kind words re:Sargon... It was a chore to get that sorted out but I think it is going to pass FA now. Been meaning to start on Shuekuei but been short on time as well. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Quote citation
citation needed tags were added to the two quotes in Suvorov's Italian and Swiss expedition. It's generally agreed that citations should always be cited with footnotes. Do you think you can fix that? Circeus 20:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article was not written by me and I lack in-depth knowledge of the subject. I don't think the validity of the quotes may be reasonably disputed. Wikipedia does not approve pointless formalism. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What's up?
Ghirla, I noticed your back-and-forth on one of the administrative boards today. Then I saw this and the situation has me shaking my head. You're an incredibly productive editor and I not only appreciate your work for the site, I'm grateful to you as one of the people who mentored me when I was new. A lot of people have respected you as a senior Wikipedian.

In my own personal definition, respect means worthy of emulation. You've been around long eough to know site policies and standards better than I do and - heck, we're all human - sometimes it feels like the most honest thing to do is to mince no words before hitting the save page button. So I've got a question for you.

Is the standard you're setting right now the one you want everyone to follow? If it is then I think that would make Wikipedia a bitter place. You've proven you can build the project under those conditions, but most of the rest of us slow down or get derailed. The dilemma where you're concerned is that your actions look like a request to other editors to stop respecting you. If I had seen those threads when I was a new editor and if I had conducted myself the same way, I'd probably have collected a block history and quit the site instead of becoming an administrator.

You have that much effect on people. Whether or not you realize it, you do. Now I'm a bit of a basketball fan and I like analogies. So I'll put the matter this way: who would you rather be, Michael Jordan or Kobe Bryant? Durova Charge! 22:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Durova, nice to hear from you. Frankly, I'm not a very good object for emulation, and it's not the ambition to be emulated that keeps me editing this language segment of Wikipedia. And even more frankly, I would welcome your return to productive mainspace editing, because Adminitis is sometimes very real. Folks constantly involved in adminspace activity tend to lose their perspective on what's really going on and what Wikipedia is about. Regardless, I always appreciate a third opinion from you, even when I feel that it was someone else who asked you to take a look into the matter.


 * I don't like being called a troll (which happened twice today), I don't like to be subjected to forum shopping by one-purpose accounts and I don't like the dead silence from our 1,700 admins when they see that happen. In this way they effectively encourage rudeness, trolling, and abuse of process in mainspace. When they eventually start dealing with disruption, it's often too late. Since you think that I should not stoop to defending myself on WP:ANI, I will probably remove the page from my watchlist, although I know too well from experience that tireless forum-shopping on the part of my opponents may result in facile blocks on the part of newbie or prejudiced sysops.


 * Now to your diff. As has been demonstrated in the ongoing Piotrus arbitration, he has transformed (or connived in transforming) the Poland-related noticeboard into a canvassing agent for the purpose of pushing pro-Polish POV in a variety of articles across Wikipedia. It was he who proclaimed there that every article edited by me is in effect vandalized. In short, the board under Piotr's guidance entirely discredited itself. Therefore I am very sensistive when they ask for "input" on Russia-related matters there. You will find necessary diffs on the Workshop page and you are welcome to chime in there if you have anything to add. Best, Ghirla-трёп- 23:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I respect your perspective on content-related matters and you certainly have every right and reason to respond if you think you've been unfairly attacked on a noticeboard. What dismayed me was the tone of those posts and page summaries.  As Mae West once said, "It's not what you do, it's the way you do it."  You're worth too much to the project to damage your own reputation by acting in ways that detract from your own credibility.  Durova Charge! 00:51, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Honesty
This was a perfectly honest comment. This is not the first I see you obfuscating a perfectly valid request for citation by improperly reversing the burden of evidence. Circeus 23:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I asked two legitimate questions: what is being disputed? what's the purpose of referencing in this particular case? You declined to answer and obfuscated the query by inappropriate allegations of incivility. End of the topic. --Ghirla-трёп- 23:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Mirepoix
"The three ingredients key to a particular cuisine, vary from culture to culture…" is irrelevant to the article, which is not about any combinations of three ingredients characteristic of various cuisines (which are not called "mirepoix" (see the removed "Holy Trinity" language), but specifically about mirepoix (= onions + carrots + celery.) See talk.Proabivouac 18:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ghirlandajo, is there some particular reason you've reverted while ignoring both the talk page and my inquiry here?Proabivouac 00:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Because I agree with Wetman's summary of the situation. I don't see in which way these details are detrimental to the article. Neither do I agree that they are irrelevant. --Ghirla-трёп- 00:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that you agree that I'm a vandal? That was his summary, after all.Proabivouac 01:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ghirlandajo, a look at this one's User contributions— which do not feature any interest in cuisine, needless to say— may be sufficient to warn you not to let yourself be baited into a confrontation. --Wetman 03:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This may sound very strange to you, Wetman, but I was reading the article precisely because I was interested to learn what Wikipedia had to say about mirepoix. I saw the irrelevant and unsourced material and removed it, only to to be met with a hail of accusations and incivility, which continue ("baited").Proabivouac 03:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Vitebsk revisited
Considering how we first met, rather funny: Talk:Fire of Moscow (1812). When I find the time, I may edit Alexander I of Russia later. --Pan Gerwazy 21:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment would be appreciated

 * At the stub Genealogia deorum gentilium I just made an article from. Please edit to make any improvements you can see or give me some suggestions on the article Talk Page. Thanks.--Doug talk 12:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Gunnhild Mother of Kings
Given that her husband and sons both had contacts and activities in Rus' and Bjarmland, I thought you might be interested in this new article (still needs a lot of expansion.) Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Historical maps
Your comments would be welcome. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Spartocids
Present for you in your email box. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It looks like a personal work by the uploader, who may be no other than T. S. M. Mommaerts-Browne, a leading authority in the field of late ancient and early medieval genealogy (see bibliography in Descent from antiquity). --Ghirla-трёп- 18:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration
Hi Ghirla. I just wanted to inform you that I have been logging the results of your productive RD-to-article partnership with Clio at WikiProject Reference Desk Article Collaboration. The project itself is not overly active at the moment (indeed, you, Clio and I appear to be the only people keeping it alive!), but my objective is to have a ongoing record of the tangible, positive effect that RD has had on the whole project. I think it is both informative and important to be able to demonstrate that the RD is more than just a talking shop. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know and to ensure you didn't mind your sterling work being "claimed" by a collective (that essentially consists of you both!) Rockpock  e  t  01:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Maria Bochkareva
It seems like this article was written without any reference to how she is perceived in Russia today (Russian Wikipedia has almost nothing about her). Would you look it over? Balcer 21:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have heard nothing negative about her. You'll find web pages that refer to her as the Russian Jeanne d'Arc, although on the whole she is very little known. There are neither films nor books about her (except the memoirs, of course). You know that I don't normally discuss post-1850 history; the first time I heard about the lady was when her name was mentioned on the Reference Desk a month or two ago. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I am surprised she is not better known in Russia as her story seems fascinating, though rather minor.  Balcer 21:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Because most people were brought up in the Soviet Union where different personages were heroized (Shchors, Chapayev, Kotovsky, among others). --Ghirla-трёп- 21:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

RE:Monastery of the Panaghia Hodegetria
Hallo Ghirla, the monastery is cited on the sources as Hodegon (it is the word "Hodegetria" that comes from Hodegon, meaning "the monastery of the Guides"). Moreover, it is not a legend that in the monastery there was a spring. The structures which host the spring are actually the only remains of the complex. Finally, I could find mention of its rebuilding by Michael III nowhere in my sources.

Just one last thing: if you agree, I will create a redirect named Church of the Panaghia Hodegetria (Constantinople) and I will put there the category 'Churches of Instanbul'. This will make the categorisation of this stub consistent with that of the rest of the articles about the kilise camiler in Istanbul. What do you think about it? Many Thanks and Regards, Alex2006 08:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Gunnhild Mother of Kings
Given your diverse interests I thought you might enjoy this new article. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Task Force
Psdubow 22:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Anglo-French war 1557
I suspect you've already found out the answer, but just in case you haven't: it's the Italian War of 1551-1559. (See, in particular, the Battle of St. Quentin (1557).) Kirill 22:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Russian Icons
He's wrong, and if you agree with him, you are too. The information presented is accurate. --FactsAndHonesty 23:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Infobox Russian city
I don't disagree about Gelendzhik as it was the very first article I tried this template in, so it's there mostly as a result of testing. Feel free to move it to talk (so it could be moved back when the article grows in size). I don't, however, agree that the template should be removed "on sight". Infoboxes are useful in that they provide the most basic reference information about a place at a glance; often information in the infobox meets all the needs a casual reader might have. I don't know if you noticed, but (apart from Gelendzhik) I never add this infobox to articles which already did not have some other similar infobox (often of a much inferior quality) and I would not, of course, purposefully add it to an article so short that an infobox would be much longer than the actual article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 00:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Eiorgiomugini
Hello Ghirlandajo! This week I enjoyed the privilege having a discussion with Eiorgiomugini about Shiliuguo Chunqiu, see. I was rather shocked by his incivility. So I did a small research about his way having discussions with other people. After reading your remarks on I am convinced this is just the way that guy talks. You are right, he thinks he owns the articles he has written. Furthermore I think phrases like You could spend your time adding more material about Russian subjects rather than following me around all day long directed to you or So go ahead why bother to make those nasty remarks here and there after my remark I mostly write articles on Chinese and Central-Asian history on Dutch wikipedia give an insight how this fellow thinks. No I will not get out of his way and I think you should treat him the same way as I did in my final remark on. Long live Monty Python. Finally, do you think I can be of any use to ? I don't think so, because this is a rather different dispute. Greetings from a fellow sufferer, Guss2 18:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ladoga
I have to disagree with this move and with the subsequent redirect. True, most of the articles that currently link to Ladoga mean to link to Staraya Ladoga, but the total number of articles linking this way is quite small, and readers would be much better served if those links were straightened out to link directly to where they are supposed to (i.e., to "Staraya Ladoga"). Folks typing in "Ladoga" in a search box are as likely to expect landing in the article about the lake as in the article about the village. Having "Ladoga" redirect to the dab page covers both contingencies while redirecting it to some arbitrarily chosen article from the dab list is a clumsy and incomplete solution at best.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ghirla, I have to disagree with... well, you get the gist :) The thing is, I don't see the situation with Ladoga as identical to the one with Novgorod.  Of all the meanings of "Novgorod", the one referring to modern Veliky Novgorod stands out quite prominently.  It is still possible to have a dab page directly at "Novgorod", but, as you rightfully implied, it would be the case of silly consistency at the expense of convenience (of both editors and readers).  But Ladoga is different.  In this case, we have two prominent items struggling for readers' attention.  Your motivation for moving/redirecting the dab page was the number of backlinks, and "Staraya Ladoga" currently has about a hundred of them (about half of which come through "Ladoga").  But Lake Ladoga has twice as many!  If anything, it would make more sense to redirect "Ladoga" to the article about the lake rather than to "Staraya Ladoga".  There is no way to predict whether readers would be more likely to go to one article than another.  The situation is not at all unlike that around Kirov, which is a disambiguation page and not a redirect&mdash;readers are equally likely to seek information about the city as they are about the man after whom the city was named.
 * I understand your unwillingness to think of such minute details as piping the links when your mind is focused on the content and the flow of the article you are writing, but I'm afraid when it's not possible to satisfy the convenience of both editors and readers, the convenience of readers takes priority (if I were to seek information about the lake, landing on "Staraya Ladoga" after typing "Ladoga" in the search box would be mildly annoying... as would be the necessity to click away first to the dab page and only then to the destination). Knowing your dislike to mindless repetitive edits, I can offer you a compromise&mdash;we'll restore the dab page as it were (following the reasoning above), and I'll straighten the links so they point to "Staraya Ladoga" and not to the disambiguation page for you.  That is, of course, unless you have any additional counter-arguments I have not yet addressed.  Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed then. I'll take care of backlinks and restore the dab page some time on Monday.  In future, if you happen to encounter a similar dillema, feel free to let me know.  I don't mind doing this kind of maintenance at all.  Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 23:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Could you, please, fix the remaining link on Patriarch Pimen I&mdash;I'm not sure which of the Ladogas is meant in the full Patriarch's title?  Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorting by nationality
Hi Ghirlandajo, your edits on the Estophobia AfD like this one are unacceptable. This is disruptive, and you will be blocked if you persist. Please stop. Thanks, Crum375 13:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Modifying users' comments, by moving them without their permission into a dedicated section based into their perceived personal attributes, is vandalism. If you persist on doing it, you will be blocked. Crum375 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:VAN includes: "Modifying users' comments: Editing other users' comments to substantially change their meaning." If an editor votes on an RfA and you move his post, without his permission, into a dedicated section under a heading that purports to identify some personal characteristic of that editor, per your own perception, you are substantially modifying his meaning. He meant to just say "yes, I agree", whereas now he appears to be saying, "as a Pole, I agree", or "as a Jew, I agree". This is vandalism by our policy, and will not be tolerated. The other issues you raise are important, but are should be dealt with separately. Crum375 15:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The section is named "modifying users' comments". Contrary to your assertions, I have not modified a single comment. Moving them from one section to another or between spaces does not amount to modification. On the other hand, "Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to pages in order to improve them" - and this is not vandalism. So I still welcome your apologies. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In response to your message on my talk page, please re-read what I wrote above - by moving someone's post without their permission into a section with a header that is based on your perception of a personal attribute, you are modifying their message. This is vandalism by Wikipedia's definition and is unacceptable. Crum375 15:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Crum, mantra-like repetitive statements of personal opinion don't make something "acceptable" or "inacceptable", as you term it. You seem to ignore the fact that AfD is broke when it comes to nationalist bickering and canvassing. The responsibility for encouraging the ethnic cliques in their persecutions of the more moderate members of the community lies entirely with you. As I have said many times, "nationalists of all countries, unite!" - that's the only way to neutralize myself and to make Wikipedia serve their interests. Now we have entered the stage of witchhunts. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If I repeat myself it's because you repeat your arguments. If some process is 'broke', as you say, you fix it by working to change the applicable policy, not by vandalizing other editors' posts, or otherwise engaging in disruptive and POINTy behavior. Crum375 18:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's avoid using the emotionally charged word "vandalism," which is defined as intentionally doing damage to the project, in this context. But I certainly agree that the practice described is not appropriate and would urge that it not take place. Newyorkbrad 14:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see above re WP:VAN. Crum375 15:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla, re your latest note, I happen to be in a good position here because I have zero POV in the substantive matter. All I know and care about are our basic content and behavior rules. I can tell you that even if you are 100% correct in the substantive issues, if you use the wrong methods to try to achieve your aims, you will harm yourself and your cause. So try to get to where you want to go by following the rules, and the system will be on your side. Crum375 16:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ghirla, I don't really have a view on the argument, but I closed the discussion because it was nonproductive and causing trouble. It wasn't because it was in the wrong place.  I have reverted your copy and paste of 20kb of arguments and name-calling into the talk page of the AFD, please don't add it again.  Neil   ╦  16:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, and don't worry, there's plenty of admins aware of the nationalism issues surrounding many articles and AFDs. Certain usernames are like great big "voting blocs based on nationalism and edit wars will take place here!" flares.  Just let things lie rather than trying to stir people up by factionalising them; it never helps.  Neil   ╦  16:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If any of these 1700 admins had balls, they would have stopped this trollfest at its source. I guess by now most of them know where that is. -- Petri Krohn 02:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, please. I wonder only that anyone thinks it still works to go around shouting "civility! how dare this hate speaker speak hate to my hate speaking."  Threatening blocks, too?  Wow.  The article in question is part of a political spat, and the people lining up to vote blindly to keep are part of a political spat, and now people are claiming to be shocked that Ghrila would call it that or dare to take the other side?  For the "Russians suck" people, don't pick fights.  For the "You were mean" folks, read the exchanges again, and with some awareness, and you'll see that there was a great deal of insulting of the Russians going on, too.  For the "Do not speak more, as it will die down" people, notice your own hypocrisy in talking more of it to tell everyone else to be quiet.  Also note that this user has been threatened with a block, above, and now you expect quiet?  Get a threat like that some time and see how calmly you respond to it.  If Ghirla gets blocked for this stuff, I'll personally do the unblock.  All I've seen so far is someone who is simply eloquent and effective at counter argument.  Meanwhile, a neologism is getting a thousand "keep" votes because it helps people make points against their political foes.  Neil, if those in charge and Aware are aware, then perhaps they ought to be stepping in now and indicating a closure.  Geogre 03:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Which I did.  Neil   ╦  11:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for standing firm and opposing this trollfest and the associated vote staking. Dispite the odds, this time the system did not fail. I do not know what had happened without your contribution. -- Petri Krohn 10:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Tags
I've seen a microscopic portion of your work, as well as read your user page, and I wonder if you might be interested in reading a somewhat out-of-date essay. I would very much value your thoughts on the topic. Unschool 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that tags are evil, in the first place. In some circumstances, they are helpful, in others they are abused as a club to beat one's opponent into submission. Like everything, they may be used in good faith or in bad faith. I would like to see the layout of several templates changed, so they would not disrupt our articles as much as they do. In this respect, Template:Current event may provide a useful model. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Block reasoning
Digwuren's block was long overdue. As for Petri's block, I still question the block reasoning. It was on the basis of WP:OR and NPOV. Well, those are deletion reasons, not block reasons. The block rationale would have to have been disruption and/or 3RR, but the former is not determined by a single person, and the latter doesn't seem to be the case with that user. I don't mean to be legalistic, but we do not *block* for writing with a point of view or writing original research. We *block* for disruption, and having a contrary opinion is not disruption. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So you are still questioning my block of someone who accuses others of "having Nazi agendas"! Ok. provocative comments and random accusations at AfD was my rationale. Can you prove me wrong?
 * RJ CG was blocked for "Tedious" editing using OR, SYNTH. I am wondering why aren't you talking about the blatant OR he was inserting while violating WP:SYN. Was it the first time? Absolutely not indeed. Can you prove me wrong?
 * Digwuren was blocked because of tendentious editing and edit warring at Anti-Estonian sentiment. Can you prove me wrong?


 * After all, have you seen any single admin questioning my actions? -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  20:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support in my successful RfA. I appreciate the trust you and the WP community have in me. Carlossuarez46 22:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ghirla?
Hi Ghirla. Could you please refrain from leaving unnecessary comments as you did here? It surely doesn't help at all. Piotrus if free to request a reduction of a block. I've already answered him. As an involved part yin the dispute, i urge you to stop that immediately. Thanks. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  11:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wheel-warring has been a serious issue which almost resulted in Piotr's desysoping.  On the relevant Arbitration page, I expressed my sincere hope that he had been reformed in this respect and did not press the issue. Therefore, his confession that "I am tempted to unblock Digwuren per my reasoning at ANI" makes me wince. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:04, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That is not a justification to leave an unnecessary comment at his talk page. He is free to suggest and i am already responding to his request. So what would your comment add to the discussion? Nothing. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  12:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Its purpose is to remind him that he was chastised for wheel-warring and patronizing attitudes to nationalist trolls on more than one occasion. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ghirla, as a favour to me, see if you can go a week without waving vague accusations of (no matter how you consider they have acted) users being a "troll". It's a very loaded term on Wikipedia, gets cast around far too much, and just exacerbates things.  Vague insinuations are not helpful to trying to calm this down; all that happens is that everyone who has been in disagreement with you feels insulted.  Either name who you consider to be a troll, or stop it.  It is not very civil.  Thanks.  Neil   ╦  16:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Kievan Rus/Rus categories
Left on Berig's talk page:


 * I note that you removed a number of items from the Kievan Rus categories because they involved pre-Kiev Rus, such as Rus'-Byzantine War (860) and Paphlagonian expedition of the Rus. I note that certain other articles, like Rurik, don't properly belong to Kievan Rus. Might it make sense to create a new "Rus" category of which Kievan Rus will be a subset? Do you think this would cause a ruckuss? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

What do you think? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you express support for the kievan rus' categorization I have put it back in the 860 article. However, I do believe that it is warranted to have a "Viking" category present in these articles since there are some indications that Scandinavians were involved.--Berig 19:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind a Category:Varangians at all :).--Berig 19:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * hat I would propose is that articles like Rus' Khaganate, Christianization of the Rus' Khaganate, Rurik, Rus'-Byzantine War (860) and Paphlagonian expedition of the Rus which clearly involve the Rus' but predate the Kievan state system be recategorized to a Category:Rus (or the somewhat less specific Category:Varangians. This new category would be a subset of both the Category:East Slavic history and of the appropriate Norse category, and then the various Kievan Rus' categories would be subcategories of the new category. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think an appropriate cutoff would be that articles relating to events or people relevant to the period definitely after Oleg's conquest of Kiev (whatever the specific date may have been) would go to Kievan Rus categories, whereas articles relating to items from before that conquest, or where the timing is ambiguous, would go in the more general category. But is Rus' or Varangians the appropriate designation for the general cat? Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I actually planned to introduce Category:Novgorod Rus or Category:Rus Khaganate, but I would not object to Category:Rus, too. Category:Varangians is a second option, because there is no evidence connecting, e.g., the Paphlagonian expedition or Bravlin with Varangians. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends on whether you accept the theory that Rus is of Norse origin. You can also turn the argumentation in the other direction and say that there is no evidence that Rus referred to Slavs at this time ;).--Berig 20:14, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Our categorization is not supposed to revolve around contentious theories. "Rus" and "Varangians" are two distinct terms for a good reason. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The same logic applies to connecting the Pamphlagonian expedition to Kievan Rus', don't you think?--Berig 20:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never argued to this effect. Kievan Rus' is an artificial construct intoduced by 19th-century Russian scholars and misinterpreted / abused ever since. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Myself, I would argue it should be Category:Rus, because Varangian is a somewhat vague term. Was Harald Hardrada a Varangian or a Viking? He raided in both Britain and in Russia. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've started a Category:Rus with the Bravlin article, I will go through and start moving some articles from the Kievan categories. If you think I moved something wrongly let me know or move it back. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Genrik Yagoda
Andrey, could you have a look at the Lavrenty Beria page? There is a photograph under the Post War Politics section (in the wrong place, I would have thought) which purports to show Yagoda behind Beria and Svetlana. It does not look like Yagoda to me. I put a note on the talk page, but so far there has been no response. Regards Clio the Muse 07:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This was a recent adition by an anonymous know-it-all. The Library of Congress, from where the image was taken, notes that "the man at right, rear, is unidentified". Thanks for spotting this! --Ghirla-трёп- 10:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Task Force
Hi Ghirlandajo,

I saw the article you wrote about the Basque witch trials. It is very good! I created Salem Witch Trials Task Force and I think, judging by your previous edits, that we could really use you at our task force, if you want to join!

Thanks,

Psdubow 15:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC) :)

History of Russia FAR
History of Russia has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 21:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Basil I
Hi. Can I ask you to provide some normal explanation for you claiming about relation of my edit in Basil I article with "Artaxiad and Co".? If civil and logical explanation is not provided, I'm going to claim your edits in this article vandalism and ask admins to act properly. I'm already annoyed with someone's repetitivive reverts and pseudohistory... Armatura 14:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Nazi posters
Image:Nazi poster.jpg: if you upload it into wikimedia Commons, it may be used in other language wikipedias as well. Is there any reason you didn't do this? Please keep in ind there is a ask force which moves images with good licenses to Commons. My guess would be that they don't have PD-Russia in the drop-down list, but it is valid there and may be added manually. `'Míkka 15:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer to have nothing to do with Commons after they nominated for deletion several templates created by me. This happened four months ago and, despite the e-mails forwarded to permissions@wikimedia.org and no consensus to delete, they still keep the discussions open. Their recklessness does not impress me at all. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Przhevalsky
Thanks for adding the quotes to Nikolai Przhevalsky. --Amir E. Aharoni 07:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion
Dear Ghirla. It is becoming increasingly apparent that the ArbCom involving us is not going to result in anything constructive. It's not going to condemn or approve the behavior of any involved editors, nor to address any of our evidence or workshop proposals. As it stands, we are both wasting time and nerves pointing fingers posting arguments that I sincerely doubt most ArbCom members have even read recently. Therefore I have three suggestions to consider: 1) we could draft a joint statement demanding that ArbCom addresses all of our concerns 2) we can simply stop posting there about each other and spend time creating content 3) knowing that even ArbCom has failed to change anything, if we have any issues between us that we want to resolve, we could consider using the only framework that has done any good, i.e. Durova's mediation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Piotrus, since you have found it necessary to move the crusade either to "ChatZilla" or to the talk pages of the active arbitrators, I believe the second suggestion is the only one that seems to be realistic. Apart from your unmotivated assault on my edits on Lendians, which has discouraged me from further contributions on this and related topics, I don't have so many grievances with you personally as I used to. Let me recommend you to involve Durova into your prospective mediation with M.K., Dr. Dan, and other editors who initiated the ArbCase. --Ghirla-трёп-

Hate group mentality,
The Ward Churchill pages are all coatracks. Read the editing histories of the editors who are voting to restore the issues article and you will find that there is an extremist attack agenda in play. Albion moonlight 23:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

283 citation tags in an article
Ghirlandajo - an article having a lot of references doesn't mean it's completely cited, thus a template that says "This article or section is missing citations and/or footnotes." is still appropriate. Even if teh article does have 138 citations, by my count it needs 272, meaning almost half of it is uncited.-- daniel folsom  14:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have little interest in what happens on WP:FAC and WP:FARC these days, since I know that most users I hold in high esteem chose to abandon these pages after they became subjected to serious trolling and incivility. But I do care when the FARC activity impacts mainspace negatively. Today I stumbled upon the FARCed page History of Russia, which - although it contains 137 inline citations - was intentionally made unreadable by addition of 283 {citation needed} tags. I have almost infinite resources of good faith, but they are not sufficient to persuade me that 283 identical tags could have been added to an article in good faith. Most statements that were marked as unsourced are fairly trivial, such as, "Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812". It seems to me that every sentence was systematically tagged in a bot-like fashion or semi-automatically, although there is no requirement to source every sentence, even in a featured article. I find this approach to editing highly objectionable. With almost 300 identical tags, we are heading nowhere: no only they are annoying, but they make reading the article virtually impossible. At best, the current tagging spree results in addition of perfectly random citations generated by Google Book search, which serve no useful purpose. I would welcome a new essay along the lines of Tag trolling to discribe this particular form of disruption. --Ghirla-трёп- 17:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe User:Danny - an extremely fine editor - did go through and tag everything because WP:Spotlight was working on it - this was when it had no citations- we added all the ones you see. While some might be able to be removed, others can certainly not and frankly given utilities like the backlog and categories, I'd rather have a page tagged than untagged-- daniel folsom  18:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would recommend Danny to copy the page into his userspace and make necessary edits if he thinks they are helpful. For my own part, I don't believe that an elaborately referenced article is always a good, comprehensive or even reliable article. Every fringe claim may be sourced. --Ghirla-трёп- 18:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion - I'm going by policy, which says that original research is bad. The template exist for a reason - to tag sentences unsourced - Danny did just that, which again, by policy is fine, and again, even if he cited one or two too many the fact that he was able to cite everything else is great, and I'd rather have it tagged than untagged. Now if you're not ok with tagging - then feel free to rant about it in said essay, but questioning tags that are doing nothing but serving their purpose is hardly meaningful-- daniel folsom  18:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you just removed all the fact tags - especially given that there was apparently an active discussion here - are you trying to start an edit war?-- daniel folsom  18:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that - different editor, my mistake-- daniel folsom  18:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Post edits
Hey, just to let you know I posted this on the talk of said Russian page, but I figure you should know. Ok, after all my edits we've gone from 273 to 78 (combined with ) templates, but I've had to add 11 Citations missing templates (combined with Unreferenced). While that seems like a lot - the only sections I added them to were ones that were in dire need of them - this article still has a lot of pov and or in it - and keep in mind it's a long article, and the templates were reduced by almost 200--  daniel folsom  20:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC) You might want to go through and see if you can remove any more - although please don't remove the citations missing templates for said reason, and I did go through pretty thoroughly, but I might have missed a few, and now my eyes are so dead I won't be able to see them :-D. Alrighty, I'll see you around.-- daniel folsom  20:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured picture delisting candidate - Moon merged small.jpg
Hello, I saw your user name on this image (did you create it?) and thought you might be interested that it's a candidate for delisting from FP status. If you want to weigh in, you can do so (and will probably want to do so soon) here. --Peter 20:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This is rather puzzling. I see this image for the first time. I can see this and this, though. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Napoleon
There is an extremely lengthy block quote in Napoleon. It is text from a lecture a nineteenth-century historian about Napoleon's religious beliefs, and you properly removed it. However, it has been placed back verbatim. Please try to help us move it off the article site permanently.--Mcattell 22:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer not to edit our articles about iconic persons such as Peter the Great, Napoleon I, Lenin, Stalin, etc., because the amount of traffic and controversy they generate make any attempt at improvment ultimately futile. They will be eroded back to a messy state by anonimous passerby editors in a matter of several days. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with that. Nonetheless, I edited the 5,000kb block quote down to a few sentences, which is really all it needed.  Just a heads up.  If it gets reverted back to the massive block quote, I'll report the guy and let you know.  (How does one report such behavior?)--Mcattell 23:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Grand Duchess Olga Alexandrovna of Russia
Can you glance over the above article, it describes her father Alexander III as "the 19th century social reformer" my very limited knowledge of Rusian history tells me Alexander II was the reformer and Alexander III was more of a represser and authoritarian than reformer - am I have not edited the page because I'm not 100% sure I'm correct. Giano 12:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely correct, Giano. I'm not sure about several other assertions, e.g., that she was "the last *reigning* member of the House of Romanov" or that she "developed a close relationship with the people of the village", which reads like a sentimental idyll. I need to print this page in order to examine it in detail. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Vedas
Thanks for the offer. I will be away for the next few days, so we may have to take advantage of it. Good luck! Paul B 08:18, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"sirvcntcs"
Is this a correct word in English? You used this in this edit. The only matches google gives for this word are the Wikipedia article and derivatives. -- Paddu 13:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. As clear from my Feb. 2005 edit, the text was imported from the 1911 Britannica; the online version used to be rife with misspellings and inaccuracies. --Ghirla-трёп- 14:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Former towns
Hi, Ghirla! Regarding this edit: at the very least you need to add a note stating that the entries in italics no longer have town status. It may, however, be better not to include them at all, because it is impossible to devise a guideline as to which former cities/town should be included and which should not be. What criteria are you using? Size? Date of when the town status was taken away? Something else? The problem is that once you start adding "historical towns", people will start adding everything else and the kitchen sink on top. The purpose of the template is to visualize the list of all existing cities/towns in the federal subject; if you want to expand its functionality, you'll need to go beyond just adding a couple of italicized names without explaining why they stand out (and why they are not cities/towns). Please let me know what you think. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Consistency issues aside, I'd say we still need to at least add a footnote specifying that the entries in italics refer to places which no longer hold city/town status but are included for historical reasons. Better yet, enter them on the line of their own. I do not at all agree that the reason for italicizing is obvious; a legend of some sort should always be available to readers when special formatting is employed.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

ANI Thread
Ghirla, by all means, blank it: I did twice, to be reverted.Proabivouac 12:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Aghvania
Hi Ghirla. As a follow up to our discussion about the name Aghvania, please see this quote from Robert H. Hewsen, one of the leading international experts on the topic:

''Caucasian Albania (Russian Kavkazkaja Albanija) is the term now conventionally used for classical Albania by both Soviet and Western scholars to distinguish it from the modern Albania in the Balkans with which it has no connection. The French Aghovanie based on Armenian Aluank (Aghouank') is a monstrosity which has fortunately failed to gain currency. The native name for the country is unknown to us''.

''Hewsen, Robert H., Ethno-History and the Armenian Influence upon the Caucasian Albanians, in: Samuelian, Thomas J. (Hg.), Classical Armenian Culture. Influences and Creativity, Chico: 1982, 27-40''.

I thought this might be of interest to you. Take care. Regards, Grandmaster 12:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Kamchatka Peninsula
Perhaps you would want to add something to this discussion. I wouldn't want to second-guess your intentions. Thanks.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:29, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Comte de Saint-Pol
I'd be inclined to say mid 19th century - the terrace setting & architecture thereof, and the Napoleon III beard. Rather Eglington Tournament - oh there's an article we should have. I'm plugging on with Mathis - I find he's not a very summery subject somehow. The Isenheim Altarpiece needs doing in tango as well. Cheers Johnbod 22:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, saw the question and finally figured out I should look here for Johnbod's answer. My guess is also Victorian.  The heraldry is off - the crowned lion is right, if the notes here Image:Armoiries Limbourg.png are correct, but a diapering of small versions of the arms is unlike anything I have seen in period. - PKM 06:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)  (And yes, "Argent, a lion rampant queue-fouche gules armed, langued, and crowned Or. Rode, St Pol (Luxenbourg)"  per Armorial De Flandre du XVIme Siécle, No. 95 here:  - PKM)


 * Eglinton Tournament of 1839, one "G". - PKM 06:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

RfAR
Thanks for the advice. I am done responding or dealing with the arbcom case in any way. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 23:50, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Anachronism
If you care, this is widespread at no wiki, from which I took the symbols in the first place .--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The Седов
I understand that the Sedov is on deposit at Murmansk, but technically still owned by the Russian Ministry of Fisheries - a vital part of the "Putin regime". I'm aware of the fact that the ship is labeled as the largest traditional sailing ship in the world, but that claim is widely disputed (even the claim that the Sedov is "traditional" might be questionable) and a DYK-hook including the size claim would probably not have survived the Wikipedia scrutiny. --Camptown 18:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Elonka 2
Thank you for taking the time to participate at the discussion in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project. I listened carefully to all concerns, and will do my best to incorporate all of the constructive advice that I received, into my future actions on Wikipedia. If you can think of any other ways that I can further improve, please let me know. Best wishes, Elonka 03:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Another attempt at Ukrainian privatisation of History
Category:Cossack Wikipedians. How do you like this edit here. ?--Kuban Cossack 16:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd list the category for deletion. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like a classic attempt (following the deletion of Ksenofobii Nii) of edit warring. Кубанський черкес ліпить двуголову імперську курку...touching. --Kuban Cossack 16:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Rolling Stone cover
There you go. If you could, it'd be really nice if we could validate that Mrolston is the same editor. Sorry for the trouble. ~Kylu ( u | t )  01:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ghirla, I noticed this image was deleted from Commons as well and I agree with you that it's not clear whether we really have copyright violation here and whether user MRolston is really Matther Rolston, author of the picture (see my comment). I was going to contact Matthew Rolston by email and ask him for confirmation of the copyright status of the image. But since you are administrator, know English much better than me and have more experience in copyright issues and wiki work as a whole, could you please contact him instead of me? It would be very pity to lose this image. Thanks already. Ekamaloff 08:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Ekamoloff. I'm not an admin and I don't have the e-mail of Mr. Rolston. If you do know how to contact him, please let me know. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hiya Ghirla. Sorry we didn't have better news regarding the picture. Apologies if the response I've taken regarding the editor seems extreme, but hopefully my reasoning regarding it is seen as sane at least. Here's to hoping next time we get to talk under more positive circumstances. ~Kylu ( u | t )  22:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Moscow Orphanage
Note that you got the picture spot this time. :) --  howcheng  {chat} 17:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Vkhutemas‎
Ghirla, I don't know if you're interested in constructivism and early C20 architecture but Vkhutemas is up for FAC and suffering a little from inattention. A friend of mine wrote in, put it on FAC, and then promptly disappeared on holiday, having asked me to deal with any queries! I'm trying to drum up some interest, would you care to comment? --Joopercoopers 09:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC) (mcginnly)
 * Thanks for your support. --Joopercoopers 10:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Kievan Rus'
Hi Ghirlandajo. I don't know if you are aware, but there has been a Wikiquette alert placed concerned your edits at Kievan Rus'. The alert is Wikiquette_alerts.

I have been looking at the history of that page, and am finding it very hard to sort out what has been happening. It looks a little bit like there is an issue with some people pushing a rather modern nationalistic WP:POV. Part of the problem is that major changes are being made without anyone actually talking about it on the discussion page. There are, for example, the attempts to use a Ukrainian spelling of "Kyivan", and some massive reverts you have applied without it being clear which version is being restored.

I'm just letting you know. You may like to make a statement at the alert, or give some background on the discussion page to explain what you are doing on the page. On June 22 you reverted about six months of edits, for example. That's pretty dramatic! It may well have cleared the air a bit after a series of edit wars, but a move like that needs some explanation. There's also the fight over an infobox, and I really don't get the problem there at all. There were issues with playing fun and games with the coat of arms being used, I guess. Thanks for any help in clearing up the matter. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  04:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Duae, thank you for this alert, but you can't reasonably expect me to stoop to arguing with disruptive anonymous sockpuppets of User:Alex Kov, User:KPbIC, and others. That's what they need - to divert productive wikipedians from editing. The agenda of this particular sockpuppet is to paste the modern Ukrainian COA, with modern Ukrainian colors, to the top of the article about a state which existed a millennium ago. It's like inserting the modern Italian flag into our article about the Roman Empire. Will it be tolerated, let alone seriously discussed? --Ghirla-трёп- 06:19, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that I am completely clueless as to what is going on here. When we get a wikiquette alert, we try to sort out whether it has a foundation or not. I am not asking you to argue with anyone; that rarely helps. I'm wondering if you could just give a plain statement of what is going on somewhere, for the benefit of the rest of us. It is the way of the world that your statement will not simply be taken at face value, but weighed in the balance with the claims brought by others. But in my experience, when you are dealing with a problem like this, it usually becomes pretty clear how to read the plays, as long as we get a little bit of help from those involved. On the face of it, reverting six months of editing looks bad, and the removal of the infobox I really don't understand at all. After digging around, I think I can see why you reverted six months of edits back in June, but I am guessing the infobox should be allowed to stand, and made into a usefully accurate summary of Kievan Rus' Sorry to be a bother. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  06:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I emphatically disagree with the need for infoboxes in our articles about little-documented states that flourished a millennium or more ago. Our knowledge of them is too uncertain and limited to reduce a plethora of conflicting opinions to several lines required by the infobox. I have seen too often that an infobox becomes a hotbed of nationalist sentiment and fringecruft. If you think about it, any infobox is evil. As for removing the layer of cruft that accumulates around articles over time, this is my standard course of action. It is recommended to remove useless edits once or twice a year to prevent the text from being eroded by anonymous know-it-alls. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, no offense, Duae, but I think this demonstrates why this board does more harm than good. IMHO, it should follow WP:PAIN and WP:RFI into oblivion. My opinion is rather informed here, since I am personally largely responsible for nuking RFI. This project already has too many boards that are used in place for the Request to block of some sort allowing abusive users to game the system by using the cluelessness of certainly well-meaning but gullible folks who try to sort this out. --Irpen
 * Indeed, the attack page will have to be prodded sooner or later. I had not been aware about its existence until Duae's message above. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:48, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Ouch. Thanks anyway guys. I won't stay to argue the toss. I have some sympathy with your problem, as I have an interest in physics pages where we also get strange kinds of cluelessness. I still think you would be better to be explicit about the problems in the discussion page. But hey.... Best of luck with it all, and farewell &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 

Igor Moiseyev
The last time I posted this, it did not post for some reason, so I am trying again. I wanted to know why you are removing the infobox from Igor Moiseyev. I admit that the flag icon may be wrong, but that is no reason to delete the entire infobox. Can you please explain this? Canadian Paul 01:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The article is a stub; the infobox renders the image twice its actual size; the flag is factually inaccurate. In short, it contains no useful information. Using infoboxes in stubs is deprecated. See Templates for deletion/Biography infoboxes for some context. Furthermore, there is no community consensus that these boxes should be used at all. --Ghirla-трёп- 06:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I still want to use an infobox on this page, but I will not replace until I have made the effort to expand the article to where its use is defensible, a task that will likely take me some time to complete. Cheers, CP 07:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

interesting comments
Very interesting comments on your user page about mainspace editing and administrator space. Polounit 09:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * While I too find Pythagoras theorem challenging and have never quite understood why my childhood was practically wrecked by being forced to understand quadratic equations, (a calculation I have never found the need to make in real life), I am in complete agreement with Ghirlandajo's views expressed on his user page. Giano 10:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * They are wise words indeed. Ghirlandajo is always astute about these things. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 10:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, guys. There's a fascinating take on Wikipedia from a detached observer in today's Times. See here. --Ghirla-трёп- 10:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Depresing isn't it? I particularly like this quote "Wikipedia seeks not truth but consensus, and like an interminable political meeting the end result will be dominated by the loudest and most persistent voices." Just a pity it does not go on to point out that the "consensus" is often decided on IRC first, long before their loud and strident voices reach the wiki itself. Giano 10:34, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What is more depressing, Jimbo already dismissed the article as "ignorant ranting which appears to make no attempt to even connect at any point with the facts of reality". --Ghirla-трёп- 10:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone has said that WikiScanner adds another level of transparency to Wikipedia: I can't see that this is less than true. Isn't WikiScanner a Wikipedia tool, not a hostile device? Every Talkpage is a suitable place for our reports on spin attempts, with identifying diffs. In some cases the spin attempt becomes part of the story in the mainspace article itself, doesn't it? --Wetman 13:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC).

Re: name
Only the blessed can pronounce it, and they will know only by revelation. Seriously though, the name is based on the Deacon of Pndapetzim in Umberto Eco's Baudolino. It's an exotic city in the east, so Eco being a "semioticist" it naturally has to have an exotic spelling and be hard to pronounce. I just say Pnadapetzim, but it's not like I have much need to say it. It does its job of stopping my name being found on google so easily. All the best. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 12:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR
Nice for you to complain about one of my admin decisions at ANI without telling me or engaging me on the decision first. Spartaz Humbug! 13:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Skhimar
I am not familiar with this place but I will look at my sources and see if there's anything. I vaguely recall that Kevin Brook may have written something about this site. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Abrau-Dyurso
Sorry, I thought that the citation request was self-explanatory. Since it obviously was not, I added a clarification at Talk:Abrau-Dyurso. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Taking your advice

 * Anderson Peak
 * Sarah Barrett Moulton: "Pinkie"

I put the second one up for DYK. Durova Charge! 05:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I really liked the Pinkie article, Durova. It is good that we have so much interest in paintings these days. A year ago, nobody seemed to care about individual artworks. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

World Festival of Youth and Students
Hi! Sorry for the late response. Yes, it would be good to have the article on Moscow festival. But I've just returned from Sevastopol with a sea of impressions and my upcoming edits will be mostly related to it, for example, to two Heroic Defences of the city. Cmapm 16:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A DYK Barnstar

 * There was a time when me and MacGyverMagic competed for the first place :) I have been less active in English Wikipedia this year, preferring to spend more time in the Russian project. Thanks anyway. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Today's Featured Phrase
Phrase of the day: Ghirlandajo takes the bisquit  for  nationalist fringecruft. Bishonen | talk 13:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC).


 * Yum yum :) --Ghirla-трёп- 13:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Task Force
Psdubow 16:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Geats
Hi Andrey, I am up to my 3RR at Geats. You pointed me there, and I thought I had limited myself to only the smallest of corrections, but User:Berig is defending core territory as a lion. Can you give a hand? /Pieter Kuiper 19:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Defending core territory you say? You also claim that you made "only the smallest of corrections". I'd rather say that you kept removing content,, , whereas Ghirlandajo made an edit that I can agree on.--Berig 21:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Your note
Andrey, thank you for your kind note. It helps a lot to log in and find messages like yours. Best, SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 01:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

UK Portal
Thought you might like to know, I've used a couple of your nominations at DYK (Orator Hunt and Falklands Crisis (1770)) for the September update of the United Kingdom portal. Thanks for them! the wub "?!"  21:05, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are welcome, the wub. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Klaipėda Castle
This article is about to go up on the main page as a featured DYK, but was the "Memelburg" ever called "Klaipėda Castle", even in modern Lithuanian guide books? --Camptown 12:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The correct name would be Memel Castle. We have Königsberg Castle instead of Kaliningrad Castle. On the other hand, Marienburg Castle sits at Malbork Castle. This a complex issue which we cannot sort out in the space of several minutes. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This discussion continues on Talk:Klaipėda Castle. --Ghirla-трёп- 18:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot for your clarification. --Camptown 21:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Vera Gedroitz
Hi! I see you've added the Category:LGBT people from Russia back to Vera Gedroitz. A couple comments: It would be great if you could provide a reference in English, or possibly a translation of the relevant text from one of the Russian references. I did a search for web pages that might reference Gedroitz' sexuality and came up empty. Your help is appreciated! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) In your edit summary, you said "please follow the refs".  The one English ref doesn't mention Gedroitz' sexuality at all
 * 2) The other two refs are in Russian, so neither I nor any other English-speaking editor (on this English wikipedia) can understand them easily


 * It is not surprising that you failed to find any references to her in English. If we had to confine ourselves to English-language sources, we would have to delete a good half of English Wikipedia. Furtunately, this is an international project. There is no requirement to use English references only. If you don't trust my translation of Russian sources, you should consider learning Russian. --Ghirla-трёп- 19:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not that I don't trust your translation, it's that I haven't seen a translation. I refer you to WP:REF.  Could you please provide a translation that says something about Gedroitz and her lover? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  22:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you want from me. We have featured articles entirely written from non-English sources (e.g., S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897). It is their strength rather than drawback as you seem to assume. If you can't translate Russian or Swedish sources yourself, the natural course of action is to ask another native speaker whether the sources really back up the claims contained in the article, rather than pretending that those sources don't exist or discarding them as unverifiable. I don't think you will have a difficulty finding another Russian speaker who may verify the accuracy of my reading. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's fine. I guess I'm looking for something I (or anyone) can verify, not something that requires knowledge of the Russian language. Please don't think I was disparaging the sources you provided, I just want to make Wikipedia easily verifiable.  I'll ask at translations for someone who can read the Russian.  Sorry to pester you. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  01:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should just use BabelFish translations: -- Petri Krohn 22:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting - I didn't realize Babelfish translated Russian! That helped with the first reference, which unfortunately doesn't seem to mention her relationship.  It gives me an error for the second reference. :( -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)  22:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Cherepovets
I never dreamed I'd see the day :) Will make one specifically for you :)  Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

More "idiotic" templates
Here is another example of the spread of Template:Infobox Former Country - at Saxony (disambiguation)! Is this plain idiocy or is this somehow politically motivated? -- Petri Krohn 01:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/DreamGuy 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 20:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Saint Petersburg
Did you also notice how this article has deteriorated in the last couple of months...? :( Camptown 20:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I did. This is really nasty. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

In terms of ANI.
Thanks for your message. I understand that some people objected to raising an ANI thread on the issue. I've made my position on the matter clear in my last post. We'll just have to agree to disagree on what constitutes "misuse" of ANI. Eliz81(talk)(contribs) 15:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR
Normally, people get warnings when violating 3RR, but since move-wars are probably the most annoying wars to clean up, you aren't getting that courtesy.


 * Revert #1: Move revert.
 * Revert #2: Move revert.
 * Revert #3: Revert of one of the two previous edits.
 * Revert #4: Total revert.

In the future, also, please do not completely retask an active page without clear consensus. You are being blocked for 24 hours. --Golbez 21:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I prepared the evidence before I noticed you had commented on ANI, and I had no clue you were planning to comment there. I prepared the evidence for the block on IRC once it was realized that you had reverted twice by your moves alone. That reverts are different by nature does not exempt them from the Three Revert Rule. This is a statement of the block, not a decline of the block. --Golbez 21:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * IRC block again! Totally outrageous! --Irpen 21:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not an "IRC block". I merely collected the evidence there. This was a personal decision by myself after looking at the recent history. A cabal cannot consist of one. --Golbez 21:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, you are expected to drop a line to the editor instead of "preparing the evidence for the block on IRC" (that is, if you don't want the block to be punitive). I am well aware that IRC is full of folks who want me away from Wikipedia, and your action just confirms what IRC is abused for. I have to expect some kind of blow in the back all the time. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no opinion on you or the folks who want you away from Wikipedia. I saw a 3RR violation and acted appropriately. As for dropping a line, having been blocked for 3RR multiple times before, you know the rule well enough. --Golbez 21:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Blocked for 3RR multiple times before"? This is simply false. I have *never ever* been blocked for 3RR, apart from a fraudulent report submitted by a self-professed sock of permabanned User:Bonaparte. After a block engineered by Bonny, I don't give a hoot about another IRC-prompted block from Digwuren and the crowd. From my experience I know that such blocks are never helpful, being used to escalate the problem rather than defusing it. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * In this regard I will admit fault; I saw the two blocks on December 30, 2005 and did not notice they were for the same incident. --Golbez 22:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) What? I'm as big a critic of IRC as you can find, but I see no problem here.  Looks like Ghirlandajo was edit warring.  He got blocked for it.  This is routine.  Friday (talk) 21:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a routine case when anything goes to have one's opponent blocked from editing, even frivolous deletion of pages (see my ANI post). I find it improbable that Golbez suddenly decided to "sort out" the mess that is under ArbCom scrutiny now. If he thinks himself a better judge, fine for him. For my own part, I find it difficult to believe that his action was not prompted by a bunch of interested editors who lurk on IRC and threaten me with block buttons all the time. I feel sorry for block-happy admins who prefer to go easy on the buttons instead of talking with a wikipedian they feel was revert warring, especially when the case is pretty borderline. --Ghirla-трёп- 21:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was unaware of an Arbcom case, and the exitence of an Arbcom case does not exempt you from 3RR. Not borderline in the least, especially considering you started a move war. --Golbez 22:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Absolutely borderline! diff 3 is not a revert in any way. Golbez, your involvement in this issue is deplorable. --Irpen 22:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "Golbes collected the evidence at IRC"? How can IRC can be used for collecting evidence? --Irpen 21:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The conflict was originally noted on IRC. I looked ar the article, and pasted revert diffs there as I found them. The same result would have come about had I seen the conflict on ANI. (which is where Ghirla himself posted it moments later) IRC had nothing to do with my decision. --Golbez 21:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I can vouch for Golbez here. After I came online, he asked if a 12-hour block would be acceptable for a user who had no warning, but had engaged in a move war. I asked if the user had a history of 3RR blocks. He said yes, and I said 24 hours was appropriate. After Golbez did the block, I found out Golbez was referring to Ghirlandajo. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Golbez, could you drop IRC log here and users who were involved in irc discussion on this matter? M.K. 21:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I could not, as #wikipedia does not allow for public logging. The discussion was mostly unilateral amongst myself. I noted the sequence of the move war, someone commented that Ghirla had made two reverts in the course of the move war, which spurred me to search for more reverts to see if he had violated 3RR, which he had. The other people involved with this decision are not relevant, particularly as I don't remember them off the top of my head. --Golbez 21:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you at least say, who was initiator of this discussion on IRC. Or this info also not for public? M.K. 22:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

How by who and why was that "noted" over IRC while ANI is right there? --Irpen 21:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the choice is pretty narrow. Suva and Digwured are both known to be on IRC much of the time. --Irpen 22:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, now I understand what happened. I can figure who known to be on IRC was there and went block-shopping. Sneaky and dirty! --Irpen 21:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You continue to misrepresent me. No one went block shopping. My discussion with you on this matter is over. (By the way, it HAD been noted on ANI, before Ghirla deleted it, he says in an edit conflict) --Golbez 21:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Golbez, you should know better than act on snitches' prompting. "Someone" "noted" something over IRC while there are 3RR and ANI boards because that someone knew that "noting" something behind user's back when the user can't see and respond may be more effective. --Irpen 21:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Doesn't matter if there was a "snitch" prompting.....it was a clear violation of the rules. Just because you don't like the way that Golbez found out about it, doesn't mean that the block isn't valid. It is. Break policy, pay the price. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  22:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * So it's time to shut down WP:AN3, since nobody cares to apply. IRC is so much better for decision-making. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's allowed to report things in different areas. When someone reports a vandal on ANI instead of AIV, or a 3RR violation on VPA instead of AN3, we don't say, sorry, we won't act on it because it was reported in a different place. AN3 is simply a helpful clearing house. And, need I remind you (I don't think I do), that when this issue was first brought to my attention, it was not a 3RR issue. That came about later as *I* realized you had engaged in a revert war as well as a move war. It wasn't like someone came up to me on IRC and said, "this guy broke 3RR". --Golbez 22:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, Swatjester. It does matter that there was a snitch prompting. And, second, there is no clear violation either. Diff 3 is not a revert in any way. --Irpen 22:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * How is WP:AN3 any different in that regard? Just because that shows who is the "snitch"?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia was made transparent for a good reason. You have been told never to issue blocks based on IRC discussions and advice. My opinion about the judgment of trigger-happy IRC guys has always been low, and this is just another proof of their facile attitude. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This block is perfectly transparent. I showed you the reverts. --Golbez 22:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with "trigger-happy IRC guys." Just because it was brought to someone's attention via IRC does not mean that WP:AN3 should be shut down or that you did absolutely nothing wrong. You moved what was originally Soviet occupation three times today and you editted the redirect made in the initial move so the page could not be moved back except by an administrator, and one you apparently don't like very much. Don't you see something wrong with that?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 22:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. There is no 3RR. Even in your interpretation, there are 3 reverts, not 4. You can say that 3RR is not an entitlement. Is that what you are saying as the block's justification? --Irpen 22:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe Ryulong (as usual) argues that "cool-down" blocks should be made without prior conversation or warning, preferrably on IRC advice, with a taunting block summary like "you aren't getting that courtesy, etc." Have you expected anything different? --Ghirla-трёп- 22:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Not only that. It also gives a chance to analyze and discuss the allegation by bringing it to more eyeballs. It also allows the accused to see the accusations and respond. And, yes, it also matters that the snitch has no guts to state the allegation in public. -_Irpen 22:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * People shouldn't be labeled as a "snitch" for making valid 3RR reports. They should be applauded for bringing it to the attention of administrators. We're here to enforce policy, buddy. There was no other shenanigans being pulled around here. Nishkid64 (talk) 22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * (Changing the subject a bit) Personally I don't really think a 24 hour block is that appropriate. Just a several hour block to prevent further move changes would have been enough to get the point across that we shouldn't be move warring.. but yeah, Ghirla, after your first move was reverted you probably should have stopped there and taken it to discussion Cowman109 Talk 22:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You can see what you get when you try to engage in discussion under such circumstances. None of my reverters cared to comment anywhere but IRC. I have long been disappointed by what happens in English Wikipedia and been spending most of my wikitime in Russian Wikipedia. So it's not a big deal for me. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblock
I came into this blind. I saw four reverts and acted appropriately. Considering 1) You're obviously a good editor, considering the awards and laudations higher on this talk page, 2) I misread your previous block list (though that doesn't excuse you), 3) There was no warning, 4) The article itself is move-protected, and 5) the block occurred after the protection, I'm cutting the block to 90 minutes.

I hate my conscience, sometimes. --Golbez 22:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I was trotting off to ru.wiki when I noticed this message. No offences, Golbez. I believe the IRC incident was Suva's retaliation for my remarks here and here. I like to be prophetic, sometimes. --Ghirla-трёп- 22:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As a final statement, to be clear, no one came on IRC hunting for a 3RR block. The conflict was mentioned and *I* noted the multiple reverts. --Golbez 23:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

However, keep in mind that this is not an invitation to resume your disruptive editing tactics, which you have not yet expressed apology or remorse for; I would greatly appreciate a statement from you to that effect. And keep in mind that the four reverts from earlier today still count for the next 20 hours or so. --Golbez 23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't intend to resume editing that page, especially as I never edited it before what you call my first "revert". You can't even say that I'm interested in the subject. --Ghirla-трёп- 23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * First of all, the first revert was the second move you made. Second of all, are you commonly in the habit of completely changing entire articles that you have never edited before? --Golbez 01:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Out-of-process deletion
Hi - right here. - Krakatoa  Katie  00:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please compare the content of what was nominated for deletion and what was deleted by you. --Ghirla-трёп- 00:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

my "conduct"
I'm not sure what about my "conduct" has made you lose confidence in my admin abilities, especially since I'm not involved at all in this except as an outside observer. I believe you violated 3RR, and I believe that it is very clear. It has no reflection on you, or anything beyond that. I believe Irpen has a personal issue against anyone who uses IRC that is an admin, and that he's taking it too far right now. So I'm not really sure what it is that I've said that's made you "lose confidence" in me. If there's something you think that might convince me that I'm wrong, I'm all ears. &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  00:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No sane person would argue that two page moves are identical to two incidents of text removal and that, taken together, that would constitute a 3RR violation. I have never seen this disingenuous argument made before. Since such a report would have no chance of being taken seriously on the proper venue (WP:AN3), it was "prepared" and "submitted" outside Wikipedia. Such attempts to sidestep our procedures are highly provocative and inappropriate. Suva's two previous attempts at "IRC collaboration" were deleted per WP:SNOW, and his third outing does not strike me as particularly convincing. Let me remind a finding from the Miskin case: "Administrators should usually use on-wiki channels of discussion before blocking long-standing contributors with a substantial history of valid contributions". Your failure to honour this advice, in the face of ArbCom's ruling on your own infraction, is a no-brainer for me. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * (responding here, not on my talk page). I'm not sure what you think is going on here, but I certainly didn't block you for anything, and I certainly did not participate in off-wiki discussion of your block. As for the finding from the Miskin case, note the controlling word usually, which means that there are situations where on-wiki conversation does NOT need to be used. &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  14:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Swatjester, please do not put things into my mouth. I have no "personal issue against anyone who uses IRC that is an admin". I have a policy issue with deciding certain things at IRC, such as blocks, behind the curtain, except narrow cases where IRC's speed and discreteness are warranted. Speed may be warranted in case of a WoW mass mage moving vandalism. If I used IRC (I don't) I would be first to report such violations there. Secrecy may be warranted when issues involve sensitive matters, privacy, etc. None of those were involved. There was no need to discuss Ghirla's action at IRC behind his back in this case. There is an ANI for routine issues like that. --Irpen 01:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Allied occupation of Europe
Aha! I've just learned from your user page that you're Russian. That explains your concern about the Allied occupation of Europe and Soviet occupation of Europe articles.

I have only become aware of this issue today via the discussion on WP:ANI. There seems to have been a strong sentiment on Articles for deletion/Allied occupation of Europe that Allied occupation of Europe should not redirect to Soviet occupation of Europe. I more or less agree with that sentiment but with perhaps a different perspective.

Let me present my opinion to you and, if you agree with me, let's see how this affects your concerns.

IMO, there never was an Allied occupation of (all of) Europe. Most countries occupied by the Nazis were liberated with perhaps a short occupation (measured in terms of a few years) of some "liberated" countries and some Axis powers (Germany, Austria, Italy). I don't have exact dates at my finger tips but I think the last country to be occupied was Germany which regained full sovereignty in 1956.

The U.S. occupied Japan for a few years. The four Allied powers occupied Germany until 1956. (My knowledge here is sketchy so forgive any errors in dates.)

Thus, I think it is wrong to have an article titled Soviet occupation of Europe. The Soviets did not occupy all of Europe and, legally at least, they did not occupy Eastern Europe as long as the Soviet occupation of Europe seems to imply. I have not read the entire article but I did get far enough to notice that there is an article entitled Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia which asserts that the Soviets "occupied" Czechoslovakia until 1989.

Now, let's be honest about things. The Soviet Union exerted very tight control over the Warsaw Pact countries even to the point of military incursions into Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968.

Nonetheless, the official and legal relationship between the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact was not one of occupation but of allies with the Soviet Union being the dominant ally.

Now, I would not argue that the U.S. and the Soviet Union were morally equivalent during the Cold War. However, we can see that the U.S. did not "occupy" Haiti, the Dominican Republic, South Korea or South Vietnam in the sense that it is alleged that the Soviet Union "occupied" Eastern Europe despite the fact that the U.S. intervened militarily in those countries and exerted strong influence on their governments.

It is true that it is a favorite phrase of American conservatives to style the Soviet relationship to the Warsaw pact countries as "occupation of Eastern Europe". I myself think of it this way. However, this is highly POV and is not encyclopedic. It's OK to mention that American conservatives think this way but it is wrong to assert it as if it is the only perspective on the truth.

Since I am new to this discussion, I have no idea of which articles need to be changed and where to start building consensus for the change. If you agree with what I have written above, tell me what articles need to be changed and where the discussion should be continued.

If you disagree with what I have written, please tell me what you disagree with and let's see if we can find common ground to move forward.

--Richard 00:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't really take much interest in the 20th-century politics, but I feel that you can't cover the taking of Berlin in 1945 and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979 in the same article. I believe that there was a post-war occupation of Europe by the Allies, which included Britain, USA, and USSR. We definitely need a page about the Allied occupation (we already have the category), and I don't understand why it should be deleted or replaced with a generic page about "Soviet occupation" of Hungary, Bukovina, Mongolia, Afghanistan, and whatnot. Irpen makes an excellent point here. --Ghirla-трёп- 00:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe I elaborated in greater detail here. --Irpen 01:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have read both of the above two postings by Irpen and I am in agreement. The melding together of unrelated events is WP:SYNTH.  I have no love for the Soviets but we must present events in an encyclopedic and NPOV way rather than in a polemical anti-Soviet way.  Even the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe and Eastern Germany must be separated from the Warsaw-Pact era.  As Irpen correctly states, there is a difference between occupation and "satellite state".
 * I have not really read any of the Wikipedia articles on this topic and so I was unaware that there was a problem until now. I will start reading over the next few days to develop my own assessment of the size and nature of the problem.  If you two care to provide links to relevant articles that need to be revised, please do so.
 * --Richard 02:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Richard, you mentioned Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia and claimed "the official and legal relationship between the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact was not one of occupation but of allies with the Soviet Union being the dominant ally". Whose intepretation of this relationship are you referring to here? Officially and legally the Czech Republic views the period up to 1989 as Soviet occupation, as do most Western sources. We can wave our arms as much as we like, but at the end of the day, Wikipedia must reflect the sources, not reinterpret them to fit our personal world view. Martintg 02:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... that's why I love Wikipedia. I'm always learning new things.  OK, I accept that the current government of the Czech Republic considers the entire era from 1945 to 1989 as Soviet occupation.  That doesn't make it so.  There are at least two POVs here.  That of the Czech Republic and that of the Soviet Union.  Both POVs should be presented with some indication of which is the mainstream view.  What do Russian historians say?  What do Western historians say?  I would like some support for the comment that "most Western sources" also consider the occupation as lasting to 1989.  (I'm not really disputing this but since there some dispute about it, it would be best to provide the support.)
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richardshusr (talk • contribs) 03:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, while this particular source is not entirely clear on when the occupation started, one of the more obvious interpretations suggests 1968 -- the year of Prague Spring suppression, marked as beginning of "military occupation" --, not 1945. Digwuren 03:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Richard, the article Soviet occupation of Czechoslovakia does present the viewpoints of both the Czech and Russian governments. You raise important questions regarding what the historians say, one side is working to provide sources that reflect the Western view. Unfortunately Irpen and Ghirlandajo are not providing any input on what Russian historians say, they are simply engaging in disruptive behaviour instead, so perhaps the Russian sources don't exist. Until they do provide those sources, Western sources must constitute the mainstream view. Martintg 03:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I remain unconvinced about the "most" part of "most Western sources". I'd like to see references.  And, yes, I guess at some point I need to do my own research and reading.  I do wish to point out that the sources provided in the article are not very robust with the exception, of course, of the official website of the Czech government.
 * I also think that the title of the article is POV even if the article itself does present both viewpoints. I'm not convinced that the article is NPOV in the sense of taking a truly neutral POV stance.  Just presenting both viewpoints is not enough.  One also needs to ask whether the "occupation of Czechoslovakia" was substantively different from the relationships of the Soviet Union with other Warsaw Pact nations.  Where else in the Warsaw Pact were Soviet troops stationed?  Were the other Warsaw Pact nations similarly intimidated by the threat of Soviet military intervention?  Seems to me that Poland lived under the shadow of threatened Soviet intervention during the Lech Walesa/Solidarity years.
 * Is the coalition presence in Iraq an "occupation"? Technically, it isn't.  Iraq has a sovereign government which even has the temerity to tell Bush that they can find friends "elsewhere".  Yet, some people would call it an "occupation".  "Occupation" is inherently a POV term unless the occupier itself considers itself to be occupying the territory in question.
 * Finally, I wonder what people would think of the title Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe. To me, "hegemony" is a more neutral word that still captures the state of affairs.  Moreover, the term "hegemony" was widely used in academic sources so this is not OR.
 * --Richard 04:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Soviet occupation" vs. "Soviet hegemony"
Richard, your view that an article is NPOV in the sense of "taking a truly neutral POV stance" seems to go beyond WP:NPOV, which is simply to present all POVs according to weight. Martintg 05:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And on what basis would you weight the Western POV over the Soviet POV? Wouldn't it be more NPOV to state "The predominant Western perspective was to consider the Soviet presence an occupation while the Soviets argued that it was simply one aspect of an arrangement of economic, military and cultural cooperation."  (my words although I don't think I'm far off the mark).  Also, when we say "predominant Western perspective", what are we talking about?  If you go back to the 60s and 70s, there was probably a greater diversity of opinion between the left and the right in the West.  This was especially true during the days of "peaceful coexistence", "containment" and "détente".
 * Even in the 80s, the Reagan/Thatcher foreign policy of actively opposing the Soviet hegemony was new, contentious and considered potentially destabilizing. It is revisionist (IMHO) to suggest that the West uniformly considered the Soviet presence in Eastern Europe to be an "occupation".  Reagan was castigated by liberals for daring to declare that the United States did not accept the Soviet presence in Europe as a "fait accompli".  I can't find the quote at the moment but I remember the flap when Reagan first made the point in a speech. --Richard 05:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Asking ourselves rhetorical questions whether there were substative differences between Czech and other cases, or comparing it with the coalition presence in Iraq is engaging in WP:OR, unless you can point to sources that ask these questions or make these comparisons in those terms. Martintg 05:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is OR without sources but you miss my point. Do other former Warsaw Pact nations consider their relationship with the Soviet Union to have been one of occupation?  Or is it just some Western sources who use that term?  I am not convinced that "occupation" is the most widely accepted term to describe this period.  But, maybe I'm old-fashioned and the academic ethos has changed over the last couple of decades.
 * It would be interesting to know how the usage has changed over the years. I would assert that in the 60s and 70s, the term "Soviet hegemony" was more widely used as being more politically correct (from a left-leaning liberal POV) and that this started to change in the 80s.  This probably changed even more post 1989 and I would expect that Eastern Europe uses "Soviet occupation" more uniformly than the West.  All of this is wild speculation but I'm just sharing my personal hunch.  If you can prove me wrong, I'm happy to admit it and learn something new in the process.  A quick scan of the first couple pages of ghits for each term suggests that my theory about a pre-1990 / post-1990 change in usage may be valid.  If this is true, Google Scholar may be biased towards post-1990 usage since fewer documents were available in electronic form prior to 1990. --Richard 05:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

"Soviet Occupation" is more widely used in academic sources than "Soviet hegemony", with "Soviet Occupation" getting 5240 hits, while "Soviet hegemony" only gets 930 hits. It is not for us to judge if a term is inheritly POV, if that term is widely used in scholarly sources. Martintg 05:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Touché. Point taken. However, your Google searching skews the numbers a bit. A better comparison would be to Google Scholar "Soviet occupation" "Eastern Europe" (2110 hits) and "Soviet hegemony" "Eastern Europe" (930 hits).  Thus, the distribution is not as skewed as your searches suggested although the basic point is on the money.  I think the main difference is that searching for "Soviet occupation" alone turns up a lot of hits that are not related to Eastern Europe (specifically Afghanistan which shows up in a lot of the hits on the first page).
 * --Richard 05:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please
Please tone down the broad sweeping accusations, uncivil comments and generally be more polite & civil in discussions. You are well-aware of what is and is not acceptable language and behaviour. Vassyana 07:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be more specific when accusing people of "broad sweeping accusations and uncivil comments". In the absence of diffs to be discussed, I consider any attempt to silence me inappropriate. Either you provide some evidence of my presumed "uncivil comments", or your bring apologies for this taunting and groundless comment. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Concerning this edit, I feel obliged to remind you a relevant passage from WP:REVERT: Reverting a good-faith edit may send the message that "I think your edit was no better than vandalism and doesn't deserve even the courtesy of an explanation". It is a slap in the face to a good-faith editor. Please think twice about who is being uncivil here. --Ghirla-трёп- 07:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Snarky comments implying some grand IRC conspiracy are a good start. You are the one that keeps raising accusations about IRC. (Correction: I've noted that Irpen, who agrees with you, also raised the issue once.) I don't see comments about the "superiority of IRC" outside of your own. Also, your accusation that the main decision-making happens on IRC is grossly inaccurate and inflammatory. Your comments about other editors are inappropriate. (example) You know well enough how to report and review "admin abuse" without the need to fling accusations and insults about. Your comments are plainly rude, accusatory and inflammatory. Please don't play like you're unaware of how your comments are presented. Vassyana 07:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for confirming my suspicions that you acted on IRC prompting. You can't expect me to stoop to replying to a message left in such a tone. Please reserve it for IRC conversations; it is not appreciated on Wikipedia. If you challenge the fact that yesterday's decision was taken on IRC rather than on AN3 or ANI (where it was expected to be taken), please refer me to the relevant thread. If you deny that Piotr's deletion was not warranted, you should substantiate your position with something better than unmeaningful epithets like "rude, accusatory and inflammatory" (WP:KETTLE, anyone?) If you second Piotr's favourite tactic of reducing every discussion of his misconduct into ciivility issues, I can't help you here. Per WP:CIVIL, the first mark of incivility is judgmental tone of which your message above is a prime specimen. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Please stop throwing out random accusations. I acted of my own accord. No one prompted me to do anything. You know full well how to handle process here and how to conduct yourself appropriately. I'm not addressing the substance of your complaints. I am addressing the inappropriate manner in which you are raising and voicing your concerns. I provided a couple diffs to illustrate the issue, as requested. Instead of addressing those diffs, you resort to further accusations and attacks. Please reconsider your actions and behaviour. Vassyana 08:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Vassyana, I could address the same concerns to you. I demonstrated on your talk page that you have serious civility problems. No apologies for "a slap in the face to a good-faith editor"? This is disappointing, but I'll survive. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:25, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I addressed your comments on my talk page, quite plainly and directly. Will you please address the diffs I provided above? Do you recognize the problem I am relating to you? Do you intend to stop? Vassyana 08:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of stopping my criticism of IRC which I find evil and incompatible with the goal of writing an encyclopaedia. Now, don't try to derail the discussion of your misuse of rollback on your talk page. I find the incident deplorable and I really hope that you rethink your attitude to rollback. My policy towards admin abuse is strict. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please directly address the questions I asked. I am not asking you to stop criticizing IRC, as you're welcome to voice your opinion in a civil manner. I am asking you to stop making false and sweeping accusations, as well as keep your comments generally civil. On the subject of "abuse", if you feel I am abusing my sysop privileges, you are free to request a review of my actions. Vassyana 08:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You should be prepared that your administrative actions will be closely monitored. This is only an isolated incident so far. If I see you persisting to slap me in the face, so to speak, I will certainly consider this option. So far I have not formed an opinion about your administrative actions in general.  --Ghirla-трёп- 08:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Vassyanya, there is nothing to "address in those diffs". You horribly mischaracterize them. I read the whole discussion as it appeared and clicked again at your diffs. You claim that the first two are "inaccurate and inflammatory accusations" while the third one is an "inappropriate comment" about an editor. What I see as inappropriate here was an incident itself. The incident was pretty disgusting and the sweeping criticism was highly warranted. Your coming here with lecturing established and respected users may also be called inflammatory (and I believe it is). I do think, though, that you also consider your comments and their tone warranted. Even if Ghirla is mistaken, while I don't think he is, his comments are not disruptive. Your "please tone down" lecturing message is unwarranted and unhelpful. Please adjust your tone and your attitude. --Irpen 08:32, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Irpen, if you feel my characterization of those comments is incorrect, please explain how. Calling an admin "pathetic" (among other things) and implying some grand IRC conspiracy seems plainly inflammatory to me. Vassyana 08:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Irpen, anyone who asserts his right to lecture more experienced wikipedians on the matters of civility, is usually anxious to put an end to some discussion which he finds less than flattering for himself or his friends. You may recall that we discussed the issue with Kelly Martin when she frequented this page with similar messages. It is well-known that IRC has become a free pass for incivility, and that IRC regulars who vociferate about civility often say such things off-wiki that would have earned me an indef block if I dared repeat them here. From the logs that I have seen I conclude that IRC is not compatible with civility. It is this opaque medium that is responsible for the spread of incivility in Wikipedia. --Ghirla-трёп- 08:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not ask you to stop commenting. I only asked that you conduct yourself in a civil fashion. Additionally, I'm fairly certain (and please correct me if I am wrong), that you are aware of how to file for a review of admin actions and potential abuse. Vassyana 08:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Maxim was formerly known as User:Evilclown93. You can check the user rename log here. His RFA was successful on 30 June of this year. I hope this helps. Cheers, &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 08:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this information. I find it annoying when sysops, of all editors, change their usernames, for seemingly no good reason (such as privacy issues). It's the third admin in a row whose RfAs I find impossible to find. Another case is User:Singularity, who started editing ago as an admin several months ago. This is worrisome. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Russian Longevity claims
Ghirlandajo,

In regards to the below comments:

I agree with your point about categorization, but I won't take for granted everything that some "gerontology research group" says.


 * Wikipedia is not the place for 'original research.' It is not for you to decide or not. The (Western) media use Guinness World Records as the official arbiter, and have for decades. If you check out the Guinness Book 2008, p. 67, you'll note their 'world's oldest people' come from the Gerontology Research Group. Now, I feel that there is something to be said about 'perceived' bias and fairness.

1. All cultures have age exaggerators.

Did you notice the USA has age exaggerators as well as cases that can't be solved? Check out Alberta Davis and Oberia Coffin. Were they really 125 and 122 years old? We don't know, but they couldn't prove their age, so they weren't accepted.

2. Age inflation is tamed with accurate systems of record-keeping. Sweden, before it instituted compulsory birth registration in 1749, had age claims up to '147' years old. But since then, no one in Sweden has lived past 112. Did they change 'ethnically' or did they eliminate lies, myths, and exaggerations by replacing religious, nationalistic, and familial myths with a secular, scientific approach? Likewise, the U.K. before 1837 had notable claims such as Thomas Parr, 152 and some even to age 207. But since the compulsory birth registration system began, no one in the UK has surpassed 115.

Now, I must ask: does Russia have a complete record system, even today, in 2007? That is, is the birth of every child put on file? If so, what about in 1890?

I feel that the groups based in the West have been reluctant to "investigate" the claims coming from, say, Russia or China.


 * Actually, it's the other way around. The burden of proof is upon the claimant, not the arbiter. If someone said "I'm the world heavyweight champion" they must go into the ring to prove it.

We need to see who finances them and then make appropriate conclusions.


 * That's not an appropriate analogy. In a market-based system, finances alone don't determine decisions; decisions are made in part by 'experts' and in part by 'public opinion.' But if you must, I suggest you visit www.grg.org or at least read the Wikipedia article Gerontology Research Group. You will find that the GRG includes some of the world's leading scientists, such as Leonard Hayflick.

According to official Russian statistics, Smetannikova is the oldest Russian alive. If you follow the links, you will see that there are 19th-century church records that seem to verify her age. Until today, our page listed some pre-1917 expatriate as Russia's "national longevity recordhorder", at age 110, simply because a Western-based group has more trust in a paper issued in 1913 in America than in documents kept in a remote Siberian village and endorsed by the Russian government.


 * The (English) Wikipedia is 'multinational' and the goal must be 'educationally accurate' information. To allow for 'meta-data' makes the results incomparable. For example, if Semmnikova were 117, she would be older than not just the current world's oldest person, but several titleholders before her. To accept this case would require that all the documents requested be sent to Guinness World Records. So far this has not happened, despite the request being made in February.

This smacks of racism to me.


 * This smacks of misplaced nationalism to me. The American system has proven to be accurate and trustworthy: the document was issued in 1913. (This is not to say that all American claims are trustworthy: not everyone in America has documents.) The claim, 110, was not outrageous, nor was it made AFTER the fact. Most false cases tend to claim some age, such as 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, etc. long after the point where they 'would' have been oldest.

Let me put in another analogy: would you LOAN MONEY to someone with a long track record of not repaying it? Of course not. So when a nation like Russia has a long track record of putting forth false claims for reasons of nationalism, propaganda, etc., then it should be expected that Russian records would be viewed with suspicion.

In fact, there are several reasonably well-known people in Russia who approach the supercentenarian age. For instance, Boris Efimov, who turned 107 last month and was shown on the Russian TV recalling his student days in Petrograd during the February Revolution. --Ghirla-трёп- 09:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Age '107' is still far from 110. Statistics show that only about 12% of people that reach their 107th birthday will reach age 110. And of 1,100 validated persons who reached age 110, less than 2% (about 23) have reached age 115. So when someone comes out of nowhere and claims '117', we cannot simply accept that as fact without a substantial effort to prove the case.

Now, that leaves us with a few options:

A. We can cooperate. You can build a track record by sending documents for cases such as Maria Strelnikova and Russian data can be merged into the international database, much the way Russia wants to join the WTO.

B. Or, we don't want to think about option B, do we? Insisting on international acceptance of substandard, unscientifically validated data is like insisting that we don't test for drugs at the Olympics. It simply isn't going to happen.

You may wish to check out my own personal page at

Robert Young (longevity claims researcher).

I am the world's leading expert. It be beneficial for everyone to decide to choose science, not nationalism, when it comes to the dissemination of information that will educate the next generation. In this increasingly interconnected world, borders and barriers may lessen (through the internet) but globalization introduces the problem of raised expectations. Perhaps you don't realize how 'new' this field is. Age investigation of extreme longevity from a scientific perspective only started in the 1870's. As such, we are still relative pioneers. The lack of Russian or Chinese data cannot be ascribed to 'biases' but more to the factors of politics, education, war, the destruction of records, and the lack of recordkeeping. I do not expect we can 'change the world' overnight. The British started their '100% registration' in 1837 and their records reached a standard of data completeness (99% valid or more) only a century later. Studies from Denmark and elsewhere show that a CENTURY of stable recordkeeping is needed before a system becomes reliable. The USA didn't institute 'compulsory birth registration' until 1933. Thus, U.S. cases are accepted only on an individual basis. We don't accept as valid the claim that Pearl Gartrell is '119', or that LaJean Smith is '118'. Yet these two would be older than Semmnikova, at '117.' So, are we giving the title to someone simply for being an American? Or are we giving the title to the oldest person whose age can be documented, according to standards set before the person attained the title?For example, you will find that Edna Parker had applied for the GRG/world's oldest waiting list in 2005, more than two years before she got it, and at a point when the chances of her getting to be #1 seemed small (she had to survive when a lot of others passed away).

Note that, in particular, cases such as Sarhat Rashidova seem disturbing...this appears to be a 'media hoax' all traced to the same source.

So, can we prove that Semmnikova, Strelnikova, or others in Russia really are the age claimed an not another hoax? Do we have a dataset of every claim in Russia, and a way to investigate each case individually? Even in the U.S., a recent study showed that only 13% of U.S. claims to age 110+ from the period 1980-1999 could be proven true. That means we threw out about 2,400 cases and kept 341. That doesn't look like 'nationalism' to me. It looks like trying to create a scientific model that will allow us to ascertain what the human life span really is, not what some religious, nationalistic, or familial myth insists it is.

If you'd like to work with the GRG on Russian cases, please e-mail me at robertdouglasyoung@yahoo.com and we can discuss this issue further, privately.

Sincerely, Robert Young Guinness World Records/Gerontology Research Group/Supercentenarian Research Foundation/New England Centenarian Study/Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research/Georgia State University/Boston University/Social Security Administration Ryoung122 04:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)