User talk:Irpen


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

Allow me 1



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


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


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


 * Well, you did not revoke Mikkalai's barnstar you awarded to him when he single-handily substituted it by the Hero of the Soviet Union that he chose for himself and still displays it on his page? So, don't try to scare me, I will award myself with something when I feel like doing this. If this gets revoked after my death, well, I will see what I would do then. --Irpen 05:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Mikkalai rejected the Barnstar, and he replaced it with the HSU. I threw my hands up and moved on. Zach (Sound Off) 05:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, self-awarding legitimacy, or lack of it, should not be affected by the fact whether or not it is accompanied by a rejection of a different award, should it? Anyway, I am extremely modest, at least as much as you are, as you could see. I only displayed a ribbon at my user page. Please note, that I was awarded an Order of B. Kh. 1st class skipping the lower two classes. As you can read from an article, 1st class is "awarded to front or army commanders for successful direction of combat operations that led to the liberation of a region or town inflicting heavy casualties on the enemy." I hope our enemies would not recover from such heavy casualties and no one will ever challenge from now on that our cabal rules the Wikipedia. Ура! --Irpen 05:26, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * While I agree about the cabal, I was not tyring to pick a fight. I was trying to inject some knowledge. Plus, I see that your taking my route on the ribbon bars. :) Zach (Sound Off) 05:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Wołodarka
Ok, Irpen, let us end this whole dispute. If you please, just explain on my talk page how is it that the Russians achieved nothing and were defeated yet the Poles did not win. Halibutt 11:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I will explain it at the article's talk itself for the one last time. --Irpen 22:50, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


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

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


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


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

it is easy to figure percentage of speakers
Ilya K 18:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
 * http://www.uceps.org/ua/opros/15/?show_q_id=46&idTema=0&m_razdel=101
 * http://www.uceps.org/ua/opros/15/?show_q_id=47&idTema=0&m_razdel=101

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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 1. Так 6.8 7.2 9.2 6.6 9.6 8.5 8.4 12.6 7.1 7.3 6.4 7.2 2. Ні 88.1 92.5 90.4 93.1 89.6 90.4 91.0 87.1 92.6 92.3 93.2 92.7 Не відповіди 5.1 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.9 1.1 0.6 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.2 e2. Чи доводилось Вам за останні 12 місяців стикатися з випадками дискримінації (утиску прав та інтересів) щодо… Росіян?

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

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

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

Allow me too 2

 * I am SO glad you are back! While at it, is there a ribbon for this star? If not, could you make one for me? Thanks! --Irpen 01:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Irpen, take Image:WikiDefender rib.png. Thanks again. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 02:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Apology
Hello Irpen, I've been thinking that since the "bad tempered anon bickering" incident, there has been a gap between us. I would like to apologise for having been on the wrong side of WP:CIV and hope you accept this barnstar for patching up. Izehar 23:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! I, from my side, fully retract my remarks about the possibility of bad faith on your side (that is if I made any, which I don't think I did in relation to you anyway). Thank you for taking an extra care to check for the possibilities of open proxies. Could you show me how to do it? Next time, I will revert any contributions from such IP's on sight. --Irpen 23:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Дуже дякую


Thank you again for you help today. Next time Bonny comes back, I'll know who to contact! ;) &mdash;Khoikhoi 01:16, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't mention it (не варто подяки) :)!. But also do ask others as well because those who fight Bonny's socks don't make new friends among more reasonable Romanian contributors who still unfortunately make use of him as a battering ram because he promotes the right POV despite in the wrong way. I am not generalizing over an entire community and I don't want to call names here as well. In any case, we should spread the duty of guarding WP from bad-faith users somewhat evenly. That said, as I always did, I won't hesitate to do all I can to keep such fellows at bay. It's just that if more people actively get themselves involved, life would have been way easier around here. --Irpen 01:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I already asked Ghirla, who else do you think we need help from? --&mdash;Khoikhoi 01:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

The good place to consider would be regional notice boards, like the urgent announcement sections of Portal:Russia/New article announcements, Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements and, yes, a Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. Some Romanian users feel ashamed by such compatriots and may help as well. Cheers, --Irpen 01:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks again. --&mdash;Khoikhoi 02:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Carpatho-Rusyn
OK, I added the Carpatho -Rusyn Society article to the "Ukrainian diaspora" category. Expect some comments from Pittsburgh. Many people there had ancestors who tried to form a Rusyn autonomus province within Czechoslovakia, and they might not want to be considered as Ukrainians at all. It depends on your definition of "Ukrainian". Pustelnik (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Our discussions
I was going to commmend you on your remarkable civility and, as always, amazing dedication to WP. I will alternate my postings, but am generally more interested in improving the state of dance and music articles. I marvel at the combined work of all the Polish, Russian, and Ukrainian members. Sure there will be times to disagree about certain articles, but the manufacture of content from that area is stagerring to be sure.

Thank you for the additional links about language issues. The present system seems ill-suited to stave of our stubborn-headed colleagues (we all have some in our respective communites), and I hope discussions will lead to further reforms. I hope you realize by now that I am not the type that intends to begin any warring, but I am known to back up others when their actions seem sincere. Good luck with KK; he seems like he would make for a good time out with friends :)

Not a big fan of the Ukrainian Canadian dialect. But I would like to tackle Ukrainian Americans at some point.--tufkaa 23:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

PD-UA-exempt
Would the images on this official site qualify for such a tag? As the company is state owned. If yes that means that I'll be able to do all the stations of the Kiev Metro and then it WILL altogether become a featured article. In the meantime I still would like to upgrade DnieproGES to the FA standard and nominate it. --Kuban Cossack 13:55, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Kazak, any Ukrainian logo qualifies. The law speaks inclusively of symbols and signs of enterprises, institutions and organizations and does not even say "state only". Reread the tag, item d)--Irpen 18:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant photographs! I could not care less about logos.--Kuban Cossack [[Image:Flag of the Russian Empire (black-yellow-white).svg|25px|]] 19:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, got you wrong. Give me a couple of days to email them with the request for permission, which I don't expect will be a problem. You could email them too, but I think it is more courteous to write to them in Ukrainian rather than in Russian. So, I will gladly do it for you. --Irpen 19:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually they had a Russian version which after their update back in late 2005 was purged. I e-mailed them a few times and got no reply whatsover. Given how often they update I cannot promise a reply. But go to the Dnepr station and have a look the photo there is the same as in our wiki. I think that might reply that all of their photos are in public domain...--Kuban Cossack [[Image:Flag of the Russian Empire (black-yellow-white).svg|25px|]] 19:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Still, I will email them again and we'll see. --Irpen 19:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Prometheism
You keep complaining about this article. But why not just follow the Wikipedia practice and edit it, introducing changes which will make it less POV? This is the Wikipedia way, after all. Be bold. Sitting on the sidelines and telling others to fix articles is not going to accomplish anything. Balcer 03:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not a specialist enough in international politics. The editors who are, and who wrote it, are Poles. So, I chose the best venue. I also asked user:172 to look at it. If he gets interested, the normalcy of the article is them assured. --Irpen 03:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ukrainization
Would this and this (scroll down to Лингвистический лохотрон) be of any use to you?&mdash;Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) • (yo?); 15:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Davies WERS
I have it now next to me. I think I already asked you for a list of terms to check, I am sorry if you gave it to me but I can't find it now - I remember we talked about the list...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! First of all, I would like to know the names, Davies uses in the English (original) version of his book for the towns/villages listed in Template:Campaignbox Polish-Soviet War. I am almost sure that Wołodarka, Nowochwastów, Wasylkowce and others have to go from en-Wiki to pl-wiki where no one in sane mind would object to them. Check the table for other names (Mironówka anyone?). I would also be very much interested whether he mentions such thing as the Battle of Wołodarka and, if yes, whether he mentions a "Polish victory" there. If you could hold on to the book for a while, I will come up with more questions. Please keep checking out my talk once in a while. There will be plenty of entries, including by myself, in response to some comments as I have missed replying to several on time due to real life things. I really appreciate that so many people, read my talk and care to comment. I know you are busy with other things than scrutinizing my talk, but just check for responses, if you can. I find it extremely important that the questions and answers are kept at the same page. Regards, --Irpen 21:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

"Quick jumping to blocks"
Irpen,

I just wanted to thank you for this. It was good to read some reasoned thought, both about how our sysop temperment is changing as newer, less-encultured people become sysops, and on the individual cases, how mis-application of and sometimes shear insouciance to the guidance can distort our policies into damaging the encyclopædia. Certainly, it makes a rather nice change from the reactionary stuff that so-often pervades AN. Keep up the good work, etc.. :-)

Yours,

James F. (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Allow me 3


For your outstanding contributions to Wikipedia and for passing the strict criteria of newly created Senior Editor rank 1 badge (10,000 edits including 5,000 mainspace edits and two years of service (starting from 3 June 2004 in your case)), you are awarded the Bronze Editor Badge and its Book of Knowledge! Geeze, I'm jealous :)

Cheers, Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  15:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thank you very very much! --Irpen 20:26, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Give me a little bit and I will see what I can do about ribbons. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 00:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Kiev St Andrews night.jpg
Hi Irpen,

Is there any way that you would be willing to consider releasing Image:Kiev St Andrews night.jpg under the CC-by-SA 1.0 license? Thanks. -- Wikitravel Sapphire 07:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Sapphire! This is not my image. I contacted the owner of the image (listed at the image page) and asked him, whether we can use his images in WP under GFDL and he said that yes we can. That's all I have. We can contact him again if GFDL is insufficient for you. If you want, I can contact him myself. Regards, --Irpen 05:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate that, because unfortunately I can only use CC-by-SA 1.0. I could contact him, unless he only speaks Russian or Ukrainian, which, if he does I'd greatly appreciate it if you could ask him.  Thank you.  -- Wikitravel Sapphire 04:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Political reform in Ukraine
Irpen, I notice you create red links to "Political reform in Ukraine" and "Constitutional reform in Ukraine", but I don't think it requires a separate article. I think it should rather be a section "Constitutional Reform (2004)" in Constitution of Ukraine article. Also, the terminology you are using seems to be disambiguous, as 2004 reform is one of many political (constitutional) reforms in Ukrainian history. --KPbIC 01:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the reform warrants a separate article, because a section in the Constitution article would naturally be devoted mainly to the changes of the constitution themselves and there was much to the process itself that is outside of the Consitutiona article. I think "Political reform" is more correct since it is more widely used. To disambiquate, we can add a year (or years) to the article's title. --Irpen 01:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Allow me...
Image:Purple_heart.jpg For defending articles with valor and for being wounded in these defensive operations, this PH for you, Irpen :) -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  14:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)]]

Hope you don't mind receiving an American award for that, but sadly, there was no similar award in the USSR... -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  14:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't mind any award but I don't remember being wounded :). --Irpen 19:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Update. --Irpen 21:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Language tables
Take a look at my quest from Zscout370 for two tables with language break down in Ukraine by students studying in a specific language (secondary school students only). If you object to their future use, let's let Zscout370 know now so that he does not spend his time on making them. The request is located on his talk page @  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zscout370#Png_question  --Riurik (discuss) 21:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

History of the Soviet Union (1953-1985)
I have no interest in an edit war but no time either to rewrite the paragraph in question in such a way that it will attain any acceptable level of encyclopedic writing.

Therefore just a few short remarks to show that the paragraph is on the one hand totally out of place and full of errors on the other:

1. The article as such is (like almost all articles concerning "communist" and/or "Soviet" topics in the English WP) so utterly flawed, biased and distorted that it would be but a insignificant cosmetic change if I were to rewrite one paragraph of it.

2. It is absolutely inappropriate to imply that Andropov's "major legacy" to the Soviet Union would have been his "discovery" and "promotion" of so dismal a figure as Gorbachev. Andropov was a highly intellectual and reasonable politician as well as a convinced communist that strove for a thouroughgoing improvement (or "reform", although the word can be tricky !) of socialism in the Soviet Union and beyond. THAT is his major (but due to his early death tragically unfulfilled) legacy ! I don't know whether you are able to read German, but if you do, take a look at the article on Andropov in the German WP (a continuous work in progress !) which has been largely written by myself and also takes the newest Russian secondary literature into consideration. There you could see what a decent and objective discussion and evaluation of Andropov's plans and efforts for an all-round renewal of socialism should look like together with a clear confrontation of this drive to improve with Gorbachev's fury to destroy.

3. If anybody "discovered" Gorbachev, then this dubious honor belongs to either Suslov or Kulakov (or even Shevardnadze) and only in the third or fourth instance to Andropov. And anyway - Gorbachev, the archetype of a dishonest and sly opportunist, tried hard to maintain friendly personal relations with anybody who could help him in his careerist ambitions - Brezhnev, Andropov and especially the kind but intellectually mediocre Chernenko.

4. Gorbachev was since 1978 CC secretary for agriculture, not "personnel". Rather, Ligachev (whose world views were and still are far more corresponding to Andropov's than Gorbachev's ever did) was nominated CC secretary for personnel questions during Andropov's time in office in late 1983.

5. If Gorbachev is mentioned as a "protegée" of Andropov, then his other (and often much closer) collaborators should also be named - for instance Ryzhkov, Ligachev, Romanov or Aliev to mention but a few. Many different but agrreing accounts have it that Andropov became more and more critical of Gorbachev and his increasingly obvious incompetency on the one hand and unprincipledness on the other during his time as General Secretary. With this (well founded) assertion I do not wish to present a "hagiographic" picture of Andropov but simply to counteract erroneous historical legends. It is, of course, true that Gorbachev at the beginning of his glorious reign of happy and unforgettable memory revived some of Andropov's reform schemes. But very quickly he diverted from this path and promoted a very different agenda, the results of which are well known (and felt). And already in 1987 Gorbachev branded so-called "orthodox" adherents of Andropov's original "perestroyka" as "half-breeds" (which was, by the way, also rightly understood as a hidden anti-semitic remark aimed at Andropov's possible Jewish ancestry).

6. It was during Chernenko's (and not Andropov's !) long periods of absence due to his illness in 1984/85 that Gorbachev acted as the "Second Secretary" of the CC and therefore as the "deputy" to the General Secretary. During Andropov's illness no clear "deputy" was chosen.

I hope this makes my line of reasoning a bit clearer, Yours Elsmlie 09:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for such an interesting reply. I am least interested inrv wars as well. From experience, I know that most blanking edits should be avoided ir treated with suspicion. Now that you explained, I would agree if you remove the info again. However, please consider replacing the paragraph you view "incorrect" by a "correct" one. While removing of misleading info is useful, replacing it with the correct info is even more so. Thanks again! --Irpen 04:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Transparency vs. Opacity
or, more explicitly,

"Open Meetings/Records" vs. "Behind Closed Doors"

Dear Irpen:

Thank you, many times thank you, for your recent comments on the need for transparency in admin decisions, as opposed to their being made secretly off-wiki with no record.

What I have seen over and over in real-world governance is the immediate tendency of secrecy to foster corruption. In part this might be the tendency of already existing corruption to seek secrecy as a growth medium; but I think secrecy has also weakened the resistance of the previously honorable with its continual tempting whisper of "no-one will know."

One of the alarming things about the recent WP:AN/I discussion was how open discussion was repeatedly subverted by admins who claimed their actions had support but declined to specify names, citations, or any other detail. (Perhaps "all the lurkers support them in email IRC.")


 * An open consensus (no block) had been reached in the original main section, with all participants signing their statements on the open record...


 * ... and then a block was enacted anyway, by someone who had said not a word in that discussion, but left an unsigned and undated statement elsewhere.


 * That block was openly discussed and disputed in an appended subsection on AN/I...


 * ... an admin engaged in the dispute (and made his own accusations) in the bottom entry...


 * ... and then that same admin declared the discussion closed &mdash; while claiming review and upholding by (likewise unnamed) "uninvolved sysops" &mdash; after which no rebuttal or denial of his accusations was possible. (I had been under the impression admins were not supposed to protect pages on which they themselves were engaged in disputes.)

It is all too vivid a reminder of the block-plus-false-accusation-of-"threats" on Commons for which the blocking admin would not give even specifics, let alone cites (and said "other admins" had asked him for the block, though again he gave no names; where did this asking occur?)...

... and of the entire RfA talk page deleted because one person had asked an awkward question. (Interesting question, too. How, right after two previous failed RfAs, did a candidate manage to win unanimously, 25-0, a third RfA for which all previous opposition disappeared &mdash; or, as the asker noted, of which previous opponents had not heard? Why would anyone delete an entire page to keep that question from being seen, rather than either answering or ignoring it? It would have been easy enough to reply "You snooze, you lose.")

Open meetings and open records, allowing everyone to see what's really going on, let people learn to trust their administration &mdash; if the actions so revealed are worthy of trust.

A cloud of secrecy, from which emerge (even occasionally) lies and injustices, tends to have the opposite result.

Further, making an official habit of dishonesty (e.g. using false accusations to justify admin actions) cannot bode well for an encyclopedia project, which after all should be honest and verifiable.

The Wikipedia/Wikimedia community faces a serious problem, even if most of its members simply don't know it yet, even if many will remain blithely unaware. Your recent comments have shown the clearest awareness of this, made the clearest statement of it, that I have seen to date. Again, thank you. – SAJordan talkcontribs 08:55, 17 Dec 2006 (UTC).

Question on Kyiv spelling
Irpen, Kyiv spelling of the capital of Ukraine is the official spelling, according to the Ukrainian national system of transliteration. It's also one of the well established spellings of the city (Google test: more than 5mln hits). Thus, I would like to ask what is your view on the scope of usage of this spelling in Wikipedia? Should it be used, as a reflection that the spelling is a valid spelling, which has its usage? Or, should it be excluded from each and every page? --KPbIC 22:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well that can be said about the Kharkov and thousands of other Ukrainian cities that have Russian spellings. Considering that all (except western Ukrainian ones) in google give more hits by their Russian translit than Ukrainian one,, should they too be excluded from each and every page ? --Kuban Cossack 23:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good question. Do you know the answer? As well as this one. --KPbIC 00:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So I was right about reverting the Kharkiv Metro station moves, thanks, I'll keep that in mind. --Kuban Cossack 01:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If you wanna talk about Google tests, "Kiev" gets about 34 million. So you should find better reasons than that. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  23:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually why not create a bot that will go and change this throughout wikipedia...ie. Kyiv to Kiev... and at the same time other cases like Odesa to Odessa? --Kuban Cossack 23:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Grafik, it's true that at this point, Kiev spelling is used more widely than Kyiv. The question is: Should Kyiv be excluded from each and every page of wikipedia? --KPbIC 00:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well based on naming conventions alone, in most cases, YES! Now there are exceptions, particulary those where Kiev actually reffers to a name not to the city. e.g. FC Dynamo Kyiv. In other cases, per name of the article, particulary historical articles.--Kuban Cossack 00:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope. Not only in the cases of Kyiv being a part of a name, but also as a name of the city. What you are failing to recognize is that Kyiv has its historical usage. This is the current official name of the city used by local authorities, it's the name used by some foreign and international entities, and it's the name used by many people, including some Wikipedia contributors. If someone within an article wrote Kyiv in today's context (for example, in the list of recently established Ukrainian postal codes), there is no need to substitute by what you believe the name should be. The name is what it is, what people actually call it. Please, read the example in WP:NCON. You are mistakenly following a prescriptive approach, changing Kyiv to Kiev, and saying that this is what should be. Wrong. Wikipedia follows the descriptive approach, in particular, don't "fix" links that aren't broken. --KPbIC 00:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well in ENGLISH Kiev only has two historical terms, Kiev, Kijow and Kiev for the three different time periods. Now in today's context you have a 34 mln vs 5 mln google hits, and the postal codes actually do not use the term Kyiv, but Киïв as cyrillic, not latin is the alphabet. Now then like it or not, but guidelines are only guidelines, and the redirect passage mostly adresses points like Acidic or Acid. Kiev and Kyiv on the other hand are different points and are ultimately drawn from WP:NC which is a POLICY, not a guideline. And in a conflicting case, as here, the policy has an upper hand. --Kuban Cossack 01:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I was pleased to log in and find out that my page became a field for a productive discussion. Since it was conducted at my page, I assume that all that took part are interested in my opinion. Here goes. First, the general statement. Based on the combination of the current Wikipedia policies and the modern prevailing English usage, Kiev should indeed be used throughout Wikipedia, except for the proper names where Kyiv is part of such name, such as football clubs, enterprises, organizations, etc. It should also be used in the discussion in the "Kiev or Kyiv" section of the Kiev article and, ideally, in the yet non-writted Name of Capital of Ukraine article, similarly to the existing Name of Ukraine.

That said, I do not make it my priority to hunt for Kyiv all over Wikipedia and change it for Kiev because I have other things to do. At the same time, users who do so, act in accordance with the policies and they should not be reverted for frivolous reasons. Personally, I usually only change Kyiv by Kiwv in two cases. One, when I edit the article for other reasons, like expanding it. Two, when someone Kyivizes the spelling that pre-exists. I am not bound to do it that way, as this is my volunteerly soft self-restriction. Kuban kazak may have a different view on how tolerant one should be to non-policy name and he is entitled to act as he sees fit because this is actually what policies prescribe. I do not see Kyiv within current policies.

A separate, and yet related question, is that the usage in articles does not have to coinside with the main article. True enough, the historic names, as found in historic literature written in English may be used. However, Kyiv does not prevail in English usage in any particular context. As such, historicity is not a valid reason for this particular city.

I view the argument Krys frequently brings about the desires of the city residents largely irrelevant. Curiously, I am not even sure that an opinion of the residents of the city is known. Truth is that the population of the city is both overwhelmingly Russophone and overwhelmingly supportive of the Ukrainian independence. How one is to derive the residents' view of the particular question is a mystery to me and however one does it, that's original research. I am not aware of a sociological survey where the city residents were asked the particular question. I must say that this would be extrely interesting to know. --Irpen 04:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, one of the facts is that Kyiv provides more than 5mln hits. This is, for example, more than about 2mln hits on Kuban, the home region of User:Kuban kazak. Then, why should the usage of Kyiv be ignored? If there is such usage of Kyiv, then the question is not "Is there any historical context for Kyiv?", but rather "What is the proper context for Kyiv?".


 * I thought, to find a clear answer, instead of relying "on the combination of the [unspecified] current Wikipedia policies and the modern prevailing English usage", it may be reasonable to submit RfC on the issue of clarifying the context for Kyiv usage. Kuban kazak was trying to prove that WP:NC(UE), which is a guidance, should take priority over WP:REDIRECT, which is another guidance. Weak argument, to say at least. It's possible that if there is a clear result out of RfC on this particular case, it could make our life easier. So, would you like to cosign RfC asking community on the context of Kyiv usage (if any) within Wikipedia? --KPbIC 23:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

There are plenty of google hits for Warszawa and Munchen as well. There is no usage of the term in Wikipedia. Similarly, Kyiv is not "ignored". It is not used in WP except few circumstances. There are only two contexts for the city name: modern and historical. Kyiv does not prevail in either of those.

If you you don't see a clear answer, you are free to spend your time pursuing it. I do see a clear answer and consider this a pure waste of time. Therefore, I do not see a need for RfC and will not help it happen. If it happens, I might comment on it at some point but I view initiation unfavorably not because I like the status quo but because I don't see any merit in your claim.

To summarize, I cannot prevent you from pursuing the issue anywhere you want but I do not want to facilitate another empty discussion which will bring nothing. --Irpen 23:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Warszawa is a name of the city in Polish language, first of all, and only then in German or in English. In addition to Warsaw, the name has been used in English Wikipedia as a name of the city ([1], [2], [3], etc, etc), without much of conflict from both sides (afaik).


 * Kyiv is the name of the city in English, not in Ukrainian. And contrary to other cases, Kyiv is a self-identifying English name. You continue to neglect the role of the government, hoping instead to get "independent surveys", which would show people as you want them to be. Government elections is the most valuable survey you can get. At least since 1990, Kiev was always inclining pro-Ukrainian way. Being yet mostly Russian-speaking city, Kievans not merely support independence, but among other things they do support the transition to the Ukrainian language. Contrary to parents being studied in Russian schools in Soviet time, they want their children to go to Ukrainian schools. Not each and everyone, but the people I know do just that, and they think it's right. The spelling of Kyiv, among other things, is a symbolic element of the transition.


 * I thought it would be a good case when two opponents bring an RfC together. Too bad, you see it as an empty discussion. The issue cannot disappear by itself, especially if one side is self convinced the truth can only be on their side. --KPbIC 00:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not for "independent" surveys as opposed to the government ones. I am against deriving the answers to a question A from the answers to a question B made by a Wikipedian on his own and then invoking the results of such original research to argue his points. The question to the city residents "How would you prefer your city to be called in English?" has never been asked and I would be very curious to see an answer to it no matter who conducts such survey. I see other baseless claims you made above, like "Kievans support" this or that. Not that this is very relevant to the Wikipedia naming, but I have no idea where you get this info from. I think the only way to know is to check how people answer questions asked to them. I did not see Kievans answering the questions like "Would you prefer your children to study in the schools with Russian or Ukrainian as the primary language of instructions, provided that both languages are studied comprehensively within the schools curriculum?" Neither I have seen specific Kiev-only answers to the question "Would you prefer Russian to be a second state language in Ukraine?" (I've seen the answers to this latter question asked Ukraine-wide and the answer of the majority of the population of the country is "yes").

This all is, however, beside the point. I commented on that simply because you like to invoke the will of the people baselessly purely on where you want the people's will to be or by deriving it from elsewhere without basis. Moreover, this has only an indirect and remote effect on the English usage as the latter is mainly affected by the English native speakers and those do not live in Ukraine.

"People I know" is not a valid statement as an argument in Wikipedia. Besides, I know many people who think otherwise. I am not invoking them because user:Irpen is not an authority to conduct surveys and argue their results. Neither is user:Krys. I can see that you personally want to see the English usage changed. I neither approve nor disapprove your interest in doing so. However, Wikipedia cannot be a vehicle to promote your personal preferences on what the English usage is better to advance your political goals. I have repeatedly supported the Ukrainian-based versions of the names within Wikipedia where such were warranted by the recent change of the English usage. I not only supported but also initiated the moves of Luhansk and Kharkiv. Unlike Kuban kazak, I consistently use LvIv and CherkaSy not only in main but also at talk pages (while you act more like Kazak by insisting on using Kyiv in talk space, but, hey, this is just talk space and you are both free to deflect from conventions dictated for mainspace to make your point). As soon as (also if) the prevailing English usage would change towards Kyiv, I will support the change of the article's name and will use the name in modern context in the articles I edit.

Re your point about Warsaw, see this. As you can see Polish editors rejected your claim.

You want to start an RfC about something that has been discussed to death and a new RfC will add nothing to it. If this is how you want to be spending your wikitime, go for it. I am not interested in the endless discussions about something where everything has been already said. --Irpen 02:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Few days ago I added to Kiev results of survey by Research & Branding Group. Reading yesterday, an interview with the director of R&B, I really regret mentioning the "sociological company" and their results. The guy is all in politics, and I doubt something is left for true sociology. And I doubt someone can be pleased with the quality of Ukrainian surveys, unless that someone is picking the results (surveys) he likes. That's why I rather put emphasis on elections, and on the actual people’s choice. Kievans do favor Ukrainian schools for thier children. The actual choice brings responsibility. There are no lines for Russian classes, no waiting lists, no oversized classes. They do have choice, and they make their choice. Contrary, surveys lack responsibility. Your answer to "What would you do if you had a million?" is likely to be different from the way you would actually spend the million, if you are in fact is given one. Then what's really relevant?
 * With respect to Kyiv, I don't have time to respond today, and it looks like your position is stone clear. I do see the benefits of using the same name in all articles, as in Britannica, and other authority encyclopedias, but I see no indication that you see the benefits of allowing Kyiv as well as Kiev, and Kharkov as well as Kharkiv in such open voluntary-based encyclopedias as wikipedia. --KPbIC 06:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I am tired of discussing with you some irrepevant issues. Your assertions about knowing and being able to derive the wishes of the residents are flawed but I already explained why.

As for comparison of Kyiv with Kharkov, the difference has been explained to you. All the E.L. WW2 literature uses Kharkov. It also uses Rumania and, frequently, Tarnopol. Kyiv is not used by much of the English language books iun any historical context. That's what makes it different from Kharkov and Lwow. --Irpen 06:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Possibly unfree Image:A Voloshyn.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:A Voloshyn.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. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 15:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

An uninvolved admin says....
Now would be a great time to drop it. Please discontinue the argument at WP:RFI or I will drag the warring parties apart while adopting a policy of actively not caring who, if anyone, is right. Same goes for Piotrus. Guy (Help!) 21:21, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hey, did you actually read what I was saying? Shutting it down was what I was actually calling for all along! --Irpen 21:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Dan's actions merited investigation and the firefight stopped that happening. Sorry to be heavy-handed, but really the meta-arguments were impeding genuine attempts to investigate (and no it certainly was not all your fault, or all anyone's fault) Guy (Help!) 22:08, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't disagree. Piotrus brings a lot of this on himself.  Peter pointed out that the thing I was looking for was WP:NCR, which I think gets a lot closer to what I meant than what I actually said :o) Guy &lt;small>(Help!) 23:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

New day, new hope
Since you tried talking to me, let me repay the good intention, especially as I still think you are a decent person, and we are having a terrible misunderstanding. Plus if I can work things with Ghirla (in mediation), I am sure it should not be more difficult to patch our relations.

So. You think that I am responsible for Ghirla leaving the project, yes? I don't think so. We were doing well in mediation, I was mostly satisfied with his replies and I didn't see any sign he was unsatisfied with mine. So I don't think I was the reason he left our project. Further, as I wrote before, I would be happy to cosign a request to get him back. He is a valued contributor, and as we have been doing good progress dealing with the incivility issue I see no reason not to want him to come back and continue contributing to this project, avoiding our past problems with the civility parole he himself recognized as acceptable and useful.

Second. I am offended by your accusations that I try to get my opponents blocked. You should know well I spend a lot of time in discussions, and in my years here even you could find only several examples where I was forced to take this action. Blocking policy exists for a reason, and if an admin finds that a person who disagree with his POV seems also to be violating polices whose violation is blockable, what can that admin do? He cannot block that person himself, obviously - so isn't the only choice (assuming he has tried to talk to that person first but failed to reach a solution) to ask other admins to investigate that matter (again, assuming that that admin thinks the case is relativly simple and violates a policy whose violation is blockable)? Do note that investigation may result in a block but may also in recommendations for DR or just plain 'you are overreacting, let it go'. As I wrote before I don't believe any of my actions were over and beyong what is perfectly normal and to be expected behavior of any user.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:03, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, as I said before, I find editing articles with you quite possible. In fact much easier than with Halibutt, who I also hope will stay despite all the problems he gives to me and all his opponents. The fact stands, however, that I don't remember Halibutt submitting reports on his opponents all over the place.


 * Ghirla left because of overall stress of which his conflict with you was the major part. You were running a campaign against him in every space he was posting. Your invoking his RfC multiple times even at WP:DYK suggestion page goes beyond pale. Placing him on the civility parole would me most fiercely oppose by me. As I said at Halibutt RfC, civility is not a core problem of these conflicts. Halibutt has also been at times incivil. I would oppose any action against Halibutt as well. This is not a manners forum. This is the encyclopedia and we should concentrate on the content writing. Your tendentious edits (you may say Ghirla's or mine tendentious edits, if you think so) and overall editing disagreements is the core of these problems. The recent example is what happened with the Russian Enlightenment article and there are multitudes of similar cases. But in any case, such disagreements should be allowed to be resolved in due course without involvement of the admin powers, be it yours or those you call in.


 * I have by far less problems editing with you than with many of your friends. It is easier to reach a compromise with you than with, say, Halibutt and, unlike, say, Lysy, you did not make offensive remarks about me (except that single accusation in Polonophobia of which I am not making a big deal). Perhaps things have slipped from my mouth too when things were hot.


 * We will continue to work on the articles here. I hope Ghirla will rejoin. The only thing I must insist on, is that you drop resorting to the boards every time you are unhappy. Happy edits, --Irpen 19:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess we differ in our view on our little community. I believe that foul-mouthing and generally personal attacks are not only not helping, but they are damaging the content as they drive editors away. Thus I believe that editors who violate those policies must be forced to change their ways, and in extreme cases, blocked. Just like in real life, a few offensive words can be taken, but when somebody launches a large-scale, long campaign of slander, or does similar actions, he needs to be called to order. One can express all of his POV without being offensive. Those who cannot just have to learn it - sometimes, the hard way.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, I agree that civility is an asset. I agree that incivility is not helping. All I am saying is that policies should not be used as a weapon in edit or personal conflicts. I never reported Halibutt or Lysy for their abusive language. The price of your actions is a loss of an invaluable editor, while Halibutt is still around. Could be if I was harassing Hali over civility the same way as you were harassing Ghirla, Hali would not have been here as well. And I am not even mentioning the extreme offense about my ethnicity I took from Lysy. I will not sit idly if this practice continues while I will do my best to ensure the improved civility overall. --Irpen 20:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Irpen, if I may chime in, it is every editor's right to report others for repeated incivility. You may not wish to do so, but don't expect others to take abuse in silence. As for your promise to "ensure the improved civility overall", I can't say I have high hopes; I was very disappointed by your passionate defense of Ghirlandajo in two clear-cut cases of incivility against me. Appleseed (Talk) 21:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not defend his incivility, that's for one. Besides, he was constantly provoked by the campaign that some were running against him. I did talk to him about overal tone of his messages and about not taking the bait. Unfortunately, it had only some effect. If your goal was to eject him, you succeeded now. Happy edits, --Irpen 21:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

New day, new hope - 2

 * It's hard to respond to your accusations because they are so nebulous. What campaign? Who were these "some" who were waging it? Me? Considering my two unhappy encounters with Ghirlandajo were my only encounters with him, it must have been a very short campaign. What baiting and provocation are you referring to? If you consider this a provocation, or my discussion of two article titles, then I see why we're having trouble understanding each other. Appleseed (Talk) 21:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

By campaign I mean being followed everywhere with links to his a year old RfC, which even included WP:DYK pages, being faced with WP:TE attacks, like in Russian Enlightenment and other whatnots. I repeat that I agree that Ghirla has somewhat a short temper. So does Hali. Piotrus and myself have a thicker skin. I have the thickest one. The crux of the matter is that editors like Ghirla and Hali should not be harassed but protected for the benefit of us all thanks to the enormous amount of material they bring here. They should not be reported to all sorts of boards on every minor instance. --Irpen 21:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ghirlandajo's "somewhat short temper" is the understatement of the year. You're taking about someone who used an obscenity because I was discussing (not even proposing) a new article title. Everyone knows that he writes a lot of articles, but you're asking too much of your fellow editors if you expect them to give him carte blanche. How many editors does Ghirlandajo have to chase away with his incivility before it becomes clear that they could have accomplished much more than he alone, and in a pleasant atmosphere to boot? Appleseed (Talk) 22:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

He has not chased away a single editor. I can tell you more. My first interaction with him was a long and stubborn argument at the talk of the the Great Russian language article. After two days of arguing over the disagreement, he gave to me my first barnstar that you can see at the top of my page. He can be reasoned with if you do it properly. If, OTOH, one does it like Piotrus and Halibutt was doing, yes, he looses temper and responds inadequately. Still, I am aware of no more valuable contributor to this project and I am willing to tolerate occasional incivility from such editors, similar to how I tolerate Halibutt and oppose any harassment he has been taking lately. --Irpen 22:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In the course of your discussion, did Ghirlandajo accuse you of somethingcentrism, curse, threaten to report you, or speak to you in a condescending fashion? How many edits such as this do I have to endure before Ghirlandajo gives me a barnstar? I'm afraid I that I'm not interested in learning the "proper" way to reason with Ghirlandajo--I'll stick to common decency, which WP makes explicit in WP:CIV. Appleseed (Talk) 22:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, he accused me in Russophobia. I just ignored it and moved on. Since then we became wikifriends and I did not chase him to demand an apology as I do not demand apologies from Piotrus for accusing me in Polonophobia or others here who called me worse. I am proud that Ghirla considers me his friend because, as I said, I know of no other contributor to this project of such quality (perhaps Giano would be the only exception). I am also pleased to see the respect from Piotrus whose contributions are also immense and I only regret that Halibutt does not think of me much. --Irpen 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since my name was mentioned here I take the liberty to reply. Indeed I'm considering to return to the project, partially because Ghirla is away. I admire Piotrus' patience in dealing with him, I lost all hope in that Ghirla could become a civilized and civil editor a long time ago, around the time he's been chasing my every step, accusing me of a zillion of absurd things and violating almost every policy - usually with the aims of either driving me mad or discrediting me. Finally I got carried away once or twice, which was the reason I decided to leave. Ghirlandajo has been doing for years what I've done once or twice. That's why I believe your if I was harassing Hali over civility the same way as you were harassing Ghirla, Hali would not have been here as well remark is both misleading (intentionally, I'm afraid) and unfair. If you want to compare mine behaviour with that of Ghirlandajo, please be so kind as to compare specific diffs and their reception by the community. Check both RfCs if you like. Otherwise please don't use me as an example of "Ghirla-like, yet unpunished" since I'm not. There is a huge difference between us and it's not nationality I mean here.


 * Halibutt, I am not to spend time comparing who of you two is more incivil. Personally, you offended me much more and with stronger words than anyone except, perhaps one or two of my ultra-nationalist compatriots and one exceptionally insulting remark from Lysy. I just moved on. As I said, I consider civility secondary and content creation primary. --Irpen 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I beg your pardon? When did I offend you? And how?  // Halibutt


 * Well, you said things to me that I would rather not recite. --Irpen 01:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See? It's always easier to accuse others of being incivil that finding a single piece of evidence. This way everyone will know that I'm a bad guy, regardless of whether I really did something wrong or not. That's the very same tactics Renata and others have adopted.  // Halibutt 01:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, there is an anti-Halibutt conspiracy. Listen, I just hate to find exact diffs. The first time you offended me was at the time of the infamous Wolodarka dispute. Than you called me a liar. I will rather not elaborate. --Irpen 03:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It was not meant as an offence, it was a mere description of facts. I presented two sources, you tried to convince everyone that I presented only one. If you're offended by the word lie, how about you deliberately distorted the reality or you were untrue?  // Halibutt 08:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not again! I will not be go over the Volodarka nonsense with you for the N+first time. Sorry, my friend. --Irpen 17:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * As to chasing away other editors, I was on the verge of being chased away by Ghirla and the like. Ghirla himself admitted a long time ago that he chased away Rydel from Wikipedia (the diff should be in Ghirla's RfC if you don't believe me). I don't know if there are more people directly involved, but the fact remains that Ghirla's inability to behave creates an overall bad atmosphere in Wikipedia, which is not what this great project deserves. Even if it does not drive anyone out of the project directly, it creates a bad precedent. One could say "look, Ghirlandajo told everyone to fuck off and called them idiots, and so can I" (check the RfC for diffs again). This already happens - and Ghirla had definitely his hand in it.


 * Sorry, but Rydel was just a troll. If I am responsible for the departure of AndriyK, which may or may not be the case, this is not something for me to loose my sleep over. Those fellows brought nothing here but edit wars. At the same time, several Lithuanian editors made it clear that they are living because they can't deal with you anymore. --Irpen 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * See? It's all a matter of perspective. For me Ghirlandajo is the same kind of fella. As to the "several Lithuanian editors", I bet you're referring to the outraging piece of slander by Renata, who was back to wikipedia in two weeks and whom I asked repeatedly to post a single piece of evidence for her absurd accusations. To no avail.  // Halibutt


 * Well, that you call him "the same kind of fella" as Rydel and AndriyK speaks lengths. There is no more to disscuss. As for Lithuanian editors you chased away, Renata is only one of them. Lokyz and EED come to mind. --Irpen 01:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, right, I indeed drove Lokyz away. For two days. I won't comment on EED, just like I wouldn't like to comment on Zivinbudas and other similarly-minded people.  // Halibutt


 * Well, comparing EED to Zvin just does not fly. So, cut it. --Irpen 03:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Finally, so far I found only one way to deal with Ghirla's phobias: sources. In cases where a heathen debate starts it usually helps to expand the article with as many sources as possible - then Ghirlandajo suddenly disappears - and starts his usual mumbo-jumbo in another place (check the history of the articles on Warsaw Uprising (1794) or Katyn massacre for examples). However, I believe that the limit of offences one can commit is over for him and I can't say I'm not happy about that. If he learns how to control himself - great. If he doesn't - great as well. The latter would mean that we'll loose a valuable editor, but this would be a lesser evil - at least from my perspective.


 * Bullshit. Nothing can be a greater evil for the project than loosing editors who create most of its content. Grow a thicker skin and write articles. Same as I do. --Irpen 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not bullshit. The same tactics was applied in a plethora of articles - and it always worked.  // Halibutt


 * Oh, and I appreciate your declaration that you oppose the harassment I've been taking lately. It's very nice of you. Too bad you did not oppose it when it was Ghirlandajo to start it, but that's another story, isn't it.  // Halibutt 22:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, you are not the one to talk about niceness either, my friend. But you may go back to your own RfC and read my statement. I chastised your opponents for making a big deal about your manners and asked them to leave you alone. The problem I have with you is POV pushing and stubbornness, not the names you called me. If you come back fully, so the better. I will do my best to have Ghirla returned as well. --Irpen 22:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Irpen after reading New day, new hope, and New day, new hope - 2, and all of the comments and recriminations posted here, it looks bleak from my perspective. I would like to take a moment to tell you I intend to follow WP:Civil to the letter in the future, and will be expecting the same in return from everyone. By no means will I cease to question or challenge any kind of false information, propaganda, or POV. Hope you will return to the project in full, and can get Ghirla to consider all of the reasons his return is necessary. Dr. Dan 02:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ivan Chernyshyov
Hello Irpen! A Count (or General) "Czernichev" is listed in Giles MacDonogh's Frederick the Great: A Life in Deeds and Letters as being the advisor to Catherine the Great that suggested to Prince Henry of Prussia that Frederick take Warmia, leading up to the First Partition.

This book about the Seven Years' War mentions a "General Ivan Chernichev", while this book about Sweden mentions "Czernichev" visiting Finland. If you have time, could you investigate and confirm that this is the same individual as Ivan Chernyshyov (which lacks military info)? Cheers, Olessi 07:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Trouble with Piotrus
I noticed your comments on the talk page of the RfC for User:Piotrus. Just wanted to give you a heads-up on the harrassment he is attempting on my own talk page. A user contacted him after the fact of a situation that was handled, and not only did Piotrus attempt to re-warn me on my talk page, he also sent one of his minions after me. I tried to inform him several times, and he continues to persist on my talk page. His actions are so against any admin I have come across. Rarelibra 16:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re:On reporting Piotrus
Hello Irpen! Nice to notice that you have time to write to me. You and Dr. Dan's speak truth, but the process of user:Piotrus 3RR is under way, and I am not imposition to stop it, and after reading his reply on 3RR board there he trying to escape responsibility once again accusing other contributors of vandalism and bad faith leaves me no space, only to bring this case to the end. But I promise that I will have your words for the future developments.

You are experienced contributor and in the light of this event I would like to hear your advice, despite that I am already made the decision about this. Probably you are aware that Piotrus and his ally Lysy trying to remove some information from  one article.(the same which P.P. was reported) In the heat of edits, contributor Lysy came to help a bit to our dear Piotrus. And imagine situation, at first Lysy conducted small changes but suddenly out of nowhere appears so called annon vandal from USA, and blanks the page and of course dedicated  contributor Lysy "reverts" this so called vandal  (please see edit summary vandalism by anonymous editor). Every thing would be fine if not one and big but, after comparison of two version - before so called vandal and after so called restoration,   vital information was lost (yes you right the information which is not pleasant to Polish eyes) -. Huge parts of article simple disappear! It is impossible to lost info if you reverting to the previuos version of edit only, which had it, of course if you do not remove it during restoration of version, but Lysy's edit summary is silent about this. Later he tried to update one part of article  during so called restoration process and to show that he is removing it publicly, you see this is only one part; other vital info was not restored in any attempt. This situation I see as clear sneaky approach to receive upper hand in content dispute. How do you see this situation? M.K. 11:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Irpen, I will just note here that indeed, I'd appreciate your input on the attempts to portray the Ponary massacre as carried by Poles and Russians...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * On : care to elaborate when did I violate any policy against you? Or is it just the usual piece of offence one gets when he doesn't agree with your unsupported beliefs, as was the case of Volodarka? And finally, should I adopt the very same tactics and start accusing you of things you never did just to discredit you and slander your name, the very same way you do? Just let me know, I'll be happy to follow your ways.  // Halibutt 15:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Halibutt, you 3RRed and not once and I chose to never report you. This is just one example. --Irpen 00:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sure, and you called my mom a cucumber and told me you hate me because I'm a Jew. Yet, I never reported you either. So what?  // Halibutt 01:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ??? --Irpen 01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you really call his mother a cucumber? Dr. Dan 21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the very same thing you do: invent things and then accuse me of them. But no, never in the face, that would be too easy to refute, right? You do it in discussions with other users so that I could not defend myself. And never, I say never post any diffs and links, just throw empty accusations. Perhaps I should start acting likewise?  // Halibutt 10:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. As for the cucumber, I meant the cat of the mother of the wife of your third cousin. You just got it all confused. As for my alleged hatred of you because you are a Jew may I refer you to the conversation with Lysy right below. I never call you any names in secret, btw. Diffs are always there to see when and what I said. You want diffs and links of what? Of WP:POINT? of WP:3RR? Of driving editors out? I mean, i can put aside some time and find them if you seriously deny that it happened and you really think digging them out is worth my time. Other than that, what is that you want? Note that when you are being hit, like your RfC, I do not join the festivities, unlike you who just can't wait for a new ArbCom on Ghirla to write a new statement. I try to limit my interaction with such fierce opponents like yourself to the article's talk pages and this is why I do not go to your talk too often. If I invoke you as an example talking to, say, Piotrus, I do it openly and you can always find out what I said and when I said it. No secrecy whatsoever. --Irpen 07:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Translation
I don't have time for that; there is nothing offensive in those posts and besides 1) they are private messages from Darwinek to me and 2) your knowledge of Polish should be sufficient to understand and translate them if you really think they are important.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I can understand only part of that and not fully. Not fully enough to use at the ArbCom page. I do find them relevant to the case. Too bad you don't want to cooperate. --Irpen 06:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I find nothing in there which would be relevant for the ArbCom. I don't have time to translate every single message Darwinek has posted in Polish for you to analyze; I am afraid you will have to find somebody else for that. Consider, however, that if nobody has felt offended by those messages before - and thus never complained - digging through the archives looking for some 'dirt' may be somewhat counter-productive. I am sure there are better things you can do with your time (edit articles, etc.).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, I do edit articles and to be accused of neglecting the mainspase is rather bemusing. I hate digging diffs. I mostly remember things anyway and when i tell what I remember it is you who always cry bring diffs precisely forcing me to waste my time that I could have spent on articles.


 * Now, from what I have seen and partially translated, the messages were offensive. Speculations about usefulness for the user to move to the West to experience some civilizing culture, speculations that progress can be achieved only after certain users leave Wikipedia, speculations of ABF on behalf of users to a degree that they would be committed to derail the nomination of any Polish article, be it even about Polish kitchen (btw, you repeated these accusations today) and continuing to post in Polish right below the request to cease are the things I am talking about. You think this is all harmless. Too bad. --Irpen 06:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I am sorry Irpen. There were times I might have agreed with you. Alas, recently, after witnessing your defence of several very incivil editors, my standards might have lapsed. With limited time, I am afraid you have to pursue your presumed offences; I will concentrate on dealing with what I have to.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * True enough, the Wikipedia might have seen some more blunt talk than what I am pointing to here. But it is these entries being repeatedly posted offensively in the foreign language that adds an insult to an injury. Anyway, ArbCom will look at this. Too bad I will have to provide my highly unreliable translation based on my very poor understanding of Polish. ArbCom deserves better than that but there is nothing esle I can do since you refuse to give me any help. --Irpen 07:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you considered asking Darwinek for translation?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 07:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I did and he ignored my request and posted another entry in Polish right below my request to translate the bevious one: see . --Irpen 18:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

About the "Żyrandol" nickname
Hi, I'm explaining it in your talk since the RFArb is probably not the right place. The nickname is stupid and childish, and should have no place in wikipedia, I fully agree. However there's nothing offensive in it. Probably calling someone a tomato would be more of an offence. --Lysytalk 06:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a play on the "similarity" of Ghirlandajo and Zhyra'ndol (light fixture) in Polish, if I'm any judge. Not exactly offensive, but certainly somewhat pejorative (was used in context of "between us buddies", right?). Yury Tarasievich 09:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's my view as well. Kindergarten level nickname, but not an insult. Or maybe "Ghirlandajo" proved too difficult for some Poles to spell. --Lysytalk 16:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I said all I have to say about this. Nicknaming other users is pejorative and Darwinek have continuously done so with an obvious intent just to bug another editor since Ghirla made it clear earlier that this deliberate distortion of his username annoys him. Darwinek has this habit of continuing to say or do things he was clearly asked not to, be it bashing others in Polish or play with others' names. The user seems to enjoy just to annoy others for the fun of it. --Irpen 19:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide diffs proving that he has used it 'continously'. Thank you,--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are being inconsistent Pitorus. When I say things you know to be true you tell me to find diffs despite you perfectly remember the incidents thus only forcing me to waste time. When I do dig diffs, you accuse me in digging through dirty laundry. I already showed you some diffs lately and even asked you to translate which you refused. Need diffs for that? --Irpen 17:05, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You conveniently omit the fact that the diffs you occasionally dig are rarely relevant to your accusations...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? Another empty statement, Piotrus. Anyway, I said it all on the subject where I said it. I pointed the offensive statements to you and asked you to translate them. The ball is in your court. --Irpen 18:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And I and others remarked to you there is nothing offensive in them. The ball of yours, Irpen, like usual, was full of hot air, I am afraid.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just translate "Myślę, że problemy rusko-polskie uda się załatwić tylko wtedy, kiedy ten użytkownik przestanie edytować." as I asked? --Irpen 19:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Because there is nothing offensive in this statement, and you should be able to translate it yourself - I may correct errors if they are important enough.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Note: For those interested in an English translation it reads, I think that the problems between Russians and Poles (Russian-Polish problems) can be solved (resolved) only when that contributor ceases his editing. Dr. Dan 19:41, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Request
Feel free to write how bad I and other Polish editors are on your talk page. Feel free to start a RfC or use other means ohttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Irpen&action=edit Editing User talk:Irpen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaf asking others for input. But don't spam my talk pages with your grudges after I have politely asked you to stop several times. By all means, feel free to reply / repost / do whatever you want on your talk pages.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not need to repost anything. My goal was to relay to you a certain message. Since you read it, I don't care whether you deleted or not. That you deleted it is not something that concerns me in any way. --Irpen 04:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * FYI: I stopped reading your messages on my talk page some time ago; repeated PAs - as pointed out by others - are not something I want to spend my time reading.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:02, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You can tell that you do not read all you want. But saying that you do not even listen when other editors attempt to talk to you does not make you look constructive. Especially in view of the obvious fact that you do read of course. --Irpen 05:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If it makes you feel any better, you are the first person on Wikipedia I have decided I should stop paying attention to.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 05:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, right, while you even read my responses to you at my own talk... Anyway, as long as you keep your baseless accusation of myself to our talk pages, I care little since I am used to those. It is your spreading them elsewhere is when they become my concern. --Irpen 05:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ten chlopak z Katowic nie ma szans? :-).Vlad fedorov 10:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Was ist das? --Irpen 20:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Das ist jezyk polski (Polnischen). Piotrus says that he's leaving, but he can't actually, so I asked if this fella from Katowice has any chance? :-) I always enjoyed talking with Polish nationalists while being in Poland. Vlad fedorov 03:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Soviet invasion of Poland
I am pleased with the way this article is progressing. I've spent enough time on it now that eventually I would like to see it at FAC. However, I'm only too aware of criticisms re POV from you, Mosin, and Grafikm, and though I have done quite a lot, I think, to increase the information in the article about the Soviet view of things, I would be pleased if you could check it over again. I would rather directly address criticisms from you now than at FAC; and I hope you will have time to edit the article yourself.

Those elements, like the title, which are well-sourced, cannot be removed (though I have added that the Soviets called it the "liberation campaign" and have made the Soviet view as clear as I can), but there is, of course, room for parallel interpretations of events, if sourced. At the moment I am looking at figures and will be making some edits clarifying the differences between old and newer figures for the deaths and deportations (at the moment the figures are something of an inchoate smattering). Anything you can do to help the article will be appreciated. As you probably know, arguments between Polish and Russian-speaking editors don't interest me: I have a high regard for yourself and Ghirlandajo, as well as for Piotrus and Halibutt, and I would love it if this article could pool all your brains together instead of pulling them apart. qp10qp 21:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom/Piotrus
Case has been started, probably you will be interested: M.K. 10:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Piotrus
Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (Talk) 20:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comment
Whatever this was, the Portal talk:Poland/Poland-related Wikipedia notice board is not the place to post it. Try the talk pages of the people you think are involved. Balcer 02:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Balcer, but I posted it exactly where I intended. And, no, I did not say you are involved in any way. No do I think so. --Irpen 02:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You accuse a person active on the noticeboard of wrongdoing, without giving any indication of who this might be. Since I participate on that noticeboard, that accusation is also aimed at me.  I consider this a personal attack, and a gross misuse of a Wikipedia notice board.  Incidentally, the accusation is so cryptic, I have no idea what it is about.  Balcer 02:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

All right. I am not going to persist in this silly revert war. It stays in history and will likely be read enough, to be sure. I do not care whether it beautifies the page (and its archives) forever. I hope you will fiercely remove the calls to get a hand in an edit war frequently posted at that board from now on. --Irpen 02:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is back in now, and I am not going to revert an admin. I invite you to remove your own message.  If you don't, it stays in your "history", so to speak.  Please think about it. Maybe the best approach here is to change your perspective: how would you feel if this message appeared on the Ukrainian and Russian noticeboard, accusing everyone there of (possibly) being indecent, without any explanation or proof.  In essence, this message is saying: Someone on this board is an indecent bastard, but I am not going to tell you who, and I am not going to tell you why. Balcer 02:26, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Balcer, "I am not going to tell you who" only because I don't have a 100% proof of who, but I do have a very strong circumstantial evidence on "what" (a duck test.) As for the Russian or Ukrainian boards, I am aware of the announcements in support of someone or something (like even the one in question) and, sadly, even calls to oppose something. But I am not aware of any similar campaigns run among the Russian or Ukrainian users behind the scenes. If this happened, I would not hesitate to use the board to find what truly was behind such incident in the Russian or Ukrainian community. --Irpen 02:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are not sure, then don't make the accusation. If you have a hunch about specific people involved, take it up on their talk page.  If you think that "Polish users" are responsible, that includes me, and everyone on that board. Clearly you must realize how counterproductive and harmful such accusations are.
 * Enough of this. Sorry to say this, but today you have taken another step towards taking Wikipedia to the toilet. Over and out.Balcer 02:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read what I said at the board. What happened is indeed disgusting but my exposing it is aimed at making the repetitions less likely. --Irpen 06:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Meltyukhov
Irpen, do you consider Meltyukhov's book a reliable source ? The more I read him the more suspicious I am. --Lysytalk 09:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no reason not too. He is a respected scholar from what I know. --Irpen 09:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If he is the one using the "concentration camps" term, this is pretty strong for a respected scholar. Aren't you concerned about this ? You know what I mean, there are different authors, and one can often find some extremal ones, even among the academics. The sources should be carefully selected. I'm usually trying to avoid citing authors who exhibit clear POV pushing in their works (like e.g. not citing Professor Edward Prus about Polish-Ukrainian conflicts, as I know he is biased). --Lysytalk 09:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Mikhail Meltyukhov is notable. As for his reliability, however, the article only claims he is an employee of Russian Institute of Documents and Historical Records Research, a red-linked institute that we don't know nothing about. What is important in estabilishing a person's reliability is primarily: what institution creditentials is he backed up with, what venue publishes his works (the one's we cite, particulary) and how are they received (reviewed) by the academic community. Currently we lack all of those crucial pieces of information, the best we can say is that he is a Russian historian with a PhD publishing books/articles/ebooks but with no info on reliablity of publishers (for all we know he can be self-publishing them). As such, he is definetly having problems with WP:RS.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice, Piotrus, that you dare speak about RS wrt to an academic work after insisting that crackpot theories published in Polish press are acceptable and even trying to change the policy to accommodate your views. This fresh example of using double standards in POV-pushing will be added to your arbcom. --Irpen 20:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, I apologize for bugging your userpage, but I addressed you and not Piotrus. I'm puzzled as to why he responded in your talk page instead of you, and you did not. Do you understand and agree with the point that I was trying to make above ? --Lysytalk 20:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Lysy, I responded to Piotrus' entry because it seemed asking for response. You don't have to apologize, since I never minded being asked at my talk. Now, I responded to your earlier inquiry and all I can add is to repeat that MM is as good a source as any other academic, a professional historian, researcher (not sensationalist journalist, ask Piotrus about those) and whose work appears in scholarly publications such as books and peer-reviewed journals. His "Stalin lost chance" was received with raving reviews and I don't see the reason to dismiss him except "not liking" what he says, which is not a valid reason anyway. --Irpen 20:19, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --Lysytalk 14:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Clarification
Irpen, I am perfectly aware that you a most voiceful opponent of Holocaust Denial, and hence I thought that you would probably be aware of the nature of the Institute for Historical Review, probably the most infamous and repellent revisionist organisation of them all. This is precisely why I was so shocked by this edit, and wanted an explanation from you as to what point you are making. I am glad you have now (rather late) explained what happened. Prompt answers to legitimate questions will help to avoid similar misunderstandings in the future.

I still stand by my suggestion that your comment with the link to IHR be stroked out, but the decision is of course yours. Balcer 20:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I was not aware of the IHR at all. Never even heard of them. I have recently explained that after being made aware of them having such reputation I want their opinions to be completely discarded. I take the claim that they are indeed an HD institution at face value. I am not interested even at doing any fact checking here. You say it is HD, this is good enough for me. I made several talk page entries in connection with that matter:,, . I don't understand how else I can be more clear. --Irpen 20:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the correction I was suggesting. I am glad you made it, and now this matter is closed as far as I am concerned.  Balcer 20:47, 4 June 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) 21:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Disturbed
Where have you disappeared? Please come back as soon as possible. Wikipedia is a bleak place without you. --Ghirla-трёп- 15:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Ditto the sentiment. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 17:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And third that feeling.--Pan Gerwazy 09:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

О, мой сынок, мой дорогой, Из дому ты уйдёшь.
Where are you when we need your knowledge of Ukrainian? --Pan Gerwazy 12:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, friend, for not being available when needed. You can figure out the reasons below. I was heartened by your concerns. Cheers, --Irpen 04:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Gone missing?
Where are you, Irps? Bishonen | talk 23:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC).
 * Hmm... Hopefully everything's okay. But then it's summer. — Alex(U 00:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Where's Irpen? --Mcginnly | Natter 09:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you all, dear friends for your concerns. I am OK. Great, actually. You can find why I stopped editing from my today's entries. Sometimes, the climate here makes it just impossible to edit. Hopefully, the situation will improve. All the best to you all as well! --Irpen 04:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You're back!!! — Alex(U 04:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Time will show, but thanks a lot. All of you! --Irpen 04:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

An apology
Irpen, it was never my intent to cause you distress and I am sorry about that - alas, the case is stressful to us all, and I myself have recently been seriously considering a wikiholiday, because every time I check my watchlist I dread "what other attacks on my person I will have to read now". After you declared that you are compiling your own evidence against me, can you blame me for drafting a reply? If you are distressed that it was semi-public, would you prefer I compiled it secretly in a *.doc or similar file as is commonly done - and presumably, in the form your not-yet-public evidence is drafted? If so, you could have just asked me to remove it from the web, and I'd have done so. Further, if this draft of an evidence was so distressing, please consider how do others - like myself - feel when they face similar accusations - coming from your person, too - near constantly, from article's talk pages, through user talk, public fora and DR cases.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Piotrus, your so called "apology" upsets me because it includes more than one obvious not-so-truths. I would rather not continue this here but have this discussion at the workshop. Thanks for understanding. --Irpen 04:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Few thoughts
Hey Irpen. Welcome back. I have read your newest posts on Arbcom. They are quite impassioned and a lot of thought clearly went into them. I am not going to respond in full here, as that would require quite a bit of reflection on my part, and I should let Piotrus speak first. Balcer
 * Balcer, allow me to interject your statement with my responses. I am looking forward towards your thoughts when you ae ready to post them. In the meanwhile, here are some answers. First of all, however it pleases me that so many people expressed their concern about my non-editing and several more welcomed me back (you among others), it is premature to say that I am back. Now, to your thoughts. --Irpen

Still, here are a few thoughts of mine, for your consideration.

1. You expressed your opposition to off-wiki communication. Please reconsider. One of the best parts about being a Wikipedian is developing friendships with interesting people, friendships which necessarily need to go off official Wikipedia channels for communication. If I want to discuss with Piotrus any non-Wikipedia topic of interest to us, obviously we are not going to use Wikipedia talk pages. Therefore, I resent your implication that Piotrus' request to me for IM communication was in any way illegitimate or suspicious. Balcer


 * I am a least bit concerned about your off-wiki discussions with Piotrus on the topics that are unrelated to WP. If you are discussing, politics, cars, stocks, girls, science, money or even Irpen, this is none of my business or interest. Also, I thought I never accused you in being a part of Piotrus' organized team. Of all editors concerned, I have a high opinion of your honesty overall and I even thought of you being a part of that workgroup that would help solving this conflicts. This is all despite our many editing disagreement of which many were not so sweet. I truly seek a solution that would help rather than to have my POV prevail in the articles as the ultimate goal.


 * OTOH, I disagree with your opinion that developing friendships is one of the goals we should seek from Wikipedia experiences. While I made some friends, yes, it was never my goal of coming here. I would rather say to the contrary. I think the "friendster" is one of the gravest dangers of Wikipedia. A whole bunch of people now, and most of them are admins, developed a whole IRC-centered friendster network which helps anything but making the WP a better place, more comfortable for editors and more interesting to the readers.


 * But in any case, your friendships is none of my business. I see off-wiki communication plain wrong, when it is used to quickly request an extra revert, mobilize voters, organize a block, etc. It is pretty obvious that this was being done and I don't think that you were among those manipulated that way. So, there is no contradiction in my statement that off-wiki communcation harmed the climate here and your opinion that it can be used for harmless purposes. We are actually not arguing here. -Irpen

2. Your outrage at the "list of offenses" that Piotrus was compiling seems boundless, but please make an effort to see things from his point of view. In the last months of last year, Piotrus went through a quite involved Requests for comment/Piotrus, where plenty of evidence was presented against him by his opponents on Wikipedia. Obviously, presenting counterarguments on his part must have taken quite a lot of effort. Knowing that since the RfC did not result in any resolution, and that a similar effort was likely to be launched against him again (as indeed it was in the Arbcom), it seems perfectly reasonable for him to build up his side of the case beforehand.

I suppose that he regrets now posting this material on a page which he thought was private, but which of course in this day and age where Google is combing all Wikispace day and night, obviously is not. Balcer


 * Well, although I agree with your supposition that he regrets that his underground effort was discovered, this is acually not what Piotrus is saying now. He is now trying to to say that his posting of this stuff was done purposefully with the aim of a greater transparency. I don't even need to comment on the incredulity of this nonsense. You don't need to either.


 * As for this being a "defence" in advance being reasonable, sorry, I disagree. There is a whole bunch of pretty vicious people who view me their enemy. I assure you that there is no file on my hard-drive or anywhere where I collect the diffs on that folk to have it handy when needed. I think it is repugnant. Yes, I remember many events but if I need a diff, I need to go dig it.


 * One example, Piotrus called me Polonophobic at one time. I later reminded him of that and when he denied and challenged me for the diff, it took me a while to find it. Another example, Lysy, called me worse invoking ethnic sensitivities. I remember that episode vividly but there is no diff anywhere ready (while I would probably be able to find it. I just wouldn't want to, as this would make me read again his horrific slur which I am not looking forward to.) True enough, there is so plenty of evidence on some others, that I would not need to look too much. The bottomline is that I see no excuse for such a sneaky behavior as secretly collecting stuff to use when necessary to destroy your contributors. I find this shadowing your colleagues for kompromat disgusting and I can't see any way to justify it.


 * You say that Piotrus might have been expecting an Arbcom. I was not expecting this one, truly. Moreover, when it was started, I asked MK to stop this as I saw no solution of this via arbcom. I said so again in my statement posted for arbitrators to the Arbcom page before the case was accepted.


 * But back to the subject, you may remember that I never co-signed that Piotrus' RfC which I thought was too broad and ill-concieved. Under similar circumstances, I even supported Halibutt, when he was a subject of a difficult RfC (who I also supported even for Adminship although he still molests me from time to time). Yes, I wanted to post a narrower complaint to Piotrus' RfC but I never got to it.


 * Now, if Piotrus was compiling a statement and drafting it outside of the ArbCom case (publicly or privately), that would have been OK. I tried to start writing evidence too but never got beyond 2 or 3 sentences simply because this is such an unpleasant business. But fine, Piotrus wants to present some evidence that his opponents are nothing but troublemakers, he goes for it. No problem. What is a problem is that the page pre-dates the draft of the anti-Irpen evidence statement. It predates the arbcom itself as a whole. It was maintaned for months, way before this ArbCom was started and he was collecting diffs that he thought could be used against me (and others) in case he needs them for whatever purpose.


 * Also, an interesting twist, there were others posting there with diffs. I recognize one author adding a diff from the Warsaw IP (as well as the diff). The author did not get any onwiki invitations to post. This is the type of IM coordination I meant. How many more users took part in it? I really don't want to know and don't care. And please, lets be serious. If Piotrus wanted to do it openly, he would have done it in his enwiki sandbox and would not have kept it in the in pl-wiki.


 * Also, an outright hypocrisy is his statement's being designed as if "spontaneous", if you read the overture, while in fact it was so meticulously prepared. But well, let Piotrus now live with his consciousness as well as with what others think of this once it came to light. --Irpen

3. If you really think Piotrus did something really reprehensible, while at the same time you admit that in many respects he is a great contributor to Wikipedia and a decent human being, try to put yourself in his shoes for a moment and try to figure out what induced him to do what he did. Could it be that there is something in what you, Ghirlandajo and others are doing that is in some part responsible for this situation? What part of your behavior could be changed? Balcer


 * A small note here. Piotrus as a human being is not a subject of this discussion. Let's stick to the editing issues. I will say it again that he is a very valuable contributor. But at least no less a great contributor is his main opponent who Piotrus was hunting for years with partial success. Your trying to do any finger-pointing at his opponents here is not helping. The problem here is not people but an inadequate system of the conflict resolution that allows to game policies, like WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:RS, etc., in order to POV-push. The system that makes block shopping, off-line coordinated rv warring and vote stacking, meatpuppeting, all this being  parts of the content disputes' resolution is responsible for this mess. People won't change. They can be replaced but the new ones will be no different. There has already been a sufficient amount of fingerpointing at the ArbCom. I would rather let Arbitrators decide and pass the respecvtife FoF's.


 * Also, I am certain, Piotrus' continual attempts to present this as civility issues is not only wrong but insincere. For one, unlike the editor he chases most vigorously I am not an incivil editor (occasional slips might have happened but no more than with all of us), he still added me to his hit-list. Secondly, the incivil Polish nationalists were used as pet-trolls rather than called to order. As for the editing (mis)behavior which is a true reason of this drama, Piotrus and his friends are as guilty of the double-standard POV-pushing as the other side.


 * But even before your advise above I was trying to think of a solution that would have made the situation for better. BTW, for better in general or to Piotrus' liking? Forcing his opponents out is one option. Ghirla has been forced out for a very long wikibreak. I did not see any improvement in behavior of Ghirla-bashers in his absence, neither in Piotrus. Same shameless POV-pushing, double-standards with sources, taking turns in revert wars coordinated by IM, snowballing the votes, etc. Not one single side is guilty of this and neither people nor their behavior is going to change. What needs to change is the way this is handled. If an efficient way of conflict resoltuion is designed that would make block-shopping not an option in the content DR, that would make attacking/pushing the sources based on their POV rather than reliability impossible, then we may achieve some progress.

4. I join you in my dismay at the rather limited (or even nonexistent) positive role that Arbcom is taking in this situation. They contributed very little, and the rulings under consideration are rather meaningless general pronouncements which display no understanding of what is really going on here (I think we all agree on this at this point). It almost makes me wonder whether this whole issue could not just be resolved among the editors involved. Since Arbcom seems incompetent here, maybe that is the only hope left. Balcer 09:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. See my original statement I made before the case was even accepted. --Irpen 04:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: "Proposing a novel solution that may actually work"
Hi Irpen. Welcome back. I am very glad to see you participating again. I have read with interest your remarks here, and have responded with some questions here. I'd be interested in your response. Anything idea that might help ameliorate the situation should be vigorously pursued. Regards, Paul August &#9742; 19:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Paul. I will post a response without delay. Thanks again, --Irpen 19:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Happy Irpen's Day!

 * Ehm. Thanks, but why? And have we met? I hope I did do something well to get your attention. Best regards and lots of Wikilove from me as well. --Irpen 03:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Do we need a reason to tell a great editor, and an wonderful person how greatly appreciated his work is, or how much we look up to him? I certainly don't, dear Irpen - and that's why, my humble gift is my way of telling you, you are all those things - even tho we haven't met directly until now. For this, you deserve the modest token of my admiration, and I hope you enjoyed your well deserved day. Have a wonderful day, dear Irpen! :) Love,  P h a e d r i e l  - 23:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sharon. I am afraid I am not the best model to "look up to", at least I would recommend others to look elsewhere for the model behavior. But I appreciate your award and will try to live up to it. Best regards, --Irpen 00:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

English translation of the Valuyev Circular
Hiya. I stumbled through translating the Valuyev Circular into English, at Valuyev Circular. If you have a bit of time, please proof-read it and improve the translation. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2007-08-10 14:20 Z 
 * Will do. --Irpen 19:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Map

 * Image:Russian Empire Map 1912.jpg

Found a nice map. I linked it to a few places, but you might think of more uses for it. It is quite detailed (11 MB). Balcer
 * Thanks. Useful indeed. It can be also cropped for regions article. A wonderful map.  --Irpen 07:02, 13 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)

Requests for arbitration/Digwuren
Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ArbComBot 00:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Dino award time
Bishzilla award little Irpen prestigious Tightrope Trophy created by puny 'shonen for SlimVirgin. Image represent amazing Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across Niagara Falls.  bishzilla    ROA R R! !    23:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC).

Hryhoriy Chorny
Since you are interested in that period, could you stub this red link? Thank you.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Do you think you can also do Timofiy Orendarenko? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 14:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Kiev dnipro.jpg
I don't think there is a need to keep that local copy; it's a free licence picture - it will never be deleted from Commons.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for such an attention to my edits. It always amuses and puzzles me what's so interesting you find in my person that whenever I go, no matter how little this is related to Poland, I find you commenting on that. Was it a Chorny article that I left unannounced for the day (but still found you there on the next day) or this image request which has nothing to do with Poland whatsoever. But since you are interested, I will respond to this as well.


 * Commons is a separate project from en-wiki. I neither mind nor have any means to prevent commons from getting copies of the en-wiki's images it wants for itself. Mine or others' images are free to redistribute. However, I am not convinced in Commons' safety and, further, I do not want to have anything to do with it. Images that interest me or the ones that I made or uploaded are not "mine". They belong to anyone who uses them in compliance with a free license that includes copying them to commons. All I ask is that for their safety the local copies iarekept. We cannot be sure what quirks will come next in commons. The ANI discussion ended with the conclusion that there is never a need to require the deletion of the local copy in Wikipedias. --Irpen 03:11, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Digwuren
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Among the principles passed was At wit's end which states that necessary measures must be adopted by the Arbitration Committee in cases where repeated attempts to stop disruptive disputes have failed. As a result of the case, both Digwuren and Petri Krohn are banned for one year. There has also been a general restriction to all editors working on topis related to Eastern Europe and a warning to all those who may, in the future, attempt to use Wikipedia as a battleground that they may be banned when the matter is reported to the Committee. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,  Cbrown1023   talk   18:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Award
Truly, thanks for all your work.--Riurik(discuss) 04:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ukraine irreproachable sevice thirdc ribbon.png is your image you wanted. I notice a spelling error, but I cannot fix it now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:41, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

S.H. sources
Maybe this, ,, would be any of use to you in future if you decide to work on this article seriously. Personally I find this article FUBARed beyond belief. Also this could serve as good start for an artile about great historian. Good luck. Cheers. M0RD00R 21:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

83 IP
Please show me evidence that that anon is a banned user, and I will apologize to MK and ban the IP myself. Otherwise I tend to WP:AGF and the anon seems to have a perfectly reasonable point to make.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 20:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Anon was harassing MK. MK's response was clear when he removed anon's message. Anon restored it thus demonstrating that aggravating MK was indeed his goal. I removed that repeated post as it was obviously harassment.   Your intrusion could only aggravate the situation as it did per MK's own message at your talk. Your assistance to the anon harassing MK was unhelpful. --Irpen 20:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/IRC
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision may be found at the link above. Giano is placed on civility restriction for one year. Should Giano make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, Giano may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling. All parties in this case are strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. All the involved editors, both the supporters and detractors of IRC, are asked to avoid edit warring on project space pages even if their status is unclear, and are instructed to use civil discussion to resolve all issues with respect to the "admin" IRC channel. For the Arbitration committee, Thatcher 04:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

you were missed
Your editing was greatly missed while you were gone. Ostap 04:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ostap. I am also pleased to see you again. Together, we will continue to make WP a better source of knowledge. Cheers, --Irpen 04:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Your #admins query
I asked FT2 to follow up with you about your concerns. He has access to the logs and played a large role in establishing the new guidelines for the channel. I'll follow up with both of you to see if your concerns are addressed. Take care, FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 21:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus/TigerShark/ZScout incident on AN
I only noticed this by chance. If something like this happens again will you let me know? (This is regardless of who was actually right or wrong, of course.) Meantime having a look into it, and catching up. Whatever went on, whoever did what, it's worth it. FT2 (Talk 04:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. link. FT2 (Talk 09:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Award

 * Thanks! You beat me as I was about to give you an award later today, which will now have to wait :). Wow, I now amazingly have two orders of B. Kh. from different states. This reminds me to update my userpage. Thanks again, Mariah-Yulia! --Irpen 23:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Your welcome, remind me not to give this award to Taras Shevchenko :). BTW isn't there a Taras Shevchenko-award? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There exists a Taras Shevchenko State Award which is usually awarded for the achievements in the field of arts. There were several controversies about the choice of laureates  but that is not unusual. Even Hero of Ukraine awarding were controversial, both under the previous and the current president. --Irpen 23:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Trans. request
Sorry to bug thee Irpen. If you have any time, could you translate this interview, and maybe put it in thy userpace? It might be useful for non-Russian speakers on wiki to be able to read that sort of thing. It's especially interesting as it's by a renowned Ukrainian medievalist, and will prolly be useful again and again. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 03:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. I posted a brief response to the article's talk and will let you know when I am done translating. It is a good article indeed by a renowned scientist in the field. --Irpen 05:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it have to end like that?
Irpen, I still remember the days we co-edited peacefully.

Please, consider: I do not follow your edits; I do not criticize articles you have written for bias based on your ethnicity or such; I do not come out of blue to start threads about you on public forums even if you blip on my watchlist here and there; I do not criticize you on public forums for things you have done now or years ago; I do not demand a review of your behavior; I do not not criticize past ArbCom or other rulings that failed to fulfill all my expectations with regard to your person. And so on. Yet increasingly you are doing all of those things to me.

Please, Irpen, stop this. I find no pleasure in our disputes, and I don't want to spend a single second collecting diffs with regards to them. Cannot we just agree not to talk about one another? Cannot you just refrain from voicing your opinion on "what Piotrus does"? If you wish, we could try a mediation, perhaps with User:Durova (I found her attempt to mediate between me and Ghirla a year ago rather helpful).

I hope we will be able to bury this proverbial hatchet and stop confronting one another in that way before we end up in ArbCom (again - do we need to go through this ordeal again?). I hope we are wise enough to avoid it.

Please, pretty please, consider my words. I have not commented under your latest analysis in AE, even through I could've pointed out the ArbCom rulings and such we all know too well. I have no desire to criticize you and blacken your name, please do not do so to me. Please consider this a gesture of my good will, and if so, please consider removing your post there (the issue does not concern you at all, after all) and please, consider not commenting on me in the future (and I will do my best to not comment on you, and to fulfill any other reasonable requests you may have in the future).

Please think back to 2 or 3 years ago when we were on more peaceful terms and whether we cannot act like the bad blood between us from was never there. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, this is a serious message and deserve nothing but a very serious response from me. I divided it into paragraphs (I hope you don't mind) and will give you a detailed reply within two days. --Irpen 09:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Irpen, I understand how you feel. After I complained about his co-editing with, he accused me of devoting my activities to "whitewashing nazi crimes", pretty much the closest you can come to calling someone a nazi without actually saying so out loud. Naturally he provided nothing to back up his slander with. I replied to this attempt at character assasination, not that it is of much use.--Stor stark7 Talk 14:17, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Waiting.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

#admins channel
Hi :-) After reading your comment about #admins, yesterday I started a discussion in #admin-chan-ops about some of the issues you raised. Though no specific action was made in response to the discussion, the exchange of information was good and I now think that there is better awareness of some of your concerns. I plan to do it again some time next week. Take care, FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 20:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Holodomor genocide question deletion?
Should said article be listed for deletion? It's a POV fork and the article is just one massive violation of WP:SYNTH, a POV pushing article created by a notorious user under the blatant POV pushing title of “Holodomor genocide denial”. The Holodomor article already discusses the genocide question so what little legitimacy this article has is covered there.--Miyokan (talk) 14:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence §  t / e  18:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Award

 * Wow! Thanks Riurik! And, I never thought I made that many edits. It's nice that someone notices :). Thanks again, --Irpen 05:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Gagarin image
Someone is trying to get your Gagarin image deleted, thought you might like to comment.--Miyokan (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. I don't really care. I take no part nor interest in Commons which I see as a failure project of WMF and a ticking bomb. If someone uploads my images there, it is their busyness on maintaining it. I put KeepLocal on all images I upload to the Wikipedia. If the image gets deleted from Commons, I will upload it to Wikipedia and will decide on the best license. --Irpen 03:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Polish administrative divisions
Hi, Irpen! Piotrus asked me to comment on the situation around the administrative division of Polish territories after partitions article on my talk page, and since it regards several of your edits, I thought I'd let you know as well. Please feel free to comment and provide any clarifications you feel are necessary. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Quick note
Irpen, I have hopefully made it utterly clear in my statement that I do not support any further action on Giano, and that he's only listed as involved because he was the fulcrum for which WMC and Geogre's actions should be judged. Giano's making a statement here couldn't hurt, and certainly could help. But I understand the high level of feelings here, and I've disengaged from his page, and unless you wish me to post here again on this issue, from here as well. SirFozzie (talk) 01:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * SirFozzie, you know full well what will come out from your submission. You (and I) may not know the final outcome, but I hugely disagree that resolving this through starting an arbcom case was a good idea. Worse, it was the worst idea of all I can think of. I explained why elsewhere. I am not a fan of WMC (who I know for a very long time I will explain more if the case gets accepted) but this will be another round of circus on Giano-matters? Certainly not needed because ArbCom no final decision on this matter this arbcom can come up with can solve this problem but make it worse.


 * I don't remember ever banning anyone from posting at my page. You can post or not post as you like. I will only add one thing. Judging by your overall pattern, I was thinking that you might be running for the ArbCom seat and I was considering that if this happens, I might support you. These events changed at least this thing already. --Irpen 01:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why did I bring up an ArbCom case? because the entire series of behavior involved is stuff that's bright line, no doubt, from up high THOU SHALL NOT stuff.


 * Rapidly escalating blocks by WMC, making things into a vicious circle? Check
 * Geogre coming in, and not only undoing the block completely (he says he meant to change the duration, but it fell to another administrator to actually reblock), but undoing the page protection which a third, COMPLETELY neutral administrator had placed in an attempt to keep things from flowing over? Check
 * WMC completing the circle by reblocking Giano? Check.


 * At no point was there an attempt to disengage, or to get more eyes on this, by either Geogre or WMC. The rules are quite clear. DO NOT undo another administrator's action without discussion (either get the other admin's ok, or get consensus at various places). Geogre didn't do that. Worse yet, WMC flagrantly violated the rule against Wheel-warring by reinstating the block.


 * There's another administrator who I've been talking to, who's a lot closer to Giano's side on this then anyone else. They're also disappointed that I brought this, not because of the case itself, but because the time frame means that Giano won't see this till the morning his time, and it looks like the case will be accepted in about 23 hours). They were thinking about bringing their own arbcase a few hours from now, and to leave off Giano from the list of involved parties.


 * I'm sorry that I lost your support for the ArbCom run that I'm planning on making in December (If I'm willing to criticize it from afar, I damn well better attempt to fix the things I see), but this is classic behavioral nonos, the very fabric of Wikipedia that keeps it an encyclopedia, and not anarchy. Right now, as a result of their behaviors today, neither Geogre nor WMC have my confidence as an administrator. That's why I brought the case. That's why there's four accepts, already. SirFozzie (talk) 01:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I know of a far more plausible explanation of why there's four immediate accepts but I expressed it already elsewhere. As for the rest, I see no point arguing it here. I will post to the case when its page gets created. And as a side note, it is a strange pleasure to see my observation on other editors' intentions being on the spot. Shows that I am here for too long. But back to the topic, I simply cannot trust your judgment after seeing that you chose this path to resolve this series of incidents. This is why I changed my mind on your prospective candidacy. --Irpen 01:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * update: And I am not happy to find the events confirming my suspicions. . --Irpen 07:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi
You're back, hurray. Some day I would like to make Chernozem into a GA and would appreciate yr help with references - maybe you have access to images?. Best, Novickas (talk) 23:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Your RFArb statement
Hello Irpen. Please could you refactor your statement on the main RfArb page? Statements should be 500 words or less, and yours is currently 1380. Thanks,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Civility policy issues
FYI, you may wish to read and comment at Editing restrictions/Civility restriction RFC. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Civility
Hi there. A follow up to our recent posts. You've been active recently at Wikipedia talk:Civility. Would you be interested in commenting at Wikipedia talk:Civility? There are several other threads on that talk page that you might be interested in as well, and a proposal to rewrite the policy. For the whole recent story, read downwards from Wikipedia talk:Civility. This will need to be advertised more widely to get more balanced input, but for now I'm notifying those I quoted from the RfArb, and a few other editors who have either written essays on this, or have been active on the talk page recently. Apologies if you had this watchlisted anyway. Carcharoth (talk) 06:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Tag team
Irpen, hi, glad to see you back. :) Since you participated in the Tag team discussions at the WG wiki, I wanted to draw your attention to the Tag team essay.  It was started based on our 2008 report, but is still heavily in flux.  I'd really love if you could come over and help out with it, to ensure that your opinions are properly reflected in the essay.  Or if nothing else, please add it to your watchlist?  Thanks, --Elonka 23:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Bravo
You just made the best edit of the day, Bravo! Unfortunately I wasn't brave enough to do it... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Another hand
Irpen, it is not my desire to drag you (or anybody else) through wikipolitics mud throwing contests. Since we didn't have any problematic wiki content disputes in months (if not years) I didn't plan to involve you in any dispute resolution unless you made yourself involved in it first. I presented evidence against you only after you've joined the ArbCom and made it clear you'll present your evidence against me. The evidence I've gathered in the past was gathered to use to defend myself when ArbComs would be launched against me (as they've been in the past), not to attack others (I've never started an ArbCom). Wouldn't it save both of us much time and stress if we would withdraw our mutual fingers pointing at each other from this arbcom and concentrate on improving Wikipedia (as we are doing by discussing Jaworski's work, for example)? Do we have to fight? I don't see why we should.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Piotrus, I like peace. I want to edit in peace. But your post requires a little bit of time to answer and I have to be away from my computer for another several hours (but hopefully not for the day.) I will respond as soon as I am back but I just want to be sure you are familiar with this discussion I had with Balcer. It has been at my talk for a while and it would save me a lot of space if I don't have to repeat what was said back then. --Irpen 23:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, I hope you had time to read the thread I pointed out above. Now, a more detailed response.

I fully share your lack of affection to the ArbCom (particularly this ArbCom I must add to be fully honest.) I share your desire to avoid arbcom as much as possible. All I want is that all the editors who want to write content are able to do it in harmonious environment while the users who are primarily motivated by the Wiki-careerist goals to somehow fulfill their ambitions without interfering with  the ability of good editors to work comfortably creating the Wikipedia content. Unfortunately it has become impossible to harmoniously edit in EE area where I want to write and this arbcom, as well as previous ones, illustrate just that.

Let me outline again what I see as the most important hurdles, aside from unhelpful intrusions of self-serving mandarins, and what I think needs to be done on our, and particularly, your part. If this was done earlier, things would not have reached the arbcom stage. In fact, all the previous arbcoms could have been avoided too. If it can be done now, I would support a request to end this ArbCom and consider the matter resolved. Arbitrators would be just as happy, I am sure.

The primary reason why the editing environment in these topics is so plaguy is not just that these are the areas where editors' views are so strong. People with strong views can have amicable discussions about their issues of disagreement. The reason why the climate is so poisoned lies in some participants' in these conflicts acting dishonestly. The most blatant form of dishonest conduct is employing various secretive means aimed at gaining an upper hand in a conflict.

I consider your logging to be just that. In my statement I explained why I do not buy your defense claim. I don't see how following me around and logging my reaction to Betacommand's trolling me or logging Dorftrottel's trolling at ANI about myself  can be used for your defense. I don't see how logging my two-months absence can be used for your defense. And I don't see how selectively logging my other actions and giving them the worst possible spin can be used for defense of your own actions. I also wrote here that the only good use of this log I can see is for an attack. And this is exactly how it was used. I must insist that you cease this practice. I asked you many times but you persisted.

For me your log was a tipping point. Before that I publicly expressed doubt that your conduct is an ArbCom matter despite many bitter disagreement we had. The understanding on this activity is absolutely crucial and if we cannot reach it by a mutual agreement, I see it critical to get an ArbCom ruling on that. Neither me, nor ArbCom can enforce any ban on your continuing to follow whoever your consider your enemies and meticulously log anything that you can try to spin in a way that would help you push for sanctions of your targets. Thus, ideally it has to be a voluntarily pledge on your part. If you refuse to give it, the only sanction to this effect would be a remedy that would prohibit you from using such surreptitiously collected information. Can we come to an agreement on this?

Next, comes off-line canvassing. Are you trying to say that you do not contact people off-line asking for a revert, when you approach a 3RR quota, or for a vote in a survey? Please, let's be serious! This has to stop. Of course, aside from #admins logs that are absolutely stunning, no direct evidence can exist of your Gadu Gadu and email communication since off-wiki communication by its very nature does not leave trace. Their being untraceable is exactly why off-line communications are used, sometimes for absolutely legitimate but sometimes for the illicit purposes. No direct evidence can possibly exist that you ask for reverts by emails and Gadu Gadu. But I believe the amount of circumstantial evidence (in addition to Molobo's flipping on whether he communicates with you off-line and the Alden Jones affair) seems to me very convincing. I can name a couple of other editors, aside from Molobo, who are also known to be your Gadu Gadu partners and who come in all the time when you are "out of reverts". We can have arbitrators rule based on the circumstantial evidence and whatever came out accidentally on Molobo and Alden Jones. Or I will accept if you publicly pledge not to ever ask for an extra revert off-line. While I do not do it myself, if you want I will will post a similar public pledge on my page if this would make it easier for you to promise to refrain from such activity and follow up on this promise.

As for the IRC incidents I listed, how can you possibly claim that you did nothing wrong going to this rather special place and badmouthing your opponents behind their backs? And how can you come back to wiki and complain about "incivility" with straight face after what you have said at IRC behind the editors' backs? Would you be willing to pledge that no illicit IRC-shopping would ever happen? In that case, we won't need an arbcom ruling on that either.

As for your adminship, my problem with it lies in that people who behave unethically should not be admins. If we can agree on the ethic rules and you pledge to abide by them we won't need to discuss your admin status. IMO, admin status in its own means very little.

So, this is my take on things. If you voluntarily pledge to stop maintaining logs on those you consider your enemies, refrain from using off-line channels to recruit help in revert wars or to stack votes in surveys, refrain from misusing #admins to get an upper hand in POV disputes and generally abandon the practice of solving editing conflicts through achieving your opponents' blocks or sanctions by whatever means possible, I would be just as happy to have it solved without any ArbCom involvement. You cannot seriously deny that such activity is reprehensible while you can continue to deny, of course, that you have done that in the past. Is this what you are trying to say?

Also, and if this would have been an ideal world, I would like to see your help in reigning on bad users regardless on their POV. Your staunch and persistent defense of Molobo that ranges from personally unblocking him to arguing against every single block he got, arguing on- and off-wiki, continues to raise my eyebrows. But this is your business. I have no intent to interfere with your private correspondence in general. You can correspond with anyone you want. I have no qualms even about your correspondence with Martintg whose obsession about my person goes beyond understandable . '''There are proper and improper uses of off-line communications. The latter has got to stop.' And, ironically, the normalcy in our recent discussion of Jaworski's work only became possible because no one arrived this'' time out of the blue with reverting my placing doubts on the propriety of the use of this source in the infobox. This just demonstrates what stays in the way of our discussions always taking a constructive route.

So, if we could agree on this without ArbCom, I would be just as happy. --Irpen 01:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Irpen, I always found it sad that we agree on so many general principles and yet disagree on others, mostly minor issues that get blown out of proportions. I found and still find your problem with those minor issues, like my evidence collection, puzzling. Let me address it in few issues:


 * wiki disputes resolutions require one to present evidence; it's collection is not a sign of bad faith but of following the rules
 * if I wanted to be dishonest, the simplest thing I could have done long ago was to pledge I am not doing it and keep doing it (for example on one of other mediawiki sites that I edit, and where it would be completely impossible to trace, or in a word document on my computer). That I have not done so proves that I am not dishonest (I believe my evidence collection is ok - brought up and not criticized by last arbcom, and a clarification request later on - and I see no reason to hide an honest diff collection collected for dispute resolution)
 * I also hope you don't think I am stupid as I'd be if I believed nobody would discover my continuing evidence (which was hidden from google to avoid offending people but not from any reasonably smart wiki editor dedicated to tracing my edits)
 * since it is impossible to prevent an editor from collecting evidence, if I were to cripple myself, it would just mean that others can freely do what I cannot. I do believe that there are editors out there who collect evidence against me. I do believe that they have a right to do so, just as I have the right to do so. For that reason, I cannot declare a one sided ceasefire, just as in real world a country with nuclear weapons would be foolish to declare a one-sided dearmanent. Sad, but it's realpolitik. I hate wikipolitics, but I'll be damned if I allow others to use it against me. Would I trust you if you declared you'll never collect evidence against me? Likely, I respect you that much. But can we trust all the editors out there - including future ones - not to do so?
 * I believe that having a log of diffs is just a technicality; one can spend few days and compile it or one can do it slowly over a period of time. Why single out one way of gathering information? How long one can keep the diffs, or collect them before it turns from acceptable to unacceptable? Few hours? Days? Weeks? What if you want to take a break in your evidence collection, because you are to disguested with it, others, have no time or hope it won't be needed? It's simply strange to specify a time in which one can gather diffs for dispute resolution.
 * I have gathered evidence that I stumbled upon by accident and that I never thought I'd be using, but please forget about what I haven't done and tell me if there is anything I have done (i.e. used evidence on public wiki forum) that you think I shouldn't have, and we can discuss that. But by assuming with bad faith that I planned to use evidence in a way I haven't used it, you're building a straw man.
 * if an editor is highly disruptive and uncivil, I may use the evidence against them in a dispute resolution. There are few editors like that, but I believe it is a duty of an admin to gather evidence about disruptive editors and bring it to community (a duty I nonetheless find stressful and try to avoid as much as possible - again, consider how much time I spend on initiating dispute resolutions, and how much time I spend on content creation... 1% to 99%?). Evidence against you was not gathered to launch a sudden attack on you, it was gathered in case you decided to launch one on me. I am sorry, Irpen, but I cannot presume you'd never do this, and our relationship has been problematic (with both of us blaming the other one). I can promise you, again, that if you don't do criticize me, I won't criticize you in return. But please, don't criticize others, like Balcer (whatever you say, irrelevant of whether you were right or not, he stated that he left because of you). This is why we should assume good faith and discuss content, not editors. You discussed Balcer and he left. I believe you acted disruptively then, but it was a year ago and we all make mistakes. If you don't do this again, I have no "beef" with you (alas, I believe that - intentionally or not - your criticism of me is similar to what you did with Balcer; stop criticizing me and I'll not be returning the favor by complaining that you're criticizing me :)
 * so to sum the evidence thing up: as there is no way to guarantee evidence will not be gathered about me (as I believe it is), I cannot deprive myself of the right (that every editor has, and many exercise) to gather evidence to defend myself. I can promise not to use it to slander/harass others, as I believe I have never done so in the past, and I can promise not to make it google'able / easily findable (we can discuss technicalities if you want).
 * I have addressed my off wiki communication in my arbcom reply to evidence. I talk to many editors, I don't encourage them to edit war. Yes, some revert - because they decide to do it. That's all there's to it. I'll give you an example: every few days an editor (ex. Tymek) may ask me on GG: "Piotrus, what's interesting on Wikipedia?" and I'll answer: "I created article X, user Y article Z, there are discussions on articles M and N". And then he may decide to look on articles X, Z, M, and N, join the discussion, add content, revert... I believe we have the right to talk about Wikipedia. But there is no secret forum/channel, on GG or elsewhere, which would be maintained/dedicated to revert requests. We use GG because it's quicker, we often talk about off wiki things (ex. Polish politics, jokes, private life) and we do it in Polish, not because we want to hide inner workings of cabal.
 * IRC: your dislike of this medium is another puzzling thing. But I'll tell you this: recent experience taught me that it is not the right place to ask for intervention against disruptive editors - so I won't do it again. It's pointless - and whether you think it's a good thing, or a bad thing, the end result is the same, isn't it? I've discussed this failing here, I'd be happy to learn your comments on it. At some point, I'll post my own thoughts about admin IRC there, I am sure.
 * Molobo: I believe that's another obsession of yours that goes too far. Show me his disruptive current edits and I'll look into them. Calling him a disruptive user without any diffs is too close to harassment. If he is that much of a problem, present diffs against him in ArbCom and have ArbCom ban him, I won't have a problem with him (I believe he was unfairly banned in a past by a biased sample of not-so-random ANI disputants who disliked his POV - something you of all people should understand as a common error in our system).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Another hand (section break)
Piotrus, it saddens and hurts me that even in this discussion that seems to be aimed to restore our once cordial relations, you try to use such obvious non-truths. (I use the last word instead of a more obvious choice only because I still have not completely given up on the hope that we can resolve this peaceably.) Above and below I speak to you completely truthfully. I expect the same courtesy in return. Let's agree on this point from now on. OK?

Now, on your "disputes resolutions require one to present evidence; it's collection is not a sign of bad faith but of following the rules": in  this section as well as in the  next one I posted a very detail explanation why '''this log does not help dispute resolution. It may only help make disputes worse''' rather than "resolve" them. And this is not just my thought. This is a fact as your series of complaints where you used that log to WP:RFI, WP:PAIN, WP:CSN and, most lately, WP:AE failed to help alleviate the situation. In fact, your complaints made things worse.

If you read what I wrote here and  here as well as above you will see my full explanation why neither "collecting evidence for DR", nor the "defense" claim hold any water. I won't waste any more of your and my time by going over this again. You are not making it any more convincing by merely repeating a claim which I already answered.

As for your claim that you did not act, dishonestly the combination and timing of these two diffs  prove to the contrary. You can say whatever you want but you do not seriously believe that anyone would buy that you did not make an effort to keep the log secret. You used a assuming google won't find it (you were simply mistaken about google) and you always logged out before editing it in order to avoid this being discovered in your contributions while you made all other pl-wiki edits while being logged-in. You kept it in pl-wiki, rather than at other mediawiki sites, simply because it was more convenient for you but you took all the reasonable precautions against this page's being found. You simply underestimated google. And I saw it in google without actually looking for your log. I was not even checking pl-wiki. Just pl.wikipedia.org and en.wikipedia.org happen to get searched whet "site:wikipedia.org" is entered in the google string. It was a pure accident as I explained here.

So, unless you publicly give a word of honor, that you would stop, I would indeed assume that you continue logging based on your persistence with that in the past and your continued defense of this habit. And as long other editors have to edit knowing of being monitored for any "evidence" that can be spun as wrongdoing, we will never have a harmonious climate here.

And I do not consider you completely dishonest. Otherwise, I would not have asked you to give me your word on anything as the word from a lier is meaningless indeed. I believe that if you give a public pledge, you would abide by it. And this is why you were so evasive when direct questions about your black book and Gadu Gadu recruitment for reverts were asked in the past. You are simply uncomfortable to give your word on something  that you plan to not do. Because, like all of us you do not like to lie. Rather, you tried to sway the matter away and attempted to avoid making a promise that you know you did not plan to hold. So, I request that you make this promise unequivocally and I will believe that you will hold to your word.

On my side, I swear that I do not have any such log and never did. I doubt anyone else has it either, judging from the evidence posted so far. I would assume that if whoever of your opponents had such log on you, s/he would have posted the evidence by now. That no one posted anything that looks log-like, means that it takes your opponents much time to locate whatever they think they need to prove your wrongdoing. So, you can rest assured that you were the only one who had such a log. And if you stop, there would be no one left.

Moreover, if just several editors make a public pledge to follow some basic rules of ethical conduct (rules on logging and on off-line revert war and survey recruiting), there would be an enormous pressure for everyone to join. This would be the biggest step towards good editing climate.

Next, "I have gathered evidence that I stumbled upon by accident and that I never thought I'd be using". Piotrus, please do not think so badly of my intelligence. "Collecting evidence you did not plan to use" claim does not even need to be discussed. But "stumbled upon by accident" is just as incredulous. You were certainly following my edits and your logging by post to Betacommand's talk, the ridiculous ANI thread and even my absence (!)   show that you were regularly clicking on  this link to find the material.

Moreover, I can demonstrate your studying my edits by showing how you got to articles which I purposely kept unanounced for a couple of days to see who of my shadows would get to them first, or to images I would have an argument about, or to user talk pages and noticeboards  after I posted there. If we would have to continue with this ArbCom and you would persist with denying that you meticulously checked my edits, I could write up an evidence section on that. I always said that I find being shadowed puzzling and amusing (and it feels me with pity towards people who have nothing better to do with their lives) but I hope you won't insult anyone's intelligence anymore by your "stumbled by accident" claim.

Next, you should really stop these repetitious resurrections of the Bacler stuff yet again. Balcer can say what he wants. But he acted grossly unfairly to me. Unlikely in bad faith, everyone makes mistakes, but that was very offensive. You can continue to assign the blame in any way that seems convenient to you and I am not to repeat what I said already having reviewed our discussions with Balcer on more than one occasion.

Now you came up with even more bizarre claim that I am guilty of no less than harassment towards Biophys, Lysy and Halibutt. Please stop talking nonsense.

BTW, Ghirla made it plain that he left the en-Wiki because he considers your conduct here a major detriment to the comfortable editing environment. And note that the by amount of content, Ghirla was the most prolific editor in the EE. So, should I be saying this all the time like you do?

On your off-wiki communication remark above, please, again, do not misrepresent the issue. People are intelligent enough to see what types of communication I mean when I say they are unacceptable. You don't seriously think that in view of how the editing went, I would buy the claim that all there was there was: "Piotrus, what's interesting on Wikipedia?" "I created article X, user Y article Z, there are discussions on articles M and N". This is not what was going on. There were direct requests "please revert here". You were saying that it can't be proven. I think, it can. When seeing those many cases when the fourth (or sometimes third) revert came specifically from the editors who you talk to via Gadu Gadu and came almost instantly after you were reverted and came from the very same editors (Molobo, Tymek, Darwinek, Alden Jones and his socks) I believe that an unbiased observer would see the same thing as I see. It could not have been anything but "Please revert this article" by Gadu Gadu. And, Molobo being a special case aside, I do not even blame these editors. They have less free time for Wikipedia and they admire you and they think that by undoing people's edits back to your version that revert to a "better" version because they think very highly of you. I kind of understand them. It is not so much their fault as it is yours when you ask for a revert. Same goes to surveys. So, you can persist with the denial and we will then have to see what others would say if revert and vote histories are put together (and I would hate spending time doing that) or we can just agree that this stops.

Same as before, I would trust your word. I believe that precisely because you don't like telling non-truths you carefully avoided saying directly: "I did not request reverts by IM or email". So, I want you to give your word that you won't. I will then forget the past and, again if it makes you comfortable, would post a similar pledge to my talk page. It would be easy for me because I do not do it anyway. And of course there should be no tricks to circumvent that, like "please regularly check my edits and you know what to do..." And think again of the pressure such mutual pledge by us would place on everyone to follow through. If all major EE players would pledge to follow the mutually agreeable rules of ethical conduct, I am sure the climate would improve dramatically.

On IRC you again stray this off-topic. I mostly agree with the part of your essay that you link to. I argued many times against the practice that would scare editors from reporting the 3RR violations. I can't agree with you fully that only WP:3RR needs to be enforced while EDITWAR should not. My view is that these are simply different ballparks. Unlike simple 3RR, blocking someone for general editwarring is a discretion block which requires seeking more opinions. Crudely, while blocking for 3RR is WP:AN3 matter to be decided by a single admin, blocking for edit warring is a WP:ANI matter. There should not be unilateral blocks for general editwarring based purely on a 3RR complaint. You may want to read, for example this thread where I and several other editors you would recognize argue these points. But you, again, swayed the discussion off-topic.

Your IRC conduct was wrong not because you did not break 3RR while Boody did. It was wrong because it was block shopping at a secret forum. There is no excuse to talk with other admins about Boody's alleged violation in the forum to which he has no access. There are no privacy issues involved. Similarly, there is no excuse of your badmouting Lokyz and M.K. at IRC behind their backs.

Anyway, I am effectively repeating what I said here and we are wasting our time. You need to promise that you will never ever talk about your opponents at #admins simply because this is the very basic rule of decency. '''Talking people down behind their backs is worse than uncivil. It is simply dishonorable.''' Why do I have to spend time explaining such an obvious thing? You can't possibly say that this is acceptable practice. And since, unlike for Gadu Gadu, the logs came out, you cannot even try to deny that either. So, what is the problem to promise to never do it?

On Molobo, he is not my obsession. He is yours. He is a nightmare but you tried to get him out of every block he got because he was useful both as a battering ram and an extra revert that you can call in by Gadu Gadu. Here are some examples of his hysterionics after he returned from his year-long block. First, is trolling at Talk:Boleslaw's intervention... that went as far as even arguing lengths for removing of the Russian History wikiproject tag from its talk (and actually removing it too). Next, was his closing the circle of the wikitravel of the "Treatment of the Polish citizens by the Soviet occupiers" piece whose travels all over Wikipedia are a really a story on its own.

You can refresh your memory as your friend Martin already posted the mention of one chapter of this text's wikitravels in his evidence. To remind you, originally, it was a rather unfortunate section hastily written and added to the History of Poland (1939-1945) article. Being out of place there, by our mutual agreement it was split off (by you (!)  ) into a separate article. Then Richardusr did a great job expanding and NPOVing that article which also got renamed in the course of this expansion into a much more neutral title Occupation of Poland (1939–1945) at which it peaceably remains to this day. This was not good enough for you though and you copy/pasted its half word for word into an "article" called much more eloquently Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939-1946). (BTW, at the AfD I started because it was a word-for-word fork, you stated that you were going to improve it and rid it of the forkness. Six months later it is still a bit for bit fork.) Good enough for you but not good enough for your friend Molobo who pasted its copy bit for bit back into square one, the History of Poland (1939-1945).

Thus is in a way, this piece of text fully circumnavigated the Wikipedia. Due to that, the NPOV tag beautifies the History of Poland article to this day and our discussion of this fascinating round-the-wiki travel is here. To sum it up, Molobo remains just as fascinating as he was but, perhaps he now has a more busy life, we see less of him. He got an indefinite block from which you managed to get him out by intense email lobbying. This is quite a story, Piotrus. But as I said before, no matter how I would love you to start reigning in on trolls even when they push for the right POV, this is not something I am trying to make you promise me.

But other activities outlined above should stop, namely: If you and I can agree on that, we would make a huge difference when other editors would feel pressured to pledge the same. If you accept it, I would have nothing else to ask from ArbCom.
 * logging followed by uploading log's excerpts to boards with the purpose to get the opponents blocked
 * using off-line channels to recruit help in revert wars or to stack votes in surveys,
 * using private channels, such as #admins or direct mail to other admins to discuss people behind their backs and call for the sanctions.

Your previous reply to my suggestions was sort of evasive. It was partly a denial, partly an assertion but not of what I asked you to assert. This required me to spend so much time to, basically, say the same thing differently. The ball is in your court. I don't like these conflicts, I want to edit peacefully, I am sure it would happen if we agree on such obvious and basic rules. And I also dislike this ArbCom. But please no more circling around. My offer is very clear and sincere and deserves a clear answer. --Irpen 02:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll keep it short as this is growing out of control. We could waste hours mincing words and discussing some past diffs and statements (like re IRC: I am not stupid and I know it's logged and leaking, I knew others would hear about my requests...). Let's do something constructive instead. I'd support creation of a page with pledges ("I will not have attack pages, 'll not stalk others, I'll not canvass offline for reverts) and so on where editors could voluntarily pledge their support and honor. This is similar to administrator's recall, or to this real life politician pledge initiative I support. It would be nice if we could get wide community support for such things, because if only you and me agree to certain things, it will be similar to shooting oneself in the foot. But if we can get enough people to do so, maybe we can reform this project and make it better for everyone. As for your three bulleted points above: I agree that using such means against other, good faithed editors is wrong and should not be done; however gathering evidence against a troll or discussing a troll with other admins is fine. The difficult issue is how to distinguish a good faithed editor from a troll? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Another hand (section break 2)
Piotrus, I just want to make sure there is a complete understanding between us. You wrote:


 * "As for your three bulleted points above: I agree that using such means against other, good faithed editors is wrong and should not be done"

My three bulleted points about the activities that should stop are as follows (emphasis added}:

You said above that you agree that logging "should not be done", while at the workshop, later on the same day, you again defend such activity with your :  "Piotrus evidence collection was within norms of the community" proposal. So, which is it?

Also, you say:
 * however gathering evidence against a troll or discussing a troll with other admins is fine. The difficult issue is how to distinguish a good faithed editor from a troll?

You collected material on the following editors: Dr Dan, M.K., Lokyz, Matthead, Ghirla, myself, M0RD00R, Giano. Are all (or any) of them "difficult to distinguish from a troll"? --Irpen 07:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps disruptive editor would be more correct (troll is a loaded word I used since it is shorter), and yes, I consider all users listed there disruptive to a certain extent (but for the record I don't consider all of them trolls!). I wouldn't be collecting diffs for dispute resolution if I didn't think an editor is disruptive to this project - and you can judge by how many diffs I have how disruptive I believe an editor is. If you feel offended, well, so am I - since you consider me a disruptive user, after all. However, I have no problems when you or anybody else collects evidence of my perceived wrongdoing. That's the right of every user and a requirement of a dispute resolution procedure on Wikipedia. I do however have a problem with editors going around Wikipedia and accusing others of wrongdoing, with no diffs but just bad faith. Why can't you understand that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * So, your answer is no? Let's stop playing with words. You forced me to repeat the same ideas several times by going round and round with words but not giving a straight answer. You came here with what seems like a proposal of peace which is devoid of substance as when I try to get to the issues that stand between peace and the current situation you resort to evasive word games. You are an intelligent person. You know what you are asked above. Would you accept what I am asking you? Yes or no? --Irpen 22:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tell me, please, what would you promise in return, if I were to agree to all of your requests? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This is not a trading game, Piotrus. I am not asking you for any "favors" beyond normal rules of common decensy. If you want to know what I won't do "in return", I can tell that I won't do any of this either.

I won't call in reverts by email, IRC, Gadu Gadu or any other way (like you did). Neither I would call in votes to RM or AfD discussions. I won't stack diffs, like you did. I won't stack them on you and your friends on any Wikipedia, on my hard drive, anywhere at all. I just don't see elimination of opponents as the method to resolve content disputes. I won't be asking anyone off-line to block or sanction my "enemies" or to unblock my friends, (like you did). It would be very easy for me since I have not done any of that before.

If this undercarpet games stop, I am sure we would have a decent chance that content disputes would be solved as well by an honest and robust debate. I want you to behave ethically from now on. And I won't do anything unethical either. How does it sound? --Irpen 03:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have not done the things you accuse me (ex. canvassing for reverts to promote battlegrounds), and other things (ex. gathering diffs or notifying certain foras of relevant discussions) was done as part of a normal wiki procedures. I can promise you I will not "call in reverts" to create battlegrounds, I will not stack votes with otherwise uninterested meatpuppets, I will not seek to block content opponents I cannot deal with via normal dispute resolutions. "It would be very easy for me since I have not done any of that before" - ditto. Will you promise not to attack editors who have a POV you disagree with and accuse them falsely of wrongdoings all across the project? Will you apologize to Balcer, Lysy and Halibutt, at the very least? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Another hand (section break 3)
I will be happy to try to patch things with Balcer if he wants to discuss the last incident. In my opinion it is he who owes me an apology but I will be happy to discuss our misunderstanding with the Polish editor I respect more than any other (and this is how I saw Balcer) and try to find a solution. I said on several occasions that I miss the times we were editing together with Balcer and I am sorry things went bad between us. We can discuss it if he wants.

I am not aware of my misconduct towards Lysy and Halibutt. They never said I offended them but if they have anything to say to me, they are free to do it. Particularly about Halibutt, I am on record defending him and speaking of him highly on several occasions.

Now, back to the issues at hand:


 * Are you saying you never called in reverts and votes by email, Gadu Gadu, IRC or any other off-line channel and never will?
 * Are you saying that you will never seek blocks or sanctions of your content opponents from now on?
 * Are you saying you will never talk disrespectfully of your opponents behind their backs when they have no chance to see and respond?

Because what you claim above is a little different from what I ask. You added "otherwise uninterested" and "that I cannot deal with via normal dispute resolutions". You keep being evasive, Piotrus. And finally


 * Do you promise to stop logging?

"Normal dispute resolutions" is the only proper way to deal with Wikipedia disputes. I request that you restrict yourself to these methods from now on. And my main problem with you so far has been in that you did not. --Irpen 18:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please clarify: Are you saying you will stop assuming bad faith where actions of myself and other Polish editors are concerned? Or not? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, this is silly. I always assume good faith until there is evidence to the contrary. This is what AGF says, no more, no less.

There is a clear direct evidence that you repeatedly sought sanctions of your content opponents using every board Wikipedia has, as well as off-wiki, that is behind their backs, thus considering elimination of opponents as a method to resolve content disputes.

There is a clear direct evidence that to do so, you meticulously sifted the edit patterns of people who you see as your enemies in search of anything you can spin to call for their sanctions and blocks.

Finally, there is rather convincing circumstantial evidence (which is while not direct is still IMO pretty strong) that you used off-line communication to request reverts and votes (my beef is not with off-line communication in itself but only in using it for illicit purposes.)

So, there is nothing to "assume" here. AGF does not deny common sense. It does not say "wear pink glasses". AGF is not a blank check to behave unethically and then accuse those who cry wolf in ABF.

I am not asking you anything beyond requesting that you follow normal ethical rules of conduct. If you think that all the evidence I see is simply made up, you can try to say this at the ArbCom (and I know you would.) I firmly believe that no neutral person would say that what you did was legit.

I am willing to put this behind if you promise that this stops. And I will never do any of this stuff. Neither I have done it in the past. So, the ball is in your court. Please tell me at last in clear and non-evasive terms whether you promise to stop doing all of the things above. I am sure that if you do, things will start changing for better very quickly. And I will be happy to put this behind and assume that you honor your pledge. --Irpen 19:07, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment
Sorry for intervening here. I understand that you both are negotiating about something. Let's assume that you came to an agreement. Do you think that would allow to dismiss the case?Biophys (talk) 22:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Biophys, I think your question is now hypothetical :(. My personal position was based on my firm belief that the issues I outlined in my ArbCom statements needed to be resolved at last. Since Piotrus initially expressed his willingness to discuss, I happily tried to resolve the pressing issues that concern both of us in the discussion between him and myself as such discussions are always the most natural way to try to find solutions. I wanted to convince Piotrus that we both take certain steps that might help resolve not just our own quarrels (which are really of secondary importance) but would encourage a more global change. It is not up to me to "dismiss" this arbcom (while I can recommend a dismissal just like you or anyone else, I do not get to vote on the ArbCom decisions, just like you or anyone else) but if I saw problems addressed outside of it, I would have been just as happy.


 * Unfortunately, the differences seem to be too deep. Whoever is to be blamed that we were unable to achieve any amicable solution, the fault game is really less important an issue than being able to address the problems whose existence are impossible to deny. Anyway, I was willing to discuss all the time for as long as I saw any hope in the positive outcome. If Piotrus has any more ideas, I am more than willing to hear them. --Irpen 22:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Update
I had to go on a several days Wikibreak. Now I am trying to catch up on what I have missed.

Piotrus, I see that you did not respond to my last post above but, when I was away, continued making the accusatory of myself and others statements while admitting to no wrongdoing on your own part whatsoever. I had some hope that we might be able to resolve the most problematic issues in a discussion between us but judging from your lack of response to the above and from your recent posts on the case I see that you think this should be resolved by different means. I am sorry we were unable to achieve a common ground and I hope the solution reached by the ArbCom and the community would be at least somewhat helpful this time.

To ensure that other users from both sides do not confuse the discussion we had above (which I think fairly illustrates the views from both of us), I archived it. If you change your mind and have any suggestions, please start a new section. --Irpen 22:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Question
Re statement here - would you say salting is an abuse of adminstrative powers? It looks as though it takes another admin to undo. And they say this is not a bureaucracy...IMO Byzantium would be impressed.Novickas (talk) 20:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Such salting can be done my any editor, not necessarily an admin. So, it is abusive editing, yes, but strictly speaking not an administrative abuse. Unsalting of a redirect to move page to a title preferred by an admin requires adminship. That constitutes a direct abuse of administrative powers. But mere salting is only abusive editing in general. It was invented by AndriyK and practiced by many others from Martin to Piotrus, see evidence. --Irpen 21:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, I've never practiced salting, that is just your bad faithed assumption. Martintg (talk) 05:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Martin, the "move-blank-restore" series of edits is called "dirty work" or "dirty trick", when done within a minute, and systematically at more than one page . I am more than happy to assume your best intentions. To help me do that, please avoid making bad edits. --Irpen 17:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Future Perfect at Sunrise is not a neutral admin per their attack on Martintg per my current evidence elsewhere. To practice good faith, accept first and leave diffs contrary to that acceptance aside. I think we're rather tired of all this, are we not? —PētersV (talk) 18:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the best thing for all of us is to practice good conduct. While you preach AGF, you, within the same phrase, accuse FP in the lack of it. Is not it ironic, Vecrumba? The judgment on salting redirects is based not on "assumptions" but on actions. Move-blank-restore within a minute (per Martin) done once is strange in the least. When done more than once, it isn't just "strange" but suggestive. Move+template, when done by Piotrus could have been innocuous. But its being done 1) repeatedly, 2) often in response to a disagreeable to Piotrus move and 3) always with a redirect from non-Polish to a Polish name and never vice-versa, is a pattern of actions that calls for attention.

I agree with you that "we're rather tired of all this". For example, should I have taken this as an example of ABF on your part? I did not think so. You saw me around for a while and while I viewed this comment of yours you made on myself grossly unfair, I saw just that: unfair rather than "bad-assuming". You and I are editing for a long time and if you conclude from my edits that I "had no intent to actually discuss anything on the talk page (as in, await an explanation), [and was] merely rendering my verdict (of bad faith)", so be it. You assume nothing. You conclude.

Trouble is, Vecrumba, not in "assumptions" but in sneaky conduct. My calls to Piotrus (and everyone) was to accept a straightforward ethics code based on few simple and basic rules such as no off-line canvassing, no off-line coordination in revert wars, no block-shopping (particularly no off-line block-shopping). I have no problem with you sticking to your POV. Neither I have a problem with you (or Martin or Piotrus) corresponding with anyone or each other (or not corresponding). I only have a problem when Wikipedia matters are handled non-transparently and unethically, either to "win" content disputes, like in the EE conflicts, or to achieve advances in the alternative to real life careers on Wikipedia.

I am a very imperfect wikipedian. For example my POV may be different from yours, my English is not as good as yours (and especially as Horlo's who ridicules my English left and right) and, being human, I say things as I see them (perhaps just as you do and often not in the same light as you do.) But I do not engage in off-line coordination of revert wars. I do not email around asking to block (or unblock) anyone. I do not follow people around and stack all the material I can find aiming at having someone blocked at the opportune time. And, note, I never accused you in doing that either.

I would simply like that everyone followed these simple rules. This is the core of my workshop proposal. P.S. And I do not move-blank-restore redirects either. Neither you do, btw. --Irpen 19:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * What is missing in all this was your misleading claim that I made the move "against consensus", when consensus was clearly achieved before the move as confirmed by other admins, not withstanding your colleagues entering the move debate after you reported me to ANI. There was no motive to support your assumption that I had salted the move, therefore it remains an assumption. You seem to be making additional misleading claims here in implying this move was not transparent. I think an important principle here is that misrepresenting the facts and manipulating the situation to support these misrepresented facts is detrimental to the project. Martintg (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Martin, we may differ in interpreting consensus. We also seem to differ in interpreting facts. This is all fine and dandy. What's important, the facts of the matter, not their interpretations. You 1) moved; 2) immediately blanked the redirect; 3) restored the exact same one (no cApiTalization changes, or anything you claimed to have been confused about); 4) done this all within one minute; 5) done it more than once. We can misinterpret or interpret the facts differently. But the facts are not in dispute here. Now, this is the old matter that I consider settled. It was you who resurrected that old move in the current arbitration case. I really don't care to discuss it again. We can agree to disagree on our interpretations of undisputed facts (just like Vecrumba interprets FutPef's actions and comments bad-faithed. The rest of the points raised here by Vecrumba are much more important and I addressed them the best way i could. --Irpen 20:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * These are also the facts, note the sequence: 1) I proposed a move to a particular title, following WP process; 2) there was extensive discussion with other titles proposed, which you were not involved in; 3) all active participants of the move discussion agreed on a new title, which was different to the original proposal; 4) I moved the article to the agreed new title; 5) you reported me to ANI claiming I made the move because "the move discussion went against me"; 6) other admins agree that consensus was achieved before the move; 7) your known associates come out of the blue sky attempting to reopen the discussion, voting on the original redundant proposal while you claim to ANI the discussion was still "ongoing".; 7) the ANI report was closed without agreement on your interpretation of the facts. Can we agree on this sequence of facts? Unless you can provide further evidence that I have salted other page moves, please refrain from making unfounded allegations that I practice salting. Martintg (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Martin, you miss an important step between 4) and 5) in your sequence of events: 4) you moved (indeed); 4a) you immediately blanked the redirect; 4b) you immediately restored the exact same one (and that was reported to ANI.) Also x) you did such move on more than one article. As for FutPerf, being "my associate", this is the first time I hear that. I do not ever recall talking to him. Please ask him for his side of the story if you allege anything on his part. Or should I ask him? (Re Vecrumba below, I will respond to your post later, but I get an impression that you have not read the preceding discussion. Please do. Also, you seem inconsistent a bit (by not applying the same requirement equally to all.) Maybe you can correct that while I am busy with RL things that prevent me from replying to you at once. It could save us both some time.) --Irpen 22:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please refrain from further egregious misrepresentations, in claiming I "did such move on more than one article". This is a gross assumption of bad faith and personal attack on my character. Nor have I claimed FutPerf is your associate who participated in the move discussion and vote, this is another misrepresentation of what I said. I get the impression that you do not understand that making misleading claims in public forums is considered uncivil and harmful to the project. Martintg (talk) 22:38, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Martin, a claim that you "did such move on more than one article" is not an "assumption" or "misrepresentation", but a statement of fact made by an uninvolved admin who had to clean up the mess left after your moves: "Just for the record, Martintg moved, blanked the redirect, and recreated precisely the same, all within one minute after moving, and he did the same thing, systematically, on two separate moved pages. That does look like he knew very well what he was doing, and it certainly had nothing to do with the confusion about capitalisation." I have no access to deleted edits. So, you better ask him. I am sorry, I am making that "impression" on you. Unfortunately, you have this impression of myself for a while, judging by your comments made about my person all around the project. So, I have to live with it no matter how I am unhappy about this. Now, please stop wasting our time. You never did the "move+edit" for many months and this is all irrelevant to this ArbCom. Piotrus' moves went on for all these months. You brought up this old story and it just makes this all confusing when discussed in the context of Piotrus' arbitration. If, however, you see this incident as a way to present me as a bad guy, please do it in a way, that would not confuse this already confusing case. Your coming here repeating your stuff and me replying to it referring to what was already said would unlikely help us resolve these problems. --Irpen 23:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

(od) "This" will only work if we accept that... I will change your POV no more than you will change mine. But there is one more factor in writing articles, particularly about history, which is... So, the question is, how do we create by consensus reputably sourced articles written in a cohesive narrative which will most likely not completely reflect our own POV? Just as an example, the online EB article on famine in Ukraine (1932-33) doesn't remotely resemble the narrative or contentions or overall POV of the WP article, which, in comparison, is a work which one would more likely associate with Russian nationalist apologists. That's not my personal viewpoint here, that's just doing an objective A:B comparison. So, in the case of Holodomor, how do we work toward a rich narrative that more closely echoes an acknowledged encyclopedic POV? No immediate answer required. Given the current atmosphere, this will likely be a rhetorical question for a while more to come. —PētersV (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * our POVs are our POVs
 * our POVs inform our edits
 * our edits, regardless of our POVs, should faithfully represent the letter and spirit of sources
 * our articles, the sum of our collective edits, should be a cohesive narrative
 * for a narrative to be cohesive and tell a story, it must have a POV by definition
 * and, ergo, there is no such thing as NPOV (i.e., it is an abstraction only)


 * P.S. As for Future Perfect, Martintg's question was a simple one. An equally valid response could have been that your presence on the task force is welcomed as a sign that you personally are willing to work to put an end to the divisiveness which you yourself acknowledge having participated in. The accusation heaped on Martintg was totally uncalled for. And so I stand by my interpretation that FP's response was one reflecting bad faith. And when your defenders rush to you with what can be interpreted as accusations in bad faith, it reflects on to you, no fault of your own. The next time someone invokes calumny in your name, consider disavowing it. —PētersV (talk) 20:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * P.P.S. As for what the what it looks like incident, enough time has passed that perhaps for a moment you could take it as advice from a friend and not an attack on your character. You well know that how something looks is often not as it is, but we've all proven in our own way that that when there isn't a built up reserve of good faith, we take things as they look, worst case, every time. —PētersV (talk) 20:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Kostomarov
So, can I move the page or do you disagree with the move? And why is the current title "Nikolay" and not "Nikolai" as it is in the text? Nikolay seems to be the most uncommon of all of them! Ostap 05:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Giano
I haven't said anything to Giano in over a year. Fred Talk 01:28, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You mean after this? --Irpen 03:38, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, since February, 2008. I haven't been nagging him though, or constantly making negative comments. Fred Talk 07:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Seems like we agree on what does not seem like a good idea to do. --Irpen 05:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Digwuren
I do not appreciate your personal attacks, nor your assumption of bad faith, in. Please avoid such in the future; Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2/Workshop ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 17:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah, yeah! We hear it from the one who called my correct edits highly "disruptive, not to say disturbing" ;-) Beatle Fab Four (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Digwuren, I did not make any assumptions since my comments were based on actions that took place, no more no less. You without bothering to ask at the talk page moved a stable article first. After another editor reverted you, you moved it to yet another name. You made other clearly nonsensical edits making a mess out of an obscure article on the subject as innocent as a children song and than block-shopped at AN3 with a misleading complaint misrepresenting a group of consecutive edits painting a series of consecutive edits as separate reverts. I do not need to assume anything when I see such activity.


 * BTW, Piotrus, it seems from this that you view this incident differently. I wonder how you can justify these erratic edits. BTW, FYI, AN3 is long since on my watchlist. --Irpen 05:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate your effort in promoting civility, I regretfully note that you have not actually withdrawn the personal attack mentioned above. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 23:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Digwuren, there is no personal attack in stating the obvious. Please edit constructively if you don't want your edits to be criticized. --Irpen 23:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Old maps
I have stumbled on a well of old maps from the 1943 reprint of Carlton Hayes's A Political and Cultural History of Modern Europe. The copyright has 1939 on it, so it is not expired quite yet; however, I believe I can scan them and put them up with proper referencing. Please advise. --Ivan2007 (По-балакаемo?) 03:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I investigated this a little bit and as far as I see, most of these maps may be usable despite the 1939 date on the book. The 1930s edition you are talking about titled "A Political and Cultural History of Modern Europe" (NY, MacMillan) is a revised edition on "Political and Social History of Modern Europe" published by the same author in 1916 (also by MacMillan, NY.) The latter book because of its age is in public domain. It is available in full from google books here.


 * Of course the maps that were originally published in 1916 are PD even if they were reproduced in a later edition. The best way to find out for you would be to see in google books if the maps you want to use also appeared in 1916 edition. If they did, they are PD.


 * In addition to comparing the 1930s edition that you have and the 1916 edition available in full online, you can take a look at the review of the 1936 "Political and Cultural History of Modern Europe" book. The review was written by Harry Elmer Barnes and published in American Sociological Review (June 36), Vol. 1, Issue 3, p514-516, 3p. This 3-page review outlines in a great detail what changes were implemented between the editions. Archives of American Sociological Review are available through JSTOR and outher databases that usually require subscription. If you don't have access to subscription, feel free to ask and I will gladly email you this 3-page review. Hope this helps, --Irpen 19:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hi Irpen, I just wanted to apologize for calling you a Russian nationalist edit warrior at one point. Well, I still think you're a Russian nationalist, which is OK, nobody is perfect; and you do sometimes go into edit-warring; well who doesn't, I'm working myself on this bad habit. But you're clearly an intelligent person and have shown that you listen to reason, the qualities that are more important than someone's personal biases I think. So I hope there are no hard feelings and feel free to call me any names you like in case an opportunity arises. All the best!--Termer (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was really surprised by that comment of yours since we seemed to always manage to get along just fine but I never make a big deal out of such occasional spats. Anyway, I am really heartened by your going an extra mile here and your post, frankly, made my day. And, just FYI, I cannot ask you to think or not think of myself as "anything nationalist" but it would be very difficult for me to be a Russian nationalist. I am not even Russian (I am a Ukrainian and love my country, its people and culture.) Cheers, --Irpen 06:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * my bad again, sometimes it's difficult to sort out all those EE-nationalists you know.:-)--Termer (talk) 07:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Kuban Kazak-Hillock65/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Tznkai (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Kivshenko Ivan III tears off the khans missive letter.jpg
A tag has been placed on Image:Kivshenko Ivan III tears off the khans missive letter.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Mifter (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate Image:Bryullov.jpg
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Bryullov.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Bryullov.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Bryullov.jpg, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 12:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Brezhnev
This 1936 picture of L Brezhnev: do you know where and in what context it was taken and by whom? Marktunstill (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sad :(((
Hope you will come back soon. Miss your perspective. Novickas (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Munich agreement.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Munich agreement.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of File:Alekseevsky park Kiev 1923.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Alekseevsky park Kiev 1923.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on  explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The remedies that have been adopted are as follows;
 * Should resume editing Wikipedia, he shall be assigned a volunteer mentor, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.
 * is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
 * is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
 * is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
 * is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one year.
 * is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.
 * is limited to one revert per page per week, with the exception of simple vandalism; and is required to discuss all content reverts on the relevant talk page. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
 * is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
 * Should make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, he may be blocked by any administrator as provided in the enforcement ruling below.
 * is urged to avoid interacting directly with or commenting about under any circumstances, except for any necessary commentary in the course of bona fide dispute resolution.
 * is cautioned to avoid using his administrator powers or status in situations in which his involvement in an editing dispute is apparent.
 * is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
 * shall be assigned one or more volunteer mentors, who will be asked to assist him in understanding and following policy and community practice to a sufficient level that additional sanctions will not be necessary.
 * is admonished to avoid edit-warring.
 * Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world disputes, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary. Wikipedia cannot solve any of the national, ethnic, historical, or cultural disputes that exists among the nations and peoples of Eastern Europe or any other real-world conflict. What Wikipedia can do is aspire to provide neutral, encyclopedic coverage about the areas of dispute and the peoples involved in it, which may lead to a broader understanding of the issues and the positions of all parties to the conflict. The contributions of all good-faith editors on these articles who contribute with this goal in mind are appreciated.
 * Editors who find it difficult to edit a particular article or topic from a neutral point of view and adhere to other Wikipedia policies are counseled that they may sometimes need or wish to step away temporarily from that article or subject area. Sometimes, editors in this position may best devote some of their knowledge, interest, and effort to creating or editing other articles that may relate to the same broad subject-matter as the dispute, but are less immediately contentious. For example, an editor whose ethnicity, cultural heritage, or personal interests relate to Group X and who finds himself or herself caught up in edit-warring on an article about a recent war between Group X and Group Y, may wish to disengage from that article for a time and instead focus on a different aspect of the history, civilization, and cultural heritage of Group X.
 * Administrators who utilize the #wikipedia-en-admins IRC channel (or other IRC channels in which Wikipedia-related matters are discussed) are reminded that while the #admins channel has legitimate purposes, they should bear in mind whenever using it:
 * (A) That discussing an issue on IRC necessarily excludes those editors who do not use IRC from the discussion (and excludes almost all non-administrators from the discussion if it takes place in #wikipedia-en-admins), and therefore, such IRC discussion is never the equivalent of on-wiki discussion or dispute resolution;
 * (B) That the practice of off-wiki "block-shopping" is strongly deprecated, and that except where there is an urgent situation and no reasonable administrator could disagree with an immediate block (e.g., ongoing blatant or pagemove vandalism or ongoing serious BLP violations), the appropriate response for an administrator asked on IRC to block an editor is to refer the requester to the appropriate on-wiki noticeboard; and
 * (C) That even though the relationship between the "wikipedia" IRC channels and Wikipedia remains ambiguous, any incidents of personal attacks or crass behavior in #wikipedia-en-admins are unwelcome and reflect adversely on all users of the channel.


 * Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will open a general request for comments regarding the arbitration enforcement process, particularly where general sanctions are concerned. Having received such comments, the Committee will consider instituting suitable reforms to the enforcement process.
 * Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will convene a community discussion for the purpose of developing proposed reforms to the content dispute resolution process.
 * Following the conclusion of this case, the Committee will publish guides to presenting evidence and using the workshop page.

Please see the above link to read the full case.

For the Arbitration Committee,

 Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 10:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Commiserations
Irpen, I just want to offer you my commiserations. You seem to have left wikipedia ... I hope you are doing well nonetheless. Maybe it is for the best given en.wiki's circumstances if you do join Ghirla or something in ru.wiki, or give wiki up for better things in real life. I can see, with all the users who apparently dislike you, how you might feel it will be impossible to contribute to the encyclopedia without being bullied and ignored now you have these restrictions. It is my fault for launching such a case; I was naive about the quality of the arbitrators and the process, and about how easily the process could be hijacked. Your contributions to Ukrainian topics will be missed if you have indeed decided to leave. Probably because of your support for Giano and your continued appearance on such platforms a large portion of the arbs became badly disposed towards you. Just politics, the nature of the wiki beast. If it means anything I think the vast majority of editors in this area are nice people when their ideological backs are not up. Maybe there is hope in the longer term, if you do decide to return. Probably most e-e users, even the ones you have had some bad times with, would not actually want you to leave. Have a good Christmas! All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 10:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Battle of the cruiser chervona ukraina.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Battle of the cruiser chervona ukraina.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or 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 if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC) --Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Brest borderguards.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Brest borderguards.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or 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 if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC) --Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Hi Irpen, here to wish you a very Merry Christmas and I do hope that you have a lovely New Year. I do realise that you and I got off on the wrong foot this year and I do apologise for that; let us start anew :-) Take care, my friend. Scarian  Call me Pat!  16:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:8mart-1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:8mart-1.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 21:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 21:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays


Thanks for making 2008 an interesting and enlightening year for me; at some point, our paths have crossed and I've found your comments amusing, helpful or thought-provoking—I'll let you guess which! Wishing you and yours a joyous holiday season, and happiness, health and hopefulness in 2009. I trust you'll enjoy this little token, a favourite performance of Baby, it's Cold Outside, for your holiday amusement. Best, Risker (talk) 01:04, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Brest inscription2.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Brest inscription2.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or 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 if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC) --Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Brest inscription.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Brest inscription.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or 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 if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC) --Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!




Possibly unfree File:Destroyed Khreschatyk 1943.jpg
An image that you uploaded or altered, File:Destroyed Khreschatyk 1943.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is unclear or 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 if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC) --Magog the Ogre (talk) 13:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ukrainian collaborant Polizei image.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Ukrainian collaborant Polizei image.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Taurida Governorate COA.gif listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Taurida Governorate COA.gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Konstantin Konstantinovich Ostrozhsky.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Konstantin Konstantinovich Ostrozhsky.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Brezhnev1936.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brezhnev1936.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Easter Greetings
Христос воскрес! Хрыстос уваскрос! Alleluia, Christ is risen! Kristus is uppeston!--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Lodz liberation2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Lodz liberation2.jpg. The image has been identified as not providing proof that the author agreed to license the file under the given license, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. Chesdovi (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Grozny .jpg
File:Grozny .jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Grozny.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case:. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:KeepLocal
Template:KeepLocal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. → Aza Toth 17:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Lodz liberation3.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Lodz liberation3.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Inzensk
Do you happen to know where this city was and what its called now?--58.168.119.43 (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey there, you were discussed
And may want to take a look at the discussion on arbcom noticeboard:. Regards, FeelSunny (talk) 23:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

FAR for Warsaw Uprising (1794)
I have nominated Warsaw Uprising (1794) for Featured article review due to a number of issues that currently exist in the article. --

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Yuri Gagarin official portrait.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Yuri Gagarin official portrait.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 17:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Khrushchev others stalingrad front.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Khrushchev others stalingrad front.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --NW ( Talk ) 00:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Identity fraud
I have nominated Identity fraud, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Identity fraud. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Elvey (talk) 23:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Chekhov monument Sakhalin.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chekhov monument Sakhalin.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Powers T 16:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

File:Kiev Golden Gate early20c card.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kiev Golden Gate early20c card.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Women for aviation Soviet recruitment.jpg
A tag has been placed on File:Women for aviation Soviet recruitment.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. , and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:
 * state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
 * add the relevant copyright tag.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 21:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

File:Prague 1939 occupation.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Prague 1939 occupation.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. J Milburn (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Kiev beregynia.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kiev beregynia.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 20:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Kiev beregynia.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kiev beregynia.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:29, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Sokol logo.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Sokol logo.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Russia
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:Russia/GA2. I have de-listed the article but it can be re-nominated at WP:GAN when these concerns are addressed.. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Kiev Railway Station Daland.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kiev Railway Station Daland.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 06:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Kiev Metro Bridge by Julia.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kiev Metro Bridge by Julia.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 06:35, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Khmelnytsky monument Kiev Daland.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Khmelnytsky monument Kiev Daland.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 06:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Kiev tram monument SHCH.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kiev tram monument SHCH.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 06:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Grand Duke Konstantin of Russia.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Grand Duke Konstantin of Russia.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 06:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Feodor III of Russia.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Feodor III of Russia.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 06:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 06:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Solovyov S M.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Solovyov S M.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 07:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Russ Pravda read.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Russ Pravda read.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 07:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 07:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Russ Pravda read.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Russ Pravda read.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:KeepLocal
Template:KeepLocal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Alekseevsky spusk 13.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Alekseevsky spusk 13.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Sv Mykola2.gif
Thank you for uploading File:Sv Mykola2.gif. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Leveled nevsky cathedral.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Leveled nevsky cathedral.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Leontovych
Hey, I've significantly expanded the article on Mykola Leontovych over the past few months. Thought (maybe more of "hoped") you might be interested in expanding, correcting it, or editing in general to help bring it to good, or even featured status. :-) --BoguslavM 01:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment
This message is being sent to you because you have previously edited the Naming conventions (use English) page. There is currently a discussion that may result in a significant change to Wikipedia policy. Specifically, a consensus is being sought on if the policies of WP:UCN and WP:EN continues to be working policies for naming biographical articles, or if such policies have been replaced by a new status quo. This discussion is on-going at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English), and your comments would be appreciated. Dolovis (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kiev ski jumping ramp.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Kiev ski jumping ramp.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 08:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sidor Artemievič Kovpak ancestors on the run for assassination

Me and my brother Sibirian Artjom (named after Sydor's father Artjom) we are the youngest of the four Great grand anserters of Sydor Kovpak. We need help and or life is in danger. My father has made for us a social program this program is of social effort and is the fight to rescue Missing children in the Ukraine in or name! For this we survived assassinations and now we are in a situation that needs attention of all who are involved in Sydor’s vision and heroics acts for the Russian and Ukrainian people. I ask can you get in contact with us to listen to or story. Or email is 1400heroes@gmail.com and Verrazzo@hotmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.61.202.149 (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Tilbergs postal 2005.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tilbergs postal 2005.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Kirponos.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Kirponos.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Slavic review cover.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Slavic review cover.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a template, along with your question, beneath this message.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 17:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Klitschko brothers for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Klitschko brothers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Klitschko brothers until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review for Hero of Ukraine
nominated Hero of Ukraine for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. You are receiving this notice because you have been identified as one of the top three editors by edit count. Brad (talk) 17:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kiev stadium 1980.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Kiev stadium 1980.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 03:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Filaret and volodymyr.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Filaret and volodymyr.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.  Ron h jones (Talk) 00:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Bieshu.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Bieshu.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 09:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Off-topic-inline
Template:Relevance note has been nominated for merging with Template:Relevance inline. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒〈°⌊°〉 Contribs. 17:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Banach.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Banach.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Shein.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Shein.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Ruined nevsky cathedral.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ruined nevsky cathedral.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Good article reassessment
Kiev Offensive (1920), an article that  may be interested in, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Ros river near Boguslav by MAT W@Y.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Ros river near Boguslav by MAT W@Y.jpg, which you've sourced to http://photo.bigmir.net/albums/3307755/view/1172319/. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Riga 1941 Wermacht.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Riga 1941 Wermacht.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:48, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Zasluzhenny sudostroitel.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Zasluzhenny sudostroitel.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Polukbat.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Polukbat.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:13, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Keep local
Template:Keep local has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Addi hockey  10  e-mail 04:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lang-ru/uk
Template:Lang-ru/uk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lfdder (talk) 19:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Lang-uk/ru
Template:Lang-uk/ru has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lfdder (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Brezhnev1936.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Brezhnev1936.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Banach.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Banach.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Kultiginanıtı.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kultiginanıtı.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 07:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Clarification motion
A case (Eastern Europe) in which you were involved has been modified by which changed the wording  of the discretionary sanctions section to clarify that the scope applies to pages, not just articles. For the arbitration committee -- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

A heads up
I've just reported a new user working under the username of Irpen2 to the WP:UAA as being intentionally misleading. I found both an IrynaHappy and the Irpen2 user working on articles in areas we'd be working on. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Irpen2
So sorry to bother you. I blocked this user name. reported this and another suspicious user name at the username board. If it is yours, you may have created a sockpuppet account in technical violation of the rules. If it was not yours, then somebody was trying to trick a moron in a hurry into thinking that you did so. In such case, you might want to start a sockpuppet investigation, or you might choose go to report this incident to the admin community. Again, sorry for bearing this bad news. Bearian (talk) 13:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Chornovil Vyacheslav.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Chornovil Vyacheslav.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 14:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Eastereggs.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Eastereggs.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly hi! 09:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Slavyanskiy poselok pchelko.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Slavyanskiy poselok pchelko.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Soivet Border restored 1944.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Soivet Border restored 1944.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly hi! 01:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Soviet poster Soldier save me from slavery.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Soviet poster Soldier save me from slavery.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly hi! 01:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Struve bridge.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Struve bridge.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly hi! 01:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Sumshshnyna 41.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sumshshnyna 41.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly hi! 01:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Tank factory.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tank factory.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly hi! 01:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Tilberg self portrait.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tilberg self portrait.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly hi! 02:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Kiev Dnieper at Twilight by yune at photographic.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kiev Dnieper at Twilight by yune at photographic.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly hi! 04:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Kiev Will Develop? by yune at photographic.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kiev Will Develop? by yune at photographic.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly hi! 04:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Mstyslav skrypnyk.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Mstyslav skrypnyk.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 04:53, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

File:Tomenko.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Tomenko.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 03:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Novodevichiy night.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Novodevichiy night.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 19:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:St Andrew's Church Kiev.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:St Andrew's Church Kiev.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 12:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Konstantin Konstantinovich Romanov.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Konstantin Konstantinovich Romanov.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 12:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Bolsheviks enter odessa.jpg
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bolsheviks enter odessa.jpg, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Kelly hi! 13:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Kiev art museum.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kiev art museum.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 18:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

A heads-up
I am sorry to inform you that another contributor,, listed File:8march landysh.jpg for deletion. If I am not mistaken, policy required him or her to inform you. I can't explain why they didn't.

Anyhow, I think it will end up being deleted, unless you provide the source. If you scanned in a postcard, that was in your personal possession, or had been loaned to you, could you say that? I think so.

Good luck! Geo Swan (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Image-PL-president
Template:Image-PL-president has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

File source problem with File:8march landysh.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:8march landysh.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:34, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

File:Pavlo Skoropadsky 2.jpg needs authorship information
Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Pavlo Skoropadsky 2.jpg appears to be missing information as to one (or more) of the following :
 * 1) The author or creators of the work, (including information as to the author's lifespan).
 * 2) Where and how this particular version was obtained.
 * 3) When the work was created,

If you did provide such information, it is currently confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided), authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).


 * If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which: will produce an appropriate expansion, or use the own template.

Please also add authorship and sourcing to other files you created or uplopaded. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log].

If you have any questions please see Help:File page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SS Galicia Lviv University.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:SS Galicia Lviv University.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:POV heading
Template:POV heading has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Pymonenko self.jpg


The file File:Pymonenko self.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned 'keep local' file."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Pymonenko Fabric trading woman.jpg


The file File:Pymonenko Fabric trading woman.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Orphaned 'keep local' file."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Lemko church.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Lemko church.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Partisan&#39;s Mother.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Partisan&, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Pymonenko self.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pymonenko self.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~ Rob 13 Talk 14:09, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Pymonenko Fabric trading woman.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pymonenko Fabric trading woman.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

File:Michael archangel Kiev SHCH.jpeg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Michael archangel Kiev SHCH.jpeg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Jon Kolbert (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

File:Europe map 1804 Cary.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Europe map 1804 Cary.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

File:Europe map 1747 Bowen.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Europe map 1747 Bowen.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ~ Rob 13 Talk 21:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Rusanivka (disambiguation)


The article Rusanivka (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "The only notable item is Rusanivka, so there is no need for a disambiguation page. I can find no mention of 'Rusanivka Gardens' or 'Rusanivsky sady' anywhere else in Wikipedia."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Leschnei (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

File:AntiRussianPoster.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AntiRussianPoster.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. 廣九直通車 (talk) 13:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Pyotr Gavrilov.jpg


The file File:Pyotr Gavrilov.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Ukrainian collaborant Polizei image.jpg


The file File:Ukrainian collaborant Polizei image.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Theodor Oberländer.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Theodor Oberländer.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Welcomenh
Template:Welcomenh has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 21:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ukrainian Historical Journal


The article Ukrainian Historical Journal has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Randykitty (talk) 14:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Kiev St Andrews night.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kiev St Andrews night.jpg, which you've attributed to Petro Vlasenko. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add permission pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as non-free fair use or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --<span style="font-family: monospace, monospace; color:#69C;">Minorax &laquo;&brvbar;talk&brvbar;&raquo; 12:50, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

File:Kiev Radyanskaya pl approx1930.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kiev Radyanskaya pl approx1930.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Felix QW (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Pavlo Skoropadsky 2.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Pavlo Skoropadsky 2.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Felix QW (talk) 13:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Kharkov Governorate Brockhaus map.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kharkov Governorate Brockhaus map.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)