User talk:Irpen/archived closed issues02

Standartization of Kievan Rus' names
Прошу обратить внимание сюда, на мой взгляд проект достойный. Kazak 07:06, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Standartization of Kievan Rus' names

Western Ukrainian POWs in Polish camps
Would you please contribute, if you have sources? Talk:Camps for Russian prisoners and internees in Poland (1919-1924) Xx236 08:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you very much for the barnstar. It's always nice to be recognized for doing this sort of work. --tufkaa 17:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Holodomor
Dear Irpen, Holodomor is realy disputable topic in the academia. The disputability of any mass ethnic killing that is "genocide" is normal thing. While some researchers, institutions and govermennts show some events as a "genocide", others oppose to their explanations. For example, the Holocoust is not recognized by many Muslim countries and anti-semitic institutions as a "genocide", but I think you will not deny that it was a "genocide". Another examples are the mascare of Armenians by Turks or killing of Christians in Sudan. These "genocides" are recognized only some buy Western powers, while the majority of the world see them just as "mass kiling". My point is that if the historical fenomana is viewed as "genocide" by some scholars and goverments, let it be so. In case of Ukraine and some other countries the mainstream academic institutionsand and the official documents refer to Holodomor as a "genocide". You or me may dislike it, but this is a fact.--Alex Kov 18:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea that scholars from the West are not politically motivated? --Alex Kov 18:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Sincerely thank you for your explanation and attention. Really I did not mention to make any harm to your (and - now our) work here. Thank you for your moral position in highely provocative and discusseble themes. Russianname 13:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. With good faith from all sides those disputes will we sorted out. --Irpen 20:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing the replaceable fair use tag
Removing the "replaceable fair use" tag is considered vandalism, and will be treated as such. Please stop doing it. If you disagree with the tag's application to that image, then follow the instructions listed therein. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  03:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please ceize attacking the properly used images that make Wikipedia a better source by providing illustrations to the articles. The image under question is properly tagged. If you disagree take your grievances to the image's talk page. --Irpen 03:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't trying to insult you. If I were consistently confusing two very different words in a language that I didn't speak natively, I would very much want to be corrected, especially if I spent a lot of time writing an encyclopedia in that language. But apparently not everyone feels this way. I won't do it again. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  16:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Democratic
I made a slight edit to the last version you changed in addition to describing Orange revolution as democratic. Please see the article's (Talk:Orange Revolution) talk page. --Riurik (discuss) 22:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Commons endanger Wikipedias
You know I share your sentiment on copyright paranoia, and I completly agree that the recent deletion of SovietPD can only be described as a catastrophe. Nonetheless I would like to think that eventually all images egligible for PD and other free licences will be nicely organized on Commons. I have found in the past that if an image is deleted from commons, a friendly admin can restore it so I can either correct the missing source/copyright info or take it to wiki for fair use. If I see your image, I will ask you before tagging it with NC in the future - but perhaps we can have some sort of a tag that sais 'although this image is in Commons, please leave a local copy here'? On another note, which version do you think is better: Image:German Soviet.jpg or Image:Germans and Soviets3.jpg?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I will try to honor your request, I don't play with commons that often anyway.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Some nice photos and Ukrayina
How about some 1950s photographs of Kiev... http://interesniy.kiev.ua/old/photo/kiev-54? I think PD-RUSSIA is applicable...barely, as they must have taken prior to the publishing of the album. Otherwise standard Fair-use. There is loads of vintage shots on that site. . The other point is that my Hotel Ukrayina is now about 70% done. I could use a good reference or two, particularly for the Ginzburg house (its going to be a combined article), and some general proofreading. --Kuban Cossack 01:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The pics are great and we could certainly use some of them.  I will see what I can find with Ukrayina hotel. --Irpen 01:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Baiting by Piotrus

 * Well, you didn't like me remocing your message from my talk. But why did you do the same with a message on article talk page? Let them both be then.Constanz - Talk 08:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed clear baiting by Piotrus as I saw it at a public page inflammatory. I repeat that I have no way of forcing you to keep or remove stuff from your talk. I simply explained why I see this as important. --Irpen 08:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Holodomor
Do you think maybe User:193.219.28.146 and User:LuisMatosRibeiro are the same person? If so, he's broken 3RR. I was about to report one or the other, but noticed they've been careful not to go over 3 reverts, so far today. TheQuandry 19:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe. The IP is in Poland (who would think), and as for Luis, well we don't know... -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  19:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Luis and Jacob have now wrecked Holodomor. I've reported Luis on the obvious vandal page for blanking. TheQuandry 23:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Finkelstein img
Apologies, I did not intend to patronize. You know it's not personal - and some people prefer the standard template - it just makes precisely clear what's going on. The policy position as to the image is that, unless the person is dead/incarcerated/otherwise extremely unavailable, the fair use of copyrighted images is not permitted by Jimbo's dictat, even while it is permitted by U.S. copyright law. This has apparently always been on the books and began to be enforced about two months ago. We've gotten rid of a lot of those images by now - at least twenty of my uploading - and are cleaning up still. So yes, w/o picture is better, until someone emails Finkelstein and asks him to release one into PD or snaps one of him himself. Or you can use his PD federal booking photo when the Army puts him away to Guantanamo hehehehe :) - crz crztalk 07:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not going to do that. The RFU claim is obvious and routine and requires no further elaboration. If you feel like it, follow the dispute procedure and explain why the FUC presumption should not apply to this particular photo like it does to all others. You will not be successful. - crz crztalk 12:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Caspian expeditions of the Rus
You may be interested in this FAC. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see this
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents --Kuban Cossack 00:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you see the comment that User:Dmcdevit made and his suggestion. Shall we? --Kuban Cossack 17:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I responded there. I don't see it necessary but I am known to be very kind :). Cheers, --Irpen 04:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Holodomor
It's too bad they waste all their time in revert wars. If they actually got together and discussed the topic, maybe they'd have a leg to stand on and someone would listen. As it is, they know their logic is based on emotional nationalism instead of hard facts, so they have to form revert brigades. We have to have some kind of standard and the UN seems like the most neutral one to me. Calling me "genocide denier" doesn't make any difference to me, it's just disappointing that people have to make Wikipedia into a political battlefield.

By the way, what's this ru-sib stuff all about? I see other editors adding title translations to Wikipedia pages with this language tag, but it seems weird to me, like an attempt at establishing an official Siberian language? TheQuandry 23:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Ruthenia
Irpen, could you review this edit? Thanks, Ghirla  -трёп-  14:54, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have started to revert his edits, as all I see out of his edits are removing Ukrainian and adding Rusyn everywhere... —dima/s-ko/ 20:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Kiev/Kyiv in Babi Yar
Question: until today it was Kiev throughout (without Kyiv even once). Today it was changed to Kyiv throughout, leaving no Kiev at all. Could you share your opinion? Thanks (btw, my biggest point on the arbcom discussion page was that an arbitrator who failed to recuse would sacrifice community trust, (and the other arbitrators are part of that community) Now, that might have been something to think about. Jd2718 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration
Thank you for the consideration you gave to my RfA. To be chosen as an administrator requires a high level of confidence by a broad section of the community. Although I received a great deal of support, at this time I do not hold the level of confidence required, and the RfA did not pass. You were one of the oppose votes, and raised concerns. I am more than willing to discuss those concerns with you if you are interested. Please let me know. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 13:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the kind words and happy New Year to you too! Unfortunately, the ISFDB is in the middle of beta testing, so there isn't much time left for Wikipedia :( Ahasuerus 17:18, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yarilla's case
Hi. The Yarillastremenog2 case disappeared from Suspected_sock_puppets. Does it mean that the question is closed? But the conclusions were never made. I think it's important to finish investigation. Would check user way be a better option?--Bryndza 19:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It did not disappear. I merged the case with the original Yarilla's checkuser case and asked to delete the duplicate. --Irpen 19:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, now it is listed neither at Suspected_sock_puppets nor at check user. So I'm wondering if somebody is going to investigate it at all. How admins are suppose to find it?--Bryndza 21:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I don't really care. The sock is blocked permanentky anyway. It's master is already caught for 4 puppets or so and is now under the 48-hr block. For or five puppets makes no difference and they are all linked to the same request. That fellow will be soon blocked forever from what I can tell. --Irpen 21:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

OK. Seems to be finished. In a strange way. No conclusions made at the case page. I'm even not sure if case confirmed. But I guess we will see him soon in another reincarnation...--Bryndza 23:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Just relax. The troll is banned and it does not matter how many socks of him are confirmed as they are all blocked. His reincarnations will be blocked too. --Irpen 01:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)